"No Outside Game," or Another Thread About Hybrid Arts

[Hazardi172]

Then why are there several techniques that are called "blocks?" I'm not following.

Such as?

 

[KPM]

VT punch is a punch with the body- so of course you move your body.

You move your body? As in "stepping in".....or to state it differently....changing the range/distance to find the "sweet spot" where your punch can land effectively?

 

[KPM]

From his writings I think Bruce Lee had a pretty low level understanding of VT.

Then you would be mistaken!

 

[KPM]

No, not used in fighting, it is a drill for teaching specific things.

So what specific things does the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle teach you?

 

[wingchun100]

Such as?

All right, I am not getting drawn into this anymore. I cannot believe someone could train in Wing Chun and not know a single block.

 

[wingchun100]

My apologies for that previous message. I need to learn to use that "ignore" button sooner.

 

[wckf92]

All right, I am not getting drawn into this anymore. I cannot believe someone could train in Wing Chun and not know a single block.

I think in some regard it is a matter of semantics/strategy/tactics/usage. For example, in my WC there are also no "blocks" per se.
In your WC, I'm guessing/assuming that if you were to do what some call a "Tan Da" (for example)...you probably were taught that the one hand executing the 'tan' action is blocking...while the other hand punches...right? Others think of it as a secondary covering action as it attacks while their other limb(s) attack the opponents nearest target. Yet, others think / use Tan as an embedded defense.

 

[Hazardi172]

You move your body? As in "stepping in".....or to state it differently....changing the range/distance to find the "sweet spot" where your punch can land effectively?

No, you punch with your body. Moving the body is part of the punch.

 

[Hazardi172]

All right, I am not getting drawn into this anymore. I cannot believe someone could train in Wing Chun and not know a single block.

I'm not trying to be difficult. The VT I leaned doesn't have blocks as in other systems

 

[Hazardi172]

Then you would be mistaken!

Each to their own, I am happy you have found something that suits you in JKD

 

[Hazardi172]

So what specific things does the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle teach you?

I don't think worth covering here, there don't seem to be many VT practitioners around. I am sure that JKD has some good ideas for this drill

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In fighting the opponent trys to play their game and we play ours. Our game is about making the opponent dance to our tune.

That doesn't address the issue. You said there's no clinch in VT. If your opponent is playing their own game, you may have to deal with a clinch, so dismissing it as something not in VT doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is no ideal range from which to strike. Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns. Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us.

Not even close to true. Every kind of strike has a limited range, and within that range is a smaller subset that is the ideal range. That you can strike from any range from long to short doesn't change that you need a different strike for the longer range than the shorter range. You're dancing awfully hard to make it seem like you have a point. You don't. You even made the point about a best distance existing, and I pointed that out. Continuing to restate that things change in a fight (yes, they do, and that's immaterial to the point) and that you can strike from many ranges (doubtless you can, and that, too, is immaterial to the point) doesn't in any way counter the concept of an ideal distance for a given strike in a given situation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not 100% true. (I know you don't train in the system, so I hope you know I did not mean that in an insulting way.) The previous school I was at taught a difference between a heavy punch and the flurry-style punches most people associate with Wing Chun.

Also, if there are really no pure styles in MMA, then it seems silly to me that so many people have latched on to the notion that Wing Chun is the only "pure" style that wouldn't work in the ring. If everyone gets a mix, then you could just as easily swap that out with ANY style name. Example: "Karate doesn't work in MMA."

Wing Chun is certainly not the only style that gets that treatment. Folks say that about Aikido all the time, even when it's pointed out that (depending upon which style of Aikido you're talking about) there are actually quite a few techniques that fall within the bounds of "Aikido" that show up in MMA. They're not being delivered by someone who primarily studied Aikido, so folks argue it's not really Aikido. I'm sure there are other styles that get similar comments.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree. So to say that you are going to do thousands or reps of a Bong/Laap/Punch cycle in training....but to also say this is not applied or used in real fighting makes no sense. And to train thousands of reps of a form that teaches you to draw your fist back to your hip repeatedly (which may get you killed in real fight) also makes no sense. This is why you should train the way you hope to fight. If you are in-graining bad habits that could get you killed in a real encounter, that is a bad thing! If you are training things that you are truly going to make a point of NOT doing in a real encounter, that is inefficient. If you are spending lots of time training something that will never show up in a real encounter, then you are training a martial art but you are not training a fighting art.

If you watched me practice punching, you could recognize the system that I train, assuming you had seen it before. There is a recognizable signature style to it.

If you saw me punch in a fight, you would not know what system I train.

The training and the practice methodology develop physical principles, and yes, technique is built on those principles. But technique does not always need to look a certain way, as long as the principles are underneath it. As a mechanism for building an understanding of the principles, training can include exaggerated movement. Your example of the hip chamber when punching is a good example of this. In fighting, that exaggeration goes away and the movement can look quite different and take on a lot of variety.

As a crane guy, I don't need to assume a certain stance or posture in order to fight, and my punch does not need to look a certain way. It CAN, but does not have to. But what I do is still crane.

As a wing chun guy, you should not need to assume a certain posture in order to fight, and likewise, your punch should not need to look a certain way. It CAN, but it should not be mandatory. But regardless, it is still wing chun.

Your training helps you develop skills. But how you apply those skills should not be forced into a certain presentation. How you apply those skills should be completely up to you, IF you understand the principles underneath your technique, and are not simply a technique-collector and are not limited by the presentation of the training approach.

So, does wing chun have an outside game? Honestly I'm not even quite certain how that is defined. But if the question really boils down to, "can skills developed through the practice of wing chun be applied creatively, in ways that are not immediately obvious from simply looking at the appearance of the training methodology?" Well my god, I should certainly hope so. If the answer is truly "no" then you've got a crappy system and I recommend you do something else instead.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think worth covering here, there don't seem to be many VT practitioners around. I am sure that JKD has some good ideas for this drill

Why would you only answer that question to a VT practitioner, who would almost certainly already know the VT answer? Many folks here ask questions about systems - and even entire arts - they do not study. It's how we learn about what each other does.

 

[KPM]

No, you punch with your body. Moving the body is part of the punch.

So you don't step in when you are too far away to land the punch? And again, how do you punch from far away as you stated before?

 

[KPM]

I don't think worth covering here, there don't seem to be many VT practitioners around. I am sure that JKD has some good ideas for this drill

Ok Guy. No problem.

 

[Hazardi172]

Every kind of strike has a limited range, and within that range is a smaller subset that is the ideal range.

As explained above, the VT punch doesn't have an ideal range. It is equally effective from close in to far out.This is becuse it doesn't rely upon rotation or other upper body momentum in order to work. It is as effective from almost zero extension to maximum extension. It lacks an ideal range by way of design.

That you can strike from any range from long to short doesn't change that you need a different strike for the longer range than the shorter range.

The VT punch can strike from close in to far out because the body movement is part of the punch. You don't need a different strike. This is why we work so hard to perfect the punch

Of course we can also kick, faak, elbow, knee, palm. But the punch is the primary weapon in all situations!

Continuing to restate that things change in a fight (yes, they do, and that's immaterial to the point) and that you can strike from many ranges (doubtless you can, and that, too, is immaterial to the point) doesn't in any way counter the concept of an ideal distance for a given strike in a given situation.

I hope I have helped to clear up your confusion and that you are now closer to understanding a bit about the VT system . Let me know if you need me to explain more.

 

[Hazardi172]

Why would you only answer that question to a VT practitioner, who would almost certainly already know the VT answer? Many folks here ask questions about systems - and even entire arts - they do not study. It's how we learn about what each other does.

I think there is only so far we can go without some understanding of the basics. Since I am finding a lack of understanding of basic ideas, I think more complicated ones probably not a good idea at this point! We can always revisit later