What percentage of lesson time do you spend on chi Sao?

[wckf92]

Phobius defined it as contact with an obstruction, not as any connection. Why would you seek to make contact with an obstruction?

Did he specifically state 'seeking to make contact with an obstruction'?

 

[wckf92]

It does NOT mean you are throwing your arms out there looking for contact rather than trying to hit the opponent.

Exactly.


I'm wondering if this arm-chasing / bridge connecting weirdness was a serious issue in the WC/VT/WT versions previously studied by Guy and LFJ; and perhaps that is why they feel so strongly about it now that they study WSLVT(?).

 

[guy b.]

Did he specifically state 'seeking to make contact with an obstruction'?

Contact with an obstacle is considered a bridge by Phobius:

As soon as anything is sensed preventing me from achieving my goal to hit (not just make contact but really get a hit that unbalances/hurts/wounds/whatnot) that is where I consider having a bridge

Is this what you consider to be a bridge? If so then what are you seeking in CK?

 

[guy b.]

You don't seek contact with an obstruction

You defined a bridge as contact with an obstruction. Does your wing chun not seek bridge?

 

[guy b.]

You first.

You identified me as having a different definitions of hand chasing to yours, in order to invalidate my claim of hand chasing.

You can't use this as an argument if you are unable to back it up with details. I don't mind if you fail to do so, it will just be another argument that I have won.

So what is your definition? Obviously you know mine.

 

[guy b.]

have doubts there is a whole form named seeking bridge that is only about punching on a clear path where there will be no obstructions.

VT CK is about finding or making a clear attacking line. What is your CK about?

 

[guy b.]

What's wrong with that? If a bridge is a connection

Bridge was identified as contact with an obstruction. Bridge as a connection was denied. Do you agree that bridge is contact with an obstruction?

 

[guy b.]

when you contact something in the way....don't you connect with it?

Why would you seek to contact something that is in the way? Why not seek the most direct and efficient path to target instead?

 

[guy b.]

edit

 

[wckf92]

Why would you seek to contact something that is in the way?

I don't think he is saying that.

 

[Danny T]

... it will just be another argument that I have won.

And it is attitude's like this by several here that is causing what used to be a great "Discussion Forum" to now be a disappointing "Argument Forum".

 

[KPM]

You identified me as having a different definitions of hand chasing to yours, in order to invalidate my claim of hand chasing.

You can't use this as an argument if you are unable to back it up with details. I don't mind if you fail to do so, it will just be another argument that I have won.

So what is your definition? Obviously you know mine.

Man! Talk about delusional! What argument have you won? If you aren't willing to provide a definition, then you shouldn't be asking other people to provide a definition.

 

[dudewingchun]

And it is attitude's like this by several here that is causing what used to be a great "Discussion Forum" to now be a disappointing "Argument Forum".

Its like an endless loop of arguing.

 

[KPM]

Bridge was identified as contact with an obstruction. Bridge as a connection was denied. Do you agree that bridge is contact with an obstruction?

Who denied bridge as a "connection"? And did anyone actually write "a bridge is a contact with an obstruction"? But contacting an obstruction is just one instance in which a bridge appears. How many times do I have to explain it to you Guy? I've already written that if someone is attempting to land a punch and the opponent puts up a block to stop it...an obstruction....you have created a connection by that contact and therefore a "bridge." Now you can use the "bridge" to control the opponent....to trap him....to move him....to destroy his structure....AS you hit him. You don't purposefully try to attach to his arms....you try to hit him as the goal. But he gives you a gift...that connection that you can exploit. This is different from western boxing which is unattached hitting. If a boxer encounters an obstacle, he typically won't try to exploit that contact....he will try to avoid it! And it sounds to me like you approach your WSLVT as "unattached hitting"...you don't try to exploit that contact at all...and yet you don't train like a boxer. Seems like there may be a disconnect in that approach somewhere to me! Western boxers are very good at finding openings to hit through. They don't need any Wing Chun techniques. They use timing and angling. So are they "bridging" as well? Does that Kuen Kuit apply to them as well? Because it seems to me that if you think it does....they are much more efficient at it all than WSLVT is!

 

[KPM]

Its like an endless loop of arguing.

It certainly becomes a repeated loop when some people ignore what has been written already, attempt to twist what has been written, or simply "play the fool" and act like they don't understand what has been written in order to draw people into saying something they can jump on! At least that is what I am seeing! How many times have I repeated myself on this thread so far by trying to answer the same question repeated multiple times when it has already been answered? But...I guess it generates interest. People complain, but look at how many hits this thread has!

 

[jks9199]

Thread locked pending review

jks9199
Administrator