Yeaaah, people say this all the time, but it seems to me they confuse concepts with principles, and then techniques from the forms become their theoretical fighting tactics. So they say they are concept based, but still use techniques in 1:1 application ideas, like taan-da against a given attack.
Agreed, it felt really cliché to write it but had no better way of describing what I meant. The word concept gets thrown around a lot from people that later state "If they do this.... you can counter with a <insert technique>". My meaning differs from yours as in I count all "techniques" as being shapes which comes natural to me based on own experience. If I experience something new then I pick the closest and should I get punched I have to train in countering it more properly. So the concept is emphasis during training, in application it is not techniques but rather my training that gets me through, a feeling of sorts.
In most lineages of Wing Chun, taan-da is a representative technique, often done (theoretically) as a round punch defense, or at least it's a technique taught in their system; i.e. "When he does this, I can taan-da. It's a spread and hit concept" they say. They'll cling to the idea of it representing some concept or other, but it's still dealing in 1:1 applications.
You bring up another good point. Not sure I would consider taan-da as a "technique" to counter a round punch. My understanding is that whenever I try to enforce a technique on my opponent they either have to A) Follow my rules. B) Continue their punch and hurt me. Not the kind of situation I want to put myself in. I cant say how I would counter a round punch myself, especially when it has been a large theme of ours, because it depends on so many factors not only limited to opponents force, will and angles.
What I mean by confusing concepts with principles, is that when people talk about being concept based they often mean things like economy of motion, chasing center of mass and not limbs, centerline theory, etc.. But these are all principles that make up the overall fighting strategy.
Actually this is the main part of why I reply to this message.
Want to say thanks for explaining your view, means I now understand what you mean when saying stuff such as principals and concepts. Not sharing the same view of course, but that would be a given on any forum. People rarely shares same view.
My own view is that concepts are what you call principals. Techniques to me are rather a way to learn my body proper angle and force generation, a sense of how a movement should feel in the body itself. Sorry to sound as if I am smoking something I shouldnt but it is hard subject to explain but easy to understand when doing it. I do not mean some magical state of supreme body knowledge. More like how a golf player knows how to swing a club without thinking every moment about it and still get the desired outcome.
Now I have some questions if you wish to enlighten me further with how you mean.
- It was stated in separate thread that WSL VT had different principals to LT WT. LT WT has the same "principals" or concepts pending on what you call it as WC. What differs for WSL VT? Of course this is based on my own experience of WT, we state that nothing here is altered compared to YM's teachings.
- YM displayed taan-da in first section of wooden dummy form, however WSL VT does not have this "technique"? So, sorry for my ignorance, WSL VT has modified forms?
(To note I have no WSL VT club nearby and feel curious but lacking a lot of knowledge of that style of the art)