Terminology distinction?

[Gerry Seymour]

You said "show me where there is no defence built into VT"

I never made this claim

Therefore your question is nonsensical

Actually, this is what led to that exchange:

All styles include defense. Just because the primary aim is attack doesn't mean there's no defense. If you don't defend, then you ignore the incoming punch and let it hit where it may.

Complete misunderstanding of VT

You appear to be telling me defense is an unintentional side-effect, which is patently incorrect. I know this because if it were unintentional, it wouldn't work on a repeatable basis. The principle is that attacking movements include the defense in them, so there's normally no need for separate defense. Tell me how that is nonsense.

 

[Danny T]

Not sure what secondary actions have to do with lin siu dai da?

Keep studying.

 

[guy b]

Keep studying.

Don't see how it fits conceptually, and would indicate confusion from the perspective of VT. Seeking such secondary actions would indicate unnecessary complication/hand chasing. Further study unlikely to completely alter fundmental strategy of the system.

 

[guy b]

You appear to be telling me defense is an unintentional side-effect

I am not telling you this. The system has been designed by people with a certain intent and strategy. The way VT works is not unintentional.

What I am saying is that VT functions without having to think consciously about defence. It also functions without fully understanding how the system works providing sufficient work has been done with a good teacher- i.e. morons can be good at VT too, they just won't be very good teachers of the system.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am not telling you this. The system has been designed by people with a certain intent and strategy. The way VT works is not unintentional.

What I am saying is that VT functions without having to think consciously about defence. It also functions without fully understanding how the system works providing sufficient work has been done with a good teacher- i.e. morons can be good at VT too, they just won't be very good teachers of the system.

I've never seen a system that functioned properly if you didn't understand the principles. I doubt VT is so vastly different from every other martial arts system out there.

 

[KPM]

Don't see how it fits conceptually, and would indicate confusion from the perspective of VT. Seeking such secondary actions would indicate unnecessary complication/hand chasing. Further study unlikely to completely alter fundmental strategy of the system.

As I pointed out on the other thread, your time would be better spent and everyone may actually benefit if, rather than these back and forth exchanges that accomplish nothing, you were to restate your point in a different way....elaborate on it rather than just all this "witty banter". Avoid the one-liner responses that really don't tell anything. Actually engage in a friendly discussion. Explain your position with details and examples. That will accomplish much more than what we are seeing on this thread.

 

[guy b]

As I pointed out on the other thread, your time would be better spent and everyone may actually benefit if, rather than these back and forth exchanges that accomplish nothing, you were to restate your point in a different way....elaborate on it rather than just all this "witty banter". Avoid the one-liner responses that really don't tell anything. Actually engage in a friendly discussion. Explain your position with details and examples. That will accomplish much more than what we are seeing on this thread.

I just did so. It isn't meant to be witty banter. I will be happy to discuss further if Danny T elaborates on how he incorporates seconday actions into his lin siu dai da strategy. For me those are things that happen when attacking lines and closed and need to be cleared, not primary attacking strategy

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I just did so. It isn't meant to be witty banter. I will be happy to discuss further if Danny T elaborates on how he incorporates seconday actions into his lin siu dai da strategy. For me those are things that happen when attacking lines and closed and need to be cleared, not primary attacking strategy

Ah, so you DO use those things.

 

[guy b]

Ah, so you DO use those things.

Of course, why would you assume not?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Of course, why would you assume not?

Because of your terse, unexplained replies earlier, which left the impression that you didn't. This was my point in a post a few minute ago about expanding your replies. When you reply with the fewest words possible, there's no explanation to help us understand your point. It sounded to me like you were saying you didn't use those things, which seemed odd. The later post clarified that, by accident.

 

[guy b]

Ok, I will make more effort to explain in more detail when I post replies

 

[Danny T]

At its highest and most efficient level (which is what we strive for) a single limb both attacks and defends.
At its lowest and least efficient level (which in reality happens within the dynamics of fighting) because it is a secondary action, both limbs are momentarily utilized - one to deflect / redirect thereby clearing the line/s while the other continues with the attack followed by the first with a continuation of attacking. Still is LSDD

 

[guy b]

At its highest and most efficient level (which is what we strive for) a single limb both attacks and defends.
At its lowest and least efficient level (which in reality happens within the dynamics of fighting) because it is a secondary action, both limbs are momentarily utilized - one to deflect / redirect thereby clearing the line/s while the other continues with the attack followed by the first with a continuation of attacking. Still is LSDD

LSDD is simultaneous attack and defence in the same arm. It is what makes VT unique and special.

Helping actions are secondary, not LSDD, not optimally simple, not optimally direct, not optimally efficient

 

[KPM]

I've learned that LSDD also includes the idea of striking with one hand while defending with the other. Is this not also "simultaneous attack and defense"? Where in the kuen kit does it specify that it applies only to one arm at a time?

 

[Danny T]

LSDD is simultaneous attack and defence in the same arm. It is what makes VT unique and special.

Helping actions are secondary, not LSDD, not optimally simple, not optimally direct, not optimally efficient

LSDD at its its highest and most efficient level (which is what we strive for) a single limb both attacks and defends. Can also be done with the legs as well.

There are other things within wing chun that join to make it unique and special not just LSDD.

 

[LFJ]

I've learned that LSDD also includes the idea of striking with one hand while defending with the other. Is this not also "simultaneous attack and defense"? Where in the kuen kit does it specify that it applies only to one arm at a time?

That's how LSDD is defined in other Southern CMAs.

VT borrows this existing terminology and further defines the unique trait of VT as "da-sau jik si siu-sau" (the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm).

When using an auxiliary action in VT, the striking arm still possesses dual capability.

So, LSDD is no longer two arms performing separate actions as in other arts, but one arm capable of performing both, even when using an auxiliary action.

This is the unique skill of VT. If we understand terminology by definitions from other arts, it will confuse the VT fighting strategy, i.e.; primary, auxiliary, and remedial actions will be used out of order, resulting in an inefficient mess with drastically reduced effectiveness.

 

[guy b]

That's how LSDD is defined in other Southern CMAs.

VT borrows this existing terminology and further defines the unique trait of VT as "da-sau jik si siu-sau" (the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm).

When using an auxiliary action in VT, the striking arm still possesses dual capability.

So, LSDD is no longer two arms performing separate actions as in other arts, but one arm capable of performing both, even when using an auxiliary action.

Absolutely, and this is what differentiates VT from other systems. LSDD with da sau jik si siu sau is the embodyment of optimal simplicity, directness and efficiency. It is first idea we practice, and the one we return to throughout the system.

This is why the pole is such a fundamental form in the system. Functional VT is like pole fighting with 2 poles (or 4 arms)

This is the unique skill of VT. If we understand terminology by definitions from other arts, it will confuse the VT fighting strategy, i.e.; primary, auxiliary, and remedial actions will be used out of order, resulting in an inefficient mess with drastically reduced effectiveness.

Correct, and this seems to happen 99% of the time

 

[guy b]

I've learned that LSDD also includes the idea of striking with one hand while defending with the other. Is this not also "simultaneous attack and defense"? Where in the kuen kit does it specify that it applies only to one arm at a time?

Striking with one hand while defending with the other is simultaneous attack and defence but compared to LSDD with da sau jik si siu sau it is less efficient, less simple, less direct. It also doesn't confer the massive advantage that VT LSDD does, hence the reason the system focuses on it as the fundamental stand out different and amazing thing from the very start and in almost everything we do.

 

[LFJ]

Some who didn't learn the system in full went looking elsewhere for answers, often to other Southern CMAs, to see how similar terminology is used there and then fill their gaps and justify their methods. Saves face, they reckon.

And I'm certain this (LSDD in VT) has been explained to these guys a number of times here. Why do they still seem confused as if they've never had it spelled out before?

 

[wckf92]

Actually, I think I have a much better understanding of you and Guy's VT from reading your posts. The connection came when you (months ago) were explaining the methods, and when combined with a post from guy (also, months ago) about VT being pole centric...it clicked. So, for that...thank you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk