Wing Chun Sparring

[moonhill99]

Very little fighting. A lot of flash, drilling and trapping.
Demo and marketing videos not sparring or fighting.

I'm talking about some schools that you stand xx away and the other person stands xx away and YOU DO NOT MOVE if any very little moving.

Like this school.

Well not been to that school I have no idea if they do sparring or not, just by looking at their youtube video. Only looking at a 3:30 clip.

Well may be really awesome for learning trapping but no idea how the school simulates live moving attacks or sparring.

Where in MMA or in self defense you will be moving not fighting by standing still or really little moving like in this video.

But anyways I think this clip wanted to show more learning trapping and the other clip wanted to show more flash a sorta of simulate moving attack on the person.

 

[moonhill99]

I am wondering why anyone wants to train at a school after seeing those demos. Do they not realize that the guy that is just standing there getting beat up is someone training at the school. So that is what you become?

Sorry I don't understand what you saying. Are you saying this school lacks sparring and you are just standing there well other guy goes on you?

 

[anerlich]

A probability that is based on math that is not known to all parties is an opinion.

That doesn't make sense. Math doesn't require everyone to know it to be fact, not opinion.

 

[Phobius]

That doesn't make sense. Math doesn't require everyone to know it to be fact, not opinion.

If I say that there is a probability of 0.7 that you are wrong and 0.29 that you misread what I wrote...

You see the problem?

Math is not the problem, the fact that you have no way of knowing what that math is means it is just än opinion of mine.

It all depends on how I calculate probability.

 

[Phobius]

Sorry I don't understand what you saying. Are you saying this school lacks sparring and you are just standing there well other guy goes on you?

Actually there were two videos with little to no sparring at all.

I am not saying anything about school lacking sparring. I would not know not care sorry.

I just commented on hilarious aspect of commercial demo videos where one student beating up another student that curls up and just allow the beating. How come those videos are deemed attractive? After all the student being beat up is also trained at same school.

 

[anerlich]

If I say that there is a probability of 0.7 that you are wrong and 0.29 that you misread what I wrote...

You see the problem?

Math is not the problem, the fact that you have no way of knowing what that math is means it is just än opinion of mine.

It all depends on how I calculate probability.

So "how [you] calculate probability" and "whatever arbitrary sh*t numbers you make up" have a 0.99% probability of being the same. Yes, I see the problem all right.

To humour you a little longer, what's the other 0.01, the way you "calculate probability"?

 

[drop bear]

Actually there were two videos with little to no sparring at all.

I am not saying anything about school lacking sparring. I would not know not care sorry.

I just commented on hilarious aspect of commercial demo videos where one student beating up another student that curls up and just allow the beating. How come those videos are deemed attractive? After all the student being beat up is also trained at same school.

I get what you are saying.

 

[drop bear]

Very little fighting. A lot of flash, drilling and trapping.
Demo and marketing videos not sparring or fighting.

I don't have video at the moment. Was sifu och using the foom?

 

[Phobius]

So "how [you] calculate probability" and "whatever arbitrary sh*t numbers you make up" have a 0.99% probability of being the same. Yes, I see the problem all right.

To humour you a little longer, what's the other 0.01, the way you "calculate probability"?

The other 0.01 was me being full of sh*t. Which makes it a risk I am wrong in the first place.

 

[geezer]

I don't have video at the moment. Was sifu och using the foom?

Hey, don't knock the "foom"!


Factually, I'm a fan of the foom.

 

[Cephalopod]

That's nothing.
I'm training with Little Cat Z. He's going to teach me how to use the Voom.

 

[wingchun100]

I wonder if we could come up with a math formula that would accurately determine how many comments one of these threads can get before it goes off the rails. An accurate number would probably be impossible to gauge, but maybe we could get a range?

 

[wtxs]

I wonder if we could come up with a math formula that would accurately determine how many comments one of these threads can get before it goes off the rails. An accurate number would probably be impossible to gauge, but maybe we could get a range?

Don't need no stinking formula to accurately predict how many post before the thread derails, it may very well could start its descent with the 1st reply post, with the high probability of never ever get back on track before the thread get shut down.

 

[wingchun100]

Don't need no stinking formula to accurately predict how many post before the thread derails, it may very well could start its descent with the 1st reply post, with the high probability of never ever get back on track before the thread get shut down.

Maybe so, but it would be a great time killer!

 

[moonhill99]

Actually there were two videos with little to no sparring at all.

I am not saying anything about school lacking sparring. I would not know not care sorry.

I just commented on hilarious aspect of commercial demo videos where one student beating up another student that curls up and just allow the beating. How come those videos are deemed attractive? After all the student being beat up is also trained at same school.

So you like to see more counter moves to those moves?I think this school wanted show more combative aggressive wing chun than showing lots of sparring or trapping.

With out walking into that school I would have no idea how much sparring or trapping they do. You should just hope that sparring and trapping is not downplayed at this school.

 

[guy b]

Math is not the problem, the fact that you have no way of knowing what that math is means it is just än opinion of mine

The problem was stated in terms of an improbable thing vs a probable thing. You can work out that one is improbable and the other probable using reason, assuming you have the ability to think in abstract terms. It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a reasoned argument.

 

[Juany118]

The problem was stated in terms of an improbable thing vs a probable thing. You can work out that one is improbable and the other probable using reason, assuming you have the ability to think in abstract terms. It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a reasoned argument.

Pretty sure you were the one who started bouncing the "probability" thing about in the context you are choosing to use.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[guy b]

Pretty sure you were the one who started bouncing the "probability" thing about in the context you are choosing to use.

You aren't making any sense, sorry

 

[Juany118]

You aren't making any sense, sorry

You said

The problem was stated in terms of an improbable thing vs a probable thing...

Whats there not to understand? You are the one who started to try and use this idea to defend your argument. People called you on this because while to work out the probable vs improbable you need to either present math, or as you state present logical reasoning. The problem is you have presented neither, instead you have said...

<series of self serving fiat statements to support my myopic view of what proper VT/WC is>. Why? Because of probability

Logical reasoning need be based on demonstrable evidence. You haven't presented said evidence you simply claim, by fiat, a result.

 

[guy b]

People called you on this because while to work out the probable vs improbable you need to either present math, or as you state present logical reasoning

A reasoned argument in terms of probability has been presented in this thread and also in several other threads. It isn't my fault if you are incapable of perceiving the argument.