What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[geezer]

LFJ, I will not address your comments regarding David Peterson as I have never met the man or any of his students. I only know of him via a few positive comments from friends online and through a few youtube clips where he appeared to be a knowledgeable instructor. I will address the following comment in a very general way.

...A concept-based system like VT with a very abstract training methodology would be impossible to learn well with such little training and only occasional guidance. It's no wonder DP teaches a technique-based understanding of the system. All he had time to learn was the skin and hair of the forms and some basic drills.

My own experience is nearly opposite yours. I have been involved in a few concept-based martial arts over a number of years, namely WT/VT, Latosa Escrima Concepts, and Direct Torres Eskrima. In each case, gaining a high level of finesse in the techniques demanded constant and close supervision by the master-instructor supplemented by many hours of practice.

Grasping the deep underlying concepts, on the other hand, came to those with intelligence and insight after a long time in the art, but not necessarily from more supervision with the instructor. Sometimes it came on as a gradual awakening, other times more suddenly, as with the well known "Aha!" or "Eureka!" experience. Sometimes such a realization comes when working with the master, other times training independently. And, even sometimes coming when simply in conversation with the master, reflecting on particular experiences or situations.

The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but not how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience. Quality instruction, years of practice and reflection, innate talent and intelligence, an open and inquiring mind capable of divergent thinking all come into play. But conceptual understanding arises unpredictably, even surprisingly. If there were an instructional method that could guarantee such "enlightnement" within a set number of hours, everybody would be using it!

I don't expect you will agree, and that is fine. Diverse opinions can make for livelier discussions.

 

[Nobody Important]

"Vertical, for the sake of argument? Poor choice."

A few post back, this exact movement was agreed upon as above your bridge, in order to clear you must go up.

"Bong-sau is simply a concept of elbow rotation that delivers a paak energy from the elbow (proximal end of the forearm). I don't talk about different types of bong-sau that are given different applications because I don't do a technique-based version of VT."

So you only do one bong Sau, what most would call Dai Bong. Yes you do, without the techniques you have no vehicle to use the concepts. Wing Chun is about transitioning from one technique to another with strategy. Quit trying to pretend it's something so organic that it can only be extrapolated from the cosmos once you learn it's concepts.



"There's no such thing as "bridging movement" in VT. If by bridge you mean forearm, a remedial action would most likely not be necessary. An auxiliary action like paak or jat would be enough to clear the way for punching."

Maybe not in yours, but for the rest of Wing Chun and every other southern art, bridges are a staple. All the bridges can be applied defensively or offensively with multiple concepts like Pak, Lan, Gai, But etc. This doesn't change the bridge. It's simply using the bridge conceptually.



"Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching"

So why not take up Western Boxing? Sounds like that's what your trying to turn it into.

Thank you for taking the time to reply I appreciate it, but it seems we are too far apart in our thought process to continue a discussion without turning it into an argument.

 

[LFJ]

The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but not how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience.

What I said was not just measuring hours and minutes.

It's a matter of lacking that "constant and close supervision", not having time to receive all the details before going back home and doing who knows what.

It's also not meant as an attack on DP, I'm just saying I listen to him expound on wu-sau for example, and he gives all these application ideas, but I'm waiting around for a mention of fighting strategy and punching concepts that wu-sau is an integral part of, but it never comes.

So, people using him as an authoritative reference on WSLVT is, I think, a bit flawed, as he is lacking a ton of detail in his VT.

 

[geezer]

Oh ...one more thing. WC/VT is absolutely an art ...at least as the word is often used in English to mean a skill or craft elevated to the highest level by the personal ability and insight of a truly gifted master.

I do not know if WSL was accomplished enough in English to understand this when he famously remarked that VT is not an art but a science, but I doubt that he would have made such a statement had he fully understood what the English term art encompasses.

When the term "art" is applied to a fine-art craft or skill, such as woodworking, metalworking, ceramics, printmaking, and so forth (such as studied in Master of Fine Arts degree programs in American universities) there is always a foundation in science and the scientific method. Skills and processes are systematically learned and trained until the student has a complete command of the media and a solid foundation in functional design.

Such training can reliably turn out journeyman craftsmen. But to rise to mastery requires something more. Insight? Inspiration? Genius? Whatever you call it, it is the uncommon ability to take your practical, scientifically based skills and understanding to a higher level, that we recognize as true mastery. Something like the actual meaning of the Chinese term kung-fu (i.e. great skill in a craft accomplished through hard work).

Pure science demands that results be precisely replicable. The arts and craft skills are based on the scientific method, but always, always you have to factor in the unknown variable of the human element, the artist/craftsman himself. So instead of replicability, you have infinite variety.

To put it another way, a great master in the arts can take on apprentices or teach students all the skills and methods he or she may know, but as they are human, and not identical machines, each student be distinct and express their craft differently. All may be highly competent, but only a very few will rise to mastery ...and each will be different from their teacher and each other. So it is in the fine arts, crafts, and skills, and also in the martial arts. Look at the students of Yip Man. Look at the students of Wong Shun Leung. It is an undeniable reality.

 

[geezer]

What I said was not just measuring hours and minutes.

It's a matter of lacking that "constant and close supervision", not having time to receive all the details before going back home and doing who knows what.

It's also not meant as an attack on DP, I'm just saying I listen to him expound on wu-sau for example, and he gives all these application ideas, but I'm waiting around for a mention of fighting strategy and punching concepts that wu-sau is an integral part of, but it never comes.

So, people using him as an authoritative reference on WSLVT is, I think, a bit flawed, as he is lacking a ton of detail in his VT.

I do get what you are saying here. Is it possible that DP's explanations that you mention were directed to lower level students, and perhaps the other aspects are taught too? Have you personally trained with DP at some point?

 

[LFJ]

"Vertical, for the sake of argument? Poor choice."

A few post back, this exact movement was agreed upon as above your bridge, in order to clear you must go up.

The only way a low elbow will rotate is "up", but it's directed forward. There is no vertical lifting.

So you only do one bong Sau, what most would call Dai Bong.

What is Dai Bong?

Yes you do, without the techniques you have no vehicle to use the concepts.

What you describe as hacking, lifting, sweeping, pulling, etc. with bong-sau are applications against specific sorts of things. You wouldn't lift what you would pull with it, would you?

Giving various applications to a single technique does not make it conceptual. There is no clear concept to it. It's just all kinds of concrete applications. This is a technique-based approach where a single technique can be used for different things.

VT doesn't work like that.

Maybe not in yours, but for the rest of Wing Chun and every other southern art, bridges are a staple.

VT has an entirely different definition of bridge and it has nothing to do with forearms. I don't do other Southern arts, so their terminology is irrelevant.

"Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching"

So why not take up Western Boxing? Sounds like that's what your trying to turn it into.

Western Boxing doesn't do what VT does.

 

[LFJ]

I do get what you are saying here. Is it possible that DP's explanations that you mention were directed to lower level students, and perhaps the other aspects are taught too? Have you personally trained with DP at some point?

I've trained with other first gen. students who are all part of his group of buddies that share his same understanding of VT, very technique-based while saying it's conceptual, like most WC. They are all missing details and have very limited if any fighting strategy.

And on the topic of "art" vs "skill", the distinction WSL was making is that with art, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but with VT all that matters is whether or not it works. It can be objectively judged by who's left standing at the end.

 

[Nobody Important]

The only way a low elbow will rotate is "up", but it's directed forward. There is no vertical lifting.



What is Dai Bong?



What you describe as hacking, lifting, sweeping, pulling, etc. with bong-sau are applications against specific sorts of things. You wouldn't lift what you would pull with it, would you?

Giving various applications to a single technique does not make it conceptual. There is no clear concept to it. It's just all kinds of concrete applications. This is a technique-based approach where a single technique can be used for different things.

VT doesn't work like that.



VT has an entirely different definition of bridge and it has nothing to do with forearms. I don't do other Southern arts, so their terminology is irrelevant.



Western Boxing doesn't do what VT does.

Tomato vs Tomato

 

[Phobius]

Giving various applications to a single technique does not make it conceptual. There is no clear concept to it. It's just all kinds of concrete applications. This is a technique-based approach where a single technique can be used for different things.

VT doesn't work like that.

Fairly certain this is not at all what was said. What was said is you can not follow concepts without doing techniques. Just because you have techniques it does not mean you are application based style. Even rotating an elbow a certain way is a technique.

You cant even do a punch without using some technique. After all without technique all you have is a theory. So mentioning techniques has nothing to do with a statement on whether it is concept or not. Saying that a technique must be used in a certain scenario is however saying it is not concept based, very different thing.

VT has an entirely different definition of bridge and it has nothing to do with forearms. I don't do other Southern arts, so their terminology is irrelevant.

Completely irrelevant but might as well mention. He did not say you shared his terminology, but if you think his terminology is irrelevant does that mean you are not interested in understanding him? And please, just dont reply to this part because I do not care what you think or feel. This topic about bridge has been done to death already and in the end it was nothing more than a silly discussion of no value.

Western Boxing doesn't do what VT does.

Western boxing in terms of punching has been accepted as one of the most devastating arts. Problem for a boxer exists of course when it is no longer about punching only.
It could be that he simply meant if you are only in it for the punching then you perhaps would be served better by training western boxing.

I can accept that boxing is not always optimal, especially with older age. But it leaves one question, you are always talking about punching, kicks are still important to you? And before you get into a fit about this or say we are talking about 1:1 application, it is a simple yes or no question. You do not need to write more than one of those words as answer.

 

[Nobody Important]

Fairly certain this is not at all what was said. What was said is you can not follow concepts without doing techniques. Just because you have techniques it does not mean you are application based style. Even rotating an elbow a certain way is a technique.

You cant even do a punch without using some technique. After all without technique all you have is a theory. So mentioning techniques has nothing to do with a statement on whether it is concept or not. Saying that a technique must be used in a certain scenario is however saying it is not concept based, very different thing.



Completely irrelevant but might as well mention. He did not say you shared his terminology, but if you think his terminology is irrelevant does that mean you are not interested in understanding him? And please, just dont reply to this part because I do not care what you think or feel. This topic about bridge has been done to death already and in the end it was nothing more than a silly discussion of no value.



Western boxing in terms of punching has been accepted as one of the most devastating arts. Problem for a boxer exists of course when it is no longer about punching only.
It could be that he simply meant if you are only in it for the punching then you perhaps would be served better by training western boxing.

I can accept that boxing is not always optimal, especially with older age. But it leaves one question, you are always talking about punching, kicks are still important to you? And before you get into a fit about this or say we are talking about 1:1 application, it is a simple yes or no question. You do not need to write more than one of those words as answer.

Great reply, well stated. Glad you wrote it because I didn't want to attempt it. Thank you!

 

[guy b]

Wing Chun is about transitioning from one technique to another with strategy. Quit trying to pretend it's something organic

What most see as techniques in VT are only training wheels. The training system is about internalising the ideas of VT, making the elbow, body integration, reactions and stepping work, building attributes. The fighting does not look like the training and the system is not a technique based approach in that specific responses (e.g. bongs from chi sau) are not related to specific real world circumstances because it is understood that chi sau is but one of many abstract drills. VT is about loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung. It is about integrating neutralisation with striking. It is about cutting the way, interupting the opponent, and imposing a particular strategy upon them to end the fight as quickly as possible.

 

[Nobody Important]

What most see as techniques in VT are only training wheels. The training system is about internalising the ideas of VT, making the elbow, body integration, reactions and stepping work, building attributes. The fighting does not look like the training and the system is not a technique based approach in that specific responses (e.g. bongs from chi sau) are not related to specific real world circumstances because it is understood that chi sau is but one of many abstract drills. VT is about loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung. It is about integrating neutralisation with striking. It is about cutting the way, interupting the opponent, and imposing a particular strategy upon them to end the fight as quickly as possible.

What you have written is a more detailed and elaborate description of my simplified statement. Thanks for taking the time to type that out. Much appreciated.

 

[guy b]

What you have written is a more detailed and elaborate description of my simplified statement

Not at all. VT isn't about transitioning from technique to technique- it is about the concepts which are embodied in the strategy. Talking about the concept of bong is not a VT way of looking at the fight. It is more akin to what you see in other Southern Chinese systems where you have very open principles, and various technique and application built upon. A focus on very broad concepts is not VT- the strategy is extremely specific. And yet nobody seems to have a clue how it works.

 

[Nobody Important]

Not at all. VT isn't about transitioning from technique to technique- it is about the concepts which are embodied in the strategy. Talking about the concept of bong is not a VT way of looking at the fight. It is more akin to what you see in other Southern Chinese systems where you have very open principles, and various technique and application built upon. A focus on very broad concepts is not VT- the strategy is extremely specific. And yet nobody seems to have a clue how it works.

OK, if you say so.

 

[drop bear]

LFJ, I will not address your comments regarding David Peterson as I have never met the man or any of his students. I only know of him via a few positive comments from friends online and through a few youtube clips where he appeared to be a knowledgeable instructor. I will address the following comment in a very general way.



My own experience is nearly opposite yours. I have been involved in a few concept-based martial arts over a number of years, namely WT/VT, Latosa Escrima Concepts, and Direct Torres Eskrima. In each case, gaining a high level of finesse in the techniques demanded constant and close supervision by the master-instructor supplemented by many hours of practice.

Grasping the deep underlying concepts, on the other hand, came to those with intelligence and insight after a long time in the art, but not necessarily from more supervision with the instructor. Sometimes it came on as a gradual awakening, other times more suddenly, as with the well known "Aha!" or "Eureka!" experience. Sometimes such a realization comes when working with the master, other times training independently. And, even sometimes coming when simply in conversation with the master, reflecting on particular experiences or situations.

The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but not how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience. Quality instruction, years of practice and reflection, innate talent and intelligence, an open and inquiring mind capable of divergent thinking all come into play. But conceptual understanding arises unpredictably, even surprisingly. If there were an instructional method that could guarantee such "enlightnement" within a set number of hours, everybody would be using it!

I don't expect you will agree, and that is fine. Diverse opinions can make for livelier discussions.

A lot of what i do is concept driven as well. The thing you need to note is that the concepts are not carved in stone.

The ends justify the means.

A technique can completely defy a concept and still be valid.

And i think a lot of concept driven martial arts forget this.

 

[Juany118]

His bong-sau is used to "hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull". These are various applications. He would hack one sort of thing, and lift another, or pull another. Not all of them are remedial.

My bong-sau is simply elbow rotation to retake space/ regain lost position. Not an application against any specific thing.

How is that just semantics and not entirely different concepts?



You only named one cause and called it the most likely. But there is no semantic disagreement, so talking about possible causes is irrelevant.

Sorry but calling something a "remedial action" action is indeed semantics. Every description you just used as "different" than you hack, support, sweep etc. was stated to be used for exactly the same purpose you note, to regain position or space so we can attack. So the point of saying "I only use it as a remedial action is semantics.

Now the actual movement you use to execute a bong may indeed not be a matter of semantics, however that does not mean that semantics is not part of the problem.

As for the last, I apologize, I thought it was understood that another cause of semantic arguments is when one side or the other isn't actually listening (in this case reading) what the other side has to say.

As an example I have seen no one here say a bong was a "primary action". We are all in agreement that our primary action should be a strike, a bong is simply one of many tools that are available to accomplish this goal and the way we choose which tool is based on immediate necessity, there is no 1:1 technique.

Yet somehow you keep saying you see bong as a remedial action in an exclusive way, as if the rest of us do not.

 

[Juany118]

LFJ, I will not address your comments regarding David Peterson as I have never met the man or any of his students. I only know of him via a few positive comments from friends online and through a few youtube clips where he appeared to be a knowledgeable instructor. I will address the following comment in a very general way.



My own experience is nearly opposite yours. I have been involved in a few concept-based martial arts over a number of years, namely WT/VT, Latosa Escrima Concepts, and Direct Torres Eskrima. In each case, gaining a high level of finesse in the techniques demanded constant and close supervision by the master-instructor supplemented by many hours of practice.

Grasping the deep underlying concepts, on the other hand, came to those with intelligence and insight after a long time in the art, but not necessarily from more supervision with the instructor. Sometimes it came on as a gradual awakening, other times more suddenly, as with the well known "Aha!" or "Eureka!" experience. Sometimes such a realization comes when working with the master, other times training independently. And, even sometimes coming when simply in conversation with the master, reflecting on particular experiences or situations.

The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but not how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience. Quality instruction, years of practice and reflection, innate talent and intelligence, an open and inquiring mind capable of divergent thinking all come into play. But conceptual understanding arises unpredictably, even surprisingly. If there were an instructional method that could guarantee such "enlightnement" within a set number of hours, everybody would be using it!

I don't expect you will agree, and that is fine. Diverse opinions can make for livelier discussions.

I so agree with the above. I think people miss something about concept arts. The other art I study is Inosanto Kali. For those unfamiliar with it. Don Inosanto learned FMA. He then met and studied with Bruce Lee and became on of Lee's first JKD closed door Students. Later he applied the JKD concept to FMA, bringing in techniques from 26 different sources including multiple Escrima - Arnis styles, Silat, Kuntao, Filipino boxing and kicking styles as well many others. It invites the addition of other techniques, WC actually fits in quite well as an example.

The trick is this though. You need a teacher to very closely guide you as you train so the foundation, or frame, is rock solid. If you don't do this and the frame is not rock solid, as you begin to experiment, add and subtract, the frame becomes unbalanced and it all collapses in a chaotic mess. It's like being a Improvisational Jazz musician. If you don't have impeccable skill with your instrument, when you start to just riff and go with the flow in a quartet, it will be a muddled mess.

Once you have this frame, it may be the extent of your advancement. This isn't a bad thing because the frame in this context, by its nature, has to be a full featured and effective system. That said if we honestly look at not only the art but, most importantly, ourselves, we can then, perhaps even without the guidance of a Sifu or Guro begin to not only make the art our own due to unconscious idiosyncrasies that are always there but through knowing intent. Again though this is impossible without that rock solid frame and that takes a teacher carefully guiding you not simply in the how of the techniques but the "why."

 

[LFJ]

Just because you have techniques it does not mean you are application based style.

If you attach various applications to a technique, it is application based.

If you would not lift what you would pull with bong-sau , or if you would not hack what you would sweep with bong-sau (these are terms Nobody Important used), then each function has a 1:1 application used against a specific type of thing.

And please, just dont reply to this part because I do not care what you think or feel.

Then don't post it...?

It could be that he simply meant if you are only in it for the punching then you perhaps would be served better by training western boxing.

Western Boxing doesn't punch like VT.

 

[LFJ]

Sorry but calling something a "remedial action" action is indeed semantics. Every description you just used as "different" than you hack, support, sweep etc. was stated to be used for exactly the same purpose you note, to regain position or space so we can attack. So the point of saying "I only use it as a remedial action is semantics.

There's an important distinction to be made between auxiliary and remedial actions.

If punching is our primary action, auxiliary actions are secondary that help deliver the punch when still in an advantageous position (e.g. paak, jat).

Remedial actions are used to recover from disadvantageous positions where primary and auxiliary actions aren't possible (e.g. bong, laap, biu).

These distinctions are clearly defined. Not semantics.

I have seen no one here say a bong was a "primary action". We are all in agreement that our primary action should be a strike, a bong is simply one of many tools that are available to accomplish this goal and the way we choose which tool is based on immediate necessity, there is no 1:1 technique.

Yet somehow you keep saying you see bong as a remedial action in an exclusive way, as if the rest of us do not.

I trust you now understand what I mean when I say remedial and auxiliary.

Many people use bong-sau as an auxiliary action with various specific functions applied against various specific things. I would not use bong-sau here because I can still use other auxiliary actions without raising my elbow.

Nobody Important mentioned two types of vertically rising bong-sau used as a remedial block. The rest sound like auxiliary actions. Fine by me if that's what he wants to do. It's just not how the VT I do was designed to function.

To me, bong-sau is recovery from a disadvantageous position (hence remedial), but not an application "against" anything specific, like an upward block at an arm. It's a direct attack on space to get me back to punching position, if that makes any sense to you.

 

[Juany118]

Western Boxing doesn't punch like VT.

Please tell me this bit was being purposefully obtuse because it wasn't about HOW arts punch, the statement was clearly being about what your focus is. WC is an art with far more than just punching. You have elbows, knees, kicks, Chin Na, take downs etc. Now I was assuming when you spoke of opening the path to attack that you had all of the above in the table. If I was wrong in this assumption then I think the point made is not unreasonable because there are so many techniques being neglected.