Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[geezer]

@ Juany118 -- Cool kayaking vid. I'm more old fashioned. I explain our VT/WC in terms of skiing the bumps. Something I did hard in my youth but had to give up decades ago due to injuries. Loi lau hoi sung, Lat sau jik chung really applies when you hit the moguls hard. And Centerline? Track your opponent relentlessly. Yeah you better face the fall-line or you're toast!

 

[Transk53]

Hey guys,

In a violent assault the perpetrator will try to stack the cards in his favor any way he can, seeking out an unaware victim and attacking at a moment of surprise and weakness. He tries to impose his will/plan 100%.

In combat sports you try to impose your game plan on your opponent as much as possible. This becomes tricky because your opponent is also skilled and has a gameplan of his own, which includes (most likely) counter strategies to yours. But both you and your opponent are trying to impose your own game plans.

Rembemer Rousey vs Holm? Classic example. Rousey tried to impose her strategy of bull-rushing and taking Holm down, but Holm, using superior footwork and distance control, imposed her own carefuly crafted game plan, thus leading Rousey into over-extending herself. Rousey "showed" Holm the way to victory. Holm flowed with Rousey's movements, contracting and expanding in defense and attack - but she still imposed her strategy.

In WSLVT we also try to impose our strategy, which guy b has already described in this thread. But imposing our strategy doesn't mean that we can't also "flow" with the movements of our opponent. It doesn't mean that we are somehow "stiff" or "obstinate" in our actions. Quite the contrary, we try to remain in a state of relaxed and centered focus. Ready to change. Ready to let our opponent "show us" the way to beat him. This is how we impose our game plan.

Hope that helps Juany118.

Thank you for posting that. I look forward to the to potential discussions

 

[Juany118]

@ Juany118 -- Cool kayaking vid. I'm more old fashioned. I explain our VT/WC in terms of skiing the bumps. Something I did hard in my youth but had to give up decades ago due to injuries. Loi lau hoi sung, Lat sau jik chung really applies when you hit the moguls hard. And Centerline? Track your opponent relentlessly. Yeah you better face the fall-line or you're toast!

Never looked at it that way since I never skied, but it definitely gets the same point across, moguls or rocks, both are bad if handled wrong and if you don't stay lined up with the current you are in trouble lol.

 

[guy b]

I get the idea from how Guy and LFJ responded that they see the HOW as being/requiring an imposition as well.

WSL VT is all about imposing the VT strategy on the oppoenent. It isn't really a matter of choice to do this, it is how the system works. As Lobo66 says this does not require simplistic and predictable tactics, but the strategy is what it is. The system is designed to work with this strategy.

 

[Juany118]

WSL VT is all about imposing the VT strategy on the oppoenent. It isn't really a matter of choice to do this, it is how the system works. As Lobo66 says this does not require simplistic and predictable tactics, but the strategy is what it is. The system is designed to work with this strategy.

Yes but, and I await his response for clarification, I think you miss the difference between strategy, goals and tactics.

Lobo said here...

... But both you and your opponent are trying to impose your own game plans.

Rembemer Rousey vs Holm? Classic example. Rousey tried to impose her strategy of bull-rushing and taking Holm down, but Holm, using superior footwork and distance control, imposed her own carefuly crafted game plan, thus leading Rousey into over-extending herself. Rousey "showed" Holm the way to victory. Holm flowed with Rousey's movements, contracting and expanding in defense and attack - but she still imposed her strategy.

So you have the over all strategy which WSL explicitly states is to not try and impose your will on the actions of the opponent. Let me explain why I say this...

Maybe it's because I originally studied internal arts so I see a difference and I honestly believe this is what WSL meant because before VT he studied both Boxing and Tai Chi Chuan.

When you flow with the opponent they may over extend because they are expecting to meet resistance and do not. The problem is, the minute many people start thinking about "imposing their will" on the how side it can interrupt the ability to flow with the opponent because they allow the ego to intervene. It stops being about flowing and starts being about forcing which violates not only what WSL (already quoted) and Yip Man himself said...

Relax and calm your mind. Forget about yourself and follow your opponent's movement.

Do not fight with the strength, absorb it, and it flows, use it.

And

Greet what arrives, escort what leaves and rush upon loss of contact

The last one, phrased as follows... "Receive what comes, follow it back to a target" hangs on the wall of my current school as well as being consistent with WSL's comment.

I really think so many of the issues here are based in semantics and not practice.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Actually, in communication it does matter whether the receiver is able to understand your point. There are at least two possibilities when miscommunication occurs: either the speaker mis-communicated, or the listener mis-understood. Since we can only control our own side of the communication, it is incumbent upon us as the speaker to be as clear as possible.

Lol. that just fell right into your area of expertise. I feel a business communication lesson coming on.

 

[guy b]

Yes but, and I await his response for clarification, I think you miss the difference between strategy, goals and tactics.

The strategy of WSL VY is as described in post 225. It doesn't change. Tactics change, strategy does not. It is always llhs, lsjc.

In fact it is you who is confusing the two as here:

First, in terms of teaching strategy the mindset and, in the case of Martial Arts, physical attributes of the practitioner will be vital. A strategy for a 6'3" person weighing 250 lbs will be different than 5'5" and 120 and if you try to enforce a universal strategy then you end up compromising the benefits of certain physical attributes.

So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy."

You are suggesting explicitly that the VT fighter vary the strategy with the opponent. This is not and will never be WSL VT. WSL VT is the strategy of llhs lsjc. No strategy, no system. That's how it works.

So you have the over all strategy which WSL explicitly states is to not try and impose your will on the actions of the opponent. Let me explain why I say this

WSL is not saying this. He is telling us that the opponent is in charge of their choices and so we should be ahead of them, cutting them off and applying distance, time and space pressure in order to limit their choices and produe errors, which we can then capitalise upon. Assuming that application of pressure means rigidity, over reaching, unawareness and attempting to mentally control the other person by a weird application of "will", sounds like the ideas of a person with no experience of fighting.

Maybe it's because I originally studied internal arts so I see a difference and I honestly believe this is what WSL meant because before VT he studied both Boxing and Tai Chi Chuan.

Great you studied everything. Where did you learn WSL VT again..?

the minute many people start thinking about "imposing their will" on the how side it can interrupt the ability to flow

Nobody is suggesting any such thing, apart from in your fantasy argument with a person who doesn't exist. WSL is quite clear what he means, and it is of course in accord with the VT strategy detailed in post 225. It is very odd to think that WSL would suggest we do something different to VT when we fight.

 

[Juany118]

The strategy of WSL VY is as described in post 225. It doesn't change. Tactics change, strategy does not. It is always llhs, lsjc.

In fact it is you who is confusing the two as here:





You are suggesting explicitly that the VT fighter vary the strategy with the opponent. This is not and will never be WSL VT. WSL VT is the strategy of llhs lsjc. No strategy, no system. That's how it works.



WSL is not saying this. He is telling us that the opponent is in charge of their choices and so we should be ahead of them, cutting them off and applying distance, time and space pressure in order to limit their choices and produe errors, which we can then capitalise upon. Assuming that application of pressure means rigidity, over reaching, unawareness and attempting to mentally control the other person by a weird application of "will", sounds like the ideas of a person with no experience of fighting.



Great you studied everything. Where did you learn WSL VT again..?



Nobody is suggesting any such thing, apart from in your fantasy argument with a person who doesn't exist. WSL is quite clear what he means, and it is of course in accord with the VT strategy detailed in post 225. It is very odd to think that WSL would suggest we do something different to VT when we fight.

No, and I think this proves your ignorance. There is a very distinct difference between strategy and tactics. As I said before you confabulate the two. This confabulation creates a false understanding of physical conflict.
J
As for your last point I studied WSLVT in the United States years ago from someone who was a student of one of WSLs personal students. I am not looking to open up that bag of worms however since to you only PB seems to be a true student... Even Gary Lam is lower on the totem pole to you and LFJ. So what is the point. Your idea is WSL+PB= WSLVT, everything else is modified to one degree or another and I refuse to play that game.

In the end though, if you could see the difference between strategy and tactics you would see our difference is semantics. On the one side focusing on the flow that creates the opening or the over reach, on the other side the "effect". You see it as your action creating a response, and due to an ego, based philosophy you see that you imposed your will. On my side I see that my action simply resulted in my opponent opening themselves up to me. I didn't impose anything.

This is a very non-western mindset in my experience and @gpseymour can correct me as he teaches an art based in Aikido. I will give an example. In Aikido I was taught "when an enemy attacks we are never rude. We are polite and assist the enemy in his travel." WC/VT is the same regardless of the Lineage. We do not meet force with force. We do not force our opponent to do this or that. We act and in acting the opponent looses structure, creates openings anf we flow through them.

You are arguing semantics not words.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I would like to state that strategy always changes when it doesn't produce the desired results. If you refuse to change strategy when required then you will lose. For example, if a person tries to dominate me with their strategy then I may or may not allow it. If my opponents strategy plays into my strength then I'll be more than happy to let my opponent think his strategy can can work so that I can capitalize on it. In this case my opponent will be at a higher risk of losing because of his strategy. At this point the only path to victory would be for my opponent to change strategy.

I really can't see a fighting system, in the context of self defense, being defined by one strategy.

 

[Juany118]

I would like to state that strategy always changes when it doesn't produce the desired results. If you refuse to change strategy when required then you will lose. For example, if a person tries to dominate me with their strategy then I may or may not allow it. If my opponents strategy plays into my strength then I'll be more than happy to let my opponent think his strategy can can work so that I can capitalize on it. In this case my opponent will be at a higher risk of losing because of his strategy. At this point the only path to victory would be for my opponent to change strategy.

I really can't see a fighting system, in the context of self defense, being defined by one strategy.

I think here you define the difference between strategy and tactics without expressing it.

I'll use WWII History to illustrate the difference. Strategy is the island hopping campaign in the Pacific. Specific islands, use of combined arms (sea, air and land power) to effectuate the landings. In that Corsair in the air or in that squad charging the beach though? That is tactics, the individual fight.

Now maybe that's just the former soldier in me talking but the experience in green and blue makes that distinction razor sharp. That is why I think the argument here is semantics.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think here you define the difference between strategy and tactics without expressing it.

I'll use WWII History to illustrate the difference. Strategy is the island hopping campaign in the Pacific. Specific islands, use of combined arms (sea, air and land power) to effectuate the landings. In that Corsair in the air or in that squad charging the beach though? That is tactics, the individual fight.

Now maybe that's just the former soldier in me talking but the experience in green and blue makes that distinction razor sharp. That is why I think the argument here is semantics.

So would the military use the same strategy of island hopping in today? Or would another strategy be used?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Comparing fighting and chess may give a better glimpse into strategy. Chess = wing chun. The chess pieces = techniques.

Is there only one strategy that defines chess? People take different approaches to chess and not one strategy defines what is correct or not.

When people play chess, they build their strategy based on their strengths and the weaknesses of their opponent. Because of this, each opponent will require a different strategy.

 

[Juany118]

So would the military use the same strategy of island hopping in today? Or would another strategy be used?

A different one would be used. Before I became a soldier I studied to be a History teacher (long story). This is the best brief definition I have found to differentiate strategy and tactics.

"The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution."

So technology changes the foundation of tactics, how the squad, company, does the nitty gritty. Today it would be different for the Navy because the can strike beyond the horizon. However man vs man in melee, it hasn't changed and that is what this thread is about.

I get that this may be just how my mind works due to how compartmentalized it is and maybe that's my fault. Due to my education this is the language I speak.

So, in my mind, chess is about training strategy, to use your example. Tactics would be how the chess pieces would fight if they were actual combatants. You move your piece and I move mine with a strategic mindset. Those two pieces then fight, in the moment, with how the specific conditions dictate.

Think Sun Tzu's "Art of War", this in the book of strategy, the General, the macro level. The individual unit however has to implement that on the micro level and the two are very different.

 

[JowGaWolf]

However man vs man in melee, it hasn't changed and that is what this thread is about.

World history is full of examples of how man vs man in melee has changed. The fact that there is more than one martial art system that have different strategies is proof of that.

 

[Juany118]

World history is full of examples of how man vs man in melee has changed. The fact that there is more than one martial art system that have different strategies is proof of that.

It hasn't though, at least imo. FMA, CMA, JMA, HEMA, all paths, based on their technology, to the same path. I study Filipino Kali and Wing Chun today. I see the lack of difference there but I also have a friend who studies HEMA (which includes grappling and striking according to the old manuals) and we share ideas.

A perfect example in history is Filipino Martial Arts. Lapu Lapu and his forces defeated Magellan, heck killed Magellan, but due to "oh crap bring technology to bare" the Spanish eventually made the Philippines a colony.

Melee combat and the differences between them are about techniques and culture, not tactics an strategy.

 

[guy b]

You are arguing semantics not words.

Here is what you said:

f you try to enforce a universal strategy then you end up compromising the benefits of certain physical attributes

So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy

Here is what I said:

The VT strategy is all about the application of pressure (loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chun)- space pressure, time pressure, distance pressure. We intercept and cut into the attack, disrupting the opponent. We apply forward pressure, cutting the way and eating up space. We force mistakes from the opponent in this way, i.e. they show us how to hit them (kiu loi kiu seung) which we do using the whole body as one, and if not then we create openings by other means (mor kiu ji jou kiu). At all times we pressure the centre rather than chase hands. By linking neutraliation and striking (lin siu dai da) we defend automatically as we attack, which increases the time and space pressure on the opponent, making us appear faster than we really are

WSL VT is the strategy of llhs lsjc. No strategy, no system. That's how it works

So really you couldn't be more clear in your misunderstanding of WSL VT. Not a semantic difference at all, more like full-on back to front confusion in that you are suggesting the VT strategy is not the above, and simply varies and "flows" as required according to conditions.

Either that or you have mixed up the meanings of strategy and tactics, but as an active police and former army person, surely that can't be the case?

I studied WSLVT in the United States years ago from someone who was a student of one of WSLs personal students. I am not looking to open up that bag of worms

How convenient. And how strange that they taught you such a confused version

 

[Juany118]

Here is what you said:





Here is what I said:





So really you couldn't be more clear in your misunderstanding of WSL VT. Not a semantic difference at all, more like full-on back to front confusion in that you are suggesting the VT strategy is not the above, and simply varies and "flows" as required according to conditions.

Either that or you have mixed up the meanings of strategy and tactics, but as an active police and former army person, surely that can't be the case?



How convenient. And how strange that they taught you such a confused version

The last line is all I need. You have already dissed Gary Lam and David Peterson as being students of WSL but not the "true" student as PB and then you take that final shot.

If I needed any other proof of dogma over objective fact, I couldn't have made it any better. To sum it up, Gary Lam in a seminar said, "why should I meet his action?".

All versions of WSLVT that don't flow from PB are confused? But step back and look. How many direct students did YM have? Then even if you accept WSL as the one and true prophet of YM, how many did he proclaim a teacher? Only one, that of PB, is not confused!?

That is funny.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Melee combat and the differences between them are about techniques and culture, not tactics an strategy.

I don't the answer that one. It's like the question, "what came first, the chicken or the egg? Or maybe it's one of the things where it flows both ways.

I can see the techniques creating strategy, but I can also see the strategy creating techniques. If my strategy requires that I take someone down to the ground then I design a technique that will allow me to use that strategy.

If I have a take down technique then I can use that technique to create a strategy. It would be like me having the conversation "I have these fighting skills, what will be the best strategy that takes advantage of my skill sets.

 

[LFJ]

In WSLVT we also try to impose our strategy, which guy b has already described in this thread.

But, but, but...

You were supposed to be the counterexample of a WSLVT practitioner who disagrees with us on trying to "impose our strategy"!

So, all of us posting here from WSLVT seem to share the same understanding of the system, but somehow Juany knows better.

 

[Nobody Important]

Arguing and semantics aside, shouldn't the goal be to fight your way and not your opponent's? Impose and react are both part of the same process.