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

[LFJ]

It certainly is relevant if you are going to participate in a discussion with people other than WLSVT people and tell them they are wrong about their understanding!

Still not. I detailed why your definition is flawed. You can disagree, but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.

 

[LFJ]

But I'm not going to be baited into negative argumentative discussions by a couple of guys that show little interest in anything other than telling people how wrong they are.

So far I don't think anyone has mentioned or trains your lineage.

But if you have an objection you can clear it up by participating so that no one misrepresents your style.

Otherwise why post only negative comments at all?

 

[KPM]

Still not. I detailed why your definition is flawed. You can disagree, but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.

Man, you really "take the cake" don't you!! "True believer" if I ever saw one!! Nobody is right but you! And you wonder why you and Guy have such a hard time participating in any kind of friendly and civil discussion here??

 

[LFJ]

Well, you haven't explained how exactly I'm wrong. You just said "wrong".

That's how discussion usually goes here. I make a point and you get upset and are never able to show me the errors in my argument, or defend yours very well if at all.

I think I have been friendly and civil. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm being unfriendly. Maybe you're just uncomofrtable with disagreements and not very open to criticism, so you feel offended? I have not resorted to name-calling like you just did. I've been talking substance. Would like if you did too.

 

[Phobius]

Just so we are clear, we are still discussing terminology? I feel like bailing because frankly I don't care because now I am once more interested in actual difference in practise instead.

I guess I understand LFJ and guy better in their use of their terminology. Not agreeing at all that some terminology must be flawed or in error. But at least now I am at the point where I can map a little more what LFJ and guy b. consider their style, I think.

 

[guy b.]

edit

 

[guy b.]

edit

 

[guy b.]

edit

 

[guy b.]

Well, you haven't explained how exactly I'm wrong. You just said "wrong".

That's how discussion usually goes here. I make a point and you get upset and are never able to show me the errors in my argument, or defend yours very well if at all.

This is the problem here, in a nutshell.
People get upset, but they won't provide counter arguments to defend their beliefs. It isn't rude to disagree and to back up disagreement with logical argument.

If you don't have arguments to defend what you believe then you need to ask for more information or go away and think about why that is, not get angry at the person who brought it to your attention.

If you do have arguments then post them here to defend what you believe. There is no reason to be upset about it.

If you have arguments but they are a big secret which cannot be exposed on a forum (JPinAZ or Joy for eample), then why even bother to comment? Just be happy that you have the secret answers.

 

[guy b.]

I guess I understand LFJ and guy better in their use of their terminology. Not agreeing at all that some terminology must be flawed or in error. But at least now I am at the point where I can map a little more what LFJ and guy b. consider their style, I think.

I am glad that your understanding of WSLVT is increased. I was sorry to read your admission that you were trolling for information with no intention to share. To use a slightly risky term based on previous interactions here, that seems a bit dishonest.

From my persepctive, I am not any closer to understanding how you deal with the idea of a bridge in your system. Your posting seemed confused and contradictory, and now I understand why I feel like the discussion was a bit of a waste of time.

If you would now like to state clearly how you understand bridge then that would be very helpful in terms of improving mutual understanding.

 

[guy b.]

Coming from a lineage that has Kiu Sau as a major part of our system, this is a completely wrong and uneducated definition (Kiu-sau does not mean forearm, ). It sounds like someone that is acting as if they know a lot about something they obviously don't.

What does kiu-sau mean to you and how is it important in your system? It is a term I am not familiar with...bridge hand?

 

[KPM]

Well, you haven't explained how exactly I'm wrong. You just said "wrong".

That's how discussion usually goes here. I make a point and you get upset and are never able to show me the errors in my argument, or defend yours very well if at all.

I think I have been friendly and civil. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm being unfriendly. Maybe you're just uncomofrtable with disagreements and not very open to criticism, so you feel offended? I have not resorted to name-calling like you just did. I've been talking substance. Would like if you did too.

Do you suffer from "attention deficit disorder" like Guy does? I most certainly have noted errors in your argument and explained and defended my position. And, if you were paying attention, I even noted how I could see where you were coming from with your understanding of "Kiu." But, unlike you, I never made a sweeping dismissing and somewhat insulting statement like but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.

And I never pronounced other people's understanding of "Kiu" as "irrelevant." That certainly is NOT a way to have a "friendly" discussion.....dismissing other people's understanding as "irrelevant", rather than trying to see where they are coming from!

 

[Phobius]

I am glad that your understanding of WSLVT is increased. I was sorry to read your admission that you were trolling for information with no intention to share. To use a slightly risky term based on previous interactions here, that seems a bit dishonest.

From my persepctive, I am not any closer to understanding how you deal with the idea of a bridge in your system. Your posting seemed confused and contradictory, and now I understand why I feel like the discussion was a bit of a waste of time.

If you would now like to state clearly how you understand bridge then that would be very helpful in terms of improving mutual understanding.

First of all, I was not trolling. Well I was striving to understand you. Since first when I can understand you can I explain myself, since you (or LFJ, sorry I confuse you two every now and then) are very hard to discuss with.

To me bridge is a term.

Basically it is like this, I find a seemingly open path. I punch, obstacles get in the way or don't. 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 from which I can cross over and get that hit I seek.

In truth I when prevented from hitting train to clear any obstruction allowing either that punch to continue, my structure/stance to shift in order to align to another path towards my opponent, or clearing the obstruction or a mix of above. This is made possible by that contact, bridge, or whatnot to call it since I can feel what kind of obstruction is in my way and how to pass it properly.

My concepts explain how I behave and what I seek. Bridge does not mean fulfilling the concepts, my training does that. It is just that point when I get a possibility to clear an obstruction, or step across the river so to speak. In whatever way is necessary.

So bridge would also allow me to chase hands (which I am very much against and hate myself when doing by accident), but I dont consider bridge to be a term dictating how I fight, it is just a term to explain that which occurs when I make contact due to listening with my body. If the concepts are not in my spine already my reactions could be stupid such as chasing hands or walking into bad position as well as being punched in the face. Is it now clearer as to why I say Bridge has nothing to do with how I fight? So saying the term is a bad one gives me no value because I only use it to describe something I dont know how else to describe.

Is this making myself clearer? I have no intention of not sharing such information. I just want to remain anonymous, talking about how I see things is not going against that goal.

(EDIT: Clarifying, if the opponent gets hit in the face but moves so the punch slides on their skin, that contact allows me to figure out how to get a good hit. How to move my body and structure to make next hit count. As such even contact with a face is a Bridge in some cases)

(EDIT2: Bridge to some is just a simple meaning of crossing, I do not say my term is how others describe it but to me just crossing a distance for instance is more of finding a path. So my description is probably different to that of others)

 

[guy b.]

Do you suffer from "attention deficit disorder" like Guy does? I most certainly have noted errors in your argument and explained and defended my position. And, if you were paying attention, I even noted how I could see where you were coming from with your understanding of "Kiu." But, unlike you, I never made a sweeping dismissing and somewhat insulting statement like but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.

And I never pronounced other people's understanding of "Kiu" as "irrelevant." That certainly is NOT a way to have a "friendly" discussion.....dismissing other people's understanding as "irrelevant", rather than trying to see where they are coming from!

I don't understand what you find insulting about that statement. He is talking about VT, not your mainland wing chun system.

Similarly Kiu Sau understanding in other Chinese systems was dismissed as irrelevant to VT, not to your Mainland wing chun.

You seem incapable of differentiating between the particular and the general. And of giving benefit of the doubt. I don't get offended when you say something I think strange because I assume you are speaking from your KPM Mainland perspective. In fact it motivates me to find out what you mean.

When we talk of misunderstandings, not making sense, being contradictory then yes of course that is always from our own perspective. Nobody replies with a description of how it does make sense from their own perspective though; they just get offended.

 

[guy b.]

First of all, I was not trolling. Well I was striving to understand you. Since first when I can understand you can I explain myself, since you (or LFJ, sorry I confuse you two every now and then) are very hard to discuss with.

To me bridge is a term.

Basically it is like this, I find a seemingly open path. I punch, obstacles get in the way or don't. 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 from which I can cross over and get that hit I seek.

In truth I when prevented from hitting train to clear any obstruction allowing either that punch to continue, my structure/stance to shift in order to align to another path towards my opponent, or clearing the obstruction or a mix of above. This is made possible by that contact, bridge, or whatnot to call it since I can feel what kind of obstruction is in my way and how to pass it properly.

My concepts explain how I behave and what I seek. Bridge does not mean fulfilling the concepts, my training does that. It is just that point when I get a possibility to clear an obstruction, or step across the river so to speak. In whatever way is necessary.

So bridge would also allow me to chase hands (which I am very much against and hate myself when doing by accident), but I dont consider bridge to be a term dictating how I fight, it is just a term to explain that which occurs when I make contact due to listening with my body. If the concepts are not in my spine already my reactions could be stupid such as chasing hands or walking into bad position as well as being punched in the face. Is it now clearer as to why I say Bridge has nothing to do with how I fight? So saying the term is a bad one gives me no value because I only use it to describe something I dont know how else to describe.

Is this making myself clearer? I have no intention of not sharing such information. I just want to remain anonymous, talking about how I see things is not going against that goal.

(EDIT: Clarifying, if the opponent gets hit in the face but moves so the punch slides on their skin, that contact allows me to figure out how to get a good hit. How to move my body and structure to make next hit count. As such even contact with a face is a Bridge in some cases)

(EDIT2: Bridge to some is just a simple meaning of crossing, I do not say my term is how others describe it but to me just crossing a distance for instance is more of finding a path. So my description is probably different to that of others)

Ok thanks. This is helpful but I still don't fully understand what you mean or exactly how your system works from that description.

It appears that for you a bridge is contact with an obstruction, yes? If so then how would you rationalise the term bridge as defined above in terms of the second form, assuming you have one similar to the one I know? Is your second form called "remove/clear bridge" or "seek bridge"? What does it contain?

 

[SaulGoodman]

I'm not sure "what is your definition of a bridge" has to do with "what percentage of time do you spend practicing chi Sao"? This thread has been derailed and destroyed. Pity, as when we were on topic it was quite interesting.

 

[guy b.]

Start another thread if you like. We can all stick exctly to topic and the thread will be done in about 5 posts.

 

[guy b.]

I got the impression that Saul was pretty familiar with you from several different forums!

I've never heard the name before in my life

 

[Phobius]

Ok thanks. This is helpful but I still don't fully understand what you mean or exactly how your system works from that description.

It appears that for you a bridge is contact with an obstruction, yes? If so then how would you rationalise the term bridge as defined above in terms of the second form, assuming you have one similar to the one I know? Is your second form called "remove/clear bridge" or "seek bridge"? What does it contain?

Well seeking bridge does not mean seeking ANY bridge. It means seeking bridge and I interpret it as seeking or finding more options. If there is no obstruction all you need to do is punch, a simple idea. Then again I also consider the forms to be dictionaries, divided into categories. I am sure most do but might as well mention it. (Oh and once more, if a technique is in a form, that does not mean that technique is to be used solely for that purpose/category, but just that it was a good way to introduce or train that technique)

System to me is a way to teach martial art, a martial art exist in the practitioner or master himself and is very individual. Perhaps this idea comes from my sifu, I do not know, since he is very much in approval of studying or learning other systems as well.

 

[LFJ]

I even noted how I could see where you were coming from with your understanding of "Kiu."

Does it just offend you that I can't say the same about yours? I can't help that.

But, unlike you, I never made a sweeping dismissing and somewhat insulting statement like but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.

I wasn't dismissing those styles. It is correct for them and their strategy, just not for VT. How is that insulting?

And I never pronounced other people's understanding of "Kiu" as "irrelevant." That certainly is NOT a way to have a "friendly" discussion.....dismissing other people's understanding as "irrelevant", rather than trying to see where they are coming from!

I said that in response to you stating that other Southern CMA terminology differs from mine as if that should invalidate mine or something. I really don't know why else you'd mention that or see how it's at all relevant. What was your point?