WC Punch

[LFJ]

Ignoring KPM's trivial diversion...

In our Yip Man VT we teach that simultaneous defense and counter (lin siu dai dar) uses two hands moving at precisely the same time to defend and attack, as with tan-da, gaun-da, pak-da, etc.

For us, da sau jik si siu sau is usually associated with using one hand to defend and counter, as when your punch deflects your opponenent's punch and proceeds to hit. The deflection comes an instant before the strike hits it's target, so although extremely efficient, this is not precisely simultaneous.

The problem you have, as well as KPM and others, is that you use imperfect English translations to fit the terminology of VT to whatever you need it to say.

In English, we say "simultaneous attack and defense" or "simultaneous defense and counter" because we prefer a terse expression to match the maxim in Chinese. But English is not as expressive or exact in so few words as Chinese. Lin siu daai da is in fact not saying "simultaneous" and not saying "defense" in general to allow for dodging to be a possible meaning.

I shall explain.

"Lin... daai..." is a common Chinese grammatical structure, and no part of it means "precisely simultaneous" or even just "simultaneous".

It means "both... and...", "... as well as...", "... together with...".

Literally, lin means to link; continuous; in succession, and daai means to lead; to bring along.

So what you get when you insert siu (eliminate; dispel; remove) and da (to hit; to strike) is an idea of deflection closely followed by a strike in one continuous action.

Not two arms acting at precisely the same time, not one arm with two separate actions/beats (block then punch), and definitely not just dodging which doesn't displace (siu) the limb.

It's one continuous action with two functions happening in such quick succession that we just call it simultaneous in English.

"Da-sau jik si siu-sau" spells it out for you. The same arm accomplishes both of the above. That's the unique skill of VT.

Using two arms in response to a single punch is not special. It actually violates simplicity, directness, and efficiency principles when it's possible to use just one arm for the task.

Even when using a simultaneous helping action (e.g. paak-da; jat-da), LSDD is still referring to the striking arm having this dual-functioning capability should further obstruction be on its path.

For example, I use paak with a simultaneous punch. That punch displaces the opponent's rear arm as it strikes. LSDD is still referring to that striking arm which is also displacing, not both arms. The paak is just auxiliary, done when my original punch has been interrupted or I'm out of position to use just one arm. Then I may return to my primary punching idea, rotating two arms that both have LSDD capabilities.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

done when my original punch has been interrupted ...

What's the chance that your original punch will not be interrupted?

In the following situation, your original punch will not be interrupted.

- I use my right hand to punch at your face.
- You tries to use your right arm to block it.
- Before your right arm can make contact on my right arm, I use my left arm to interrupt your right blocking arm.
- This will leave me a free right arm to finish my punch on your face.

In the whole process, my right arm and your right arm have never made any contact.

 

[LFJ]

What's the chance that your original punch will not be interrupted?

In the following situation, your original punch will not be interrupted.

- I use my right hand to punch at your face.
- You tries to use your right arm to block it.
- Before your right arm can make contact on my right arm, I use my left arm to interrupt your right blocking arm.
- This will leave me a free right arm to finish my punch on your face.

In the whole process, my right arm and your right arm have never made any contact.

I'm not a fan of all the scenarios you create. They assume you are so inhumanly fast that things are happening for you in slow-motion and you have time to respond quickly enough with the appropriate actions. Are you fighting in the matrix or something?

"You're faster than this. Don't think you are. Know you are."

 

[guy b.]

If you think that WSL was doing exactly what Ip Man was doing....again....you are delusional.

I'm sorry KPM, but when it comes to believing what I hear from people who were there, vs believing what KPM says on a forum, there really isn't much hope that you are correct

 

[guy b.]

So why are you encouraging him?

Because, like it or not, very few people learned VT from YM. I don't know about HKM's teaching because never seen it, but he is one of the more likely candidates besides WSL.

 

[KPM]

I'm sorry KPM, but when it comes to believing what I hear from people who were there, vs believing what KPM says on a forum, there really isn't much hope that you are correct

You're logic is all wrong here. I am only stating obvious logical conclusions that anyone can and has reached. You are relying on "sifu sez" and heresy. I can assure you that I am not the only one here that has reached that conclusion, even if I'm the only one writing it on this forum.

 

[KPM]

Because, like it or not, very few people learned VT from YM. I don't know about HKM's teaching because never seen it, but he is one of the more likely candidates besides WSL.

I can assure you that what HKM does is very different from what PB does. Therefore by your logic HKM must not do Ip Man Wing Chun. I think if Joy had been following this thread closer he would have realized that this is what you have now been saying in your most recent ramblings on this forum.

 

[KPM]

Ignoring KPM's trivial diversion...

---Not trivial at all, considering Guy's most recent assertions.


"Lin... daai..." is a common Chinese grammatical structure, and no part of it means "precisely simultaneous" or even just "simultaneous".

It means "both... and...", "... as well as...", "... together with...".

Literally, lin means to link; continuous; in succession, and daai means to lead; to bring along.

So what you get when you insert siu (eliminate; dispel; remove) and da (to hit; to strike) is an idea of deflection closely followed by a strike in one continuous action.

Not two arms acting at precisely the same time, not one arm with two separate actions/beats (block then punch), and definitely not just dodging which doesn't displace (siu) the limb.

---Thank your for the translation. But even as I read your translation above, it could be structured in English as "Dispel/eliminate together with striking" or "Dispel/eliminate as well as striking" or "Remove/dispel together with striking." None of that says it has to be done with a single arm. That still allows for a Tan Da.




"Da-sau jik si siu-sau" spells it out for you. The same arm accomplishes both of the above. That's the unique skill of VT.

---Now here is an interesting point! I'm sure you will say my education has been deficient. But I learned the LSDD line, but not this line you say follows it.

---How about the rest of you reading along? When you learned the Kuen Kuit did you learn this line as part of it?

--- I see two possibilities here. First....this line of the Kuen Kit was dropped at some point as the teaching was passed on, either by accident or design. If it was seen as too limiting, it may have been dropped by design. The second possibility is that it might have been added later in order to make the concept more specific. I will say that from my experience this idea that LSDD applies ONLY to one arm at a time is NOT found in Pin Sun Wing Chun or Tang Yik Weng Chun.

 

[wckf92]

---How about the rest of you reading along? When you learned the Kuen Kuit did you learn this line as part of it?.

I learned the action, but not the KK.

 

[LFJ]

I will say that from my experience this idea that LSDD applies ONLY to one arm at a time is NOT found in Pin Sun Wing Chun or Tang Yik Weng Chun.

Those appear to be different martial art systems. Other Southern CMAs also have the LSDD line, but they are not VT. What sets VT apart is its unique strategy and tactics. VT declares this by spelling out LSDD in context of the VT system as "da-sau jik si siu-sau".

Two arms at once in VT are secondary/auxiliary actions. Defining LSDD by such actions and basing fight strategy on them as primary actions is putting the cart before the horse.

Worse yet is placing remedial actions like bong-laap before both secondary and primary actions as the first response!

Lots of confused Wing Chun out there...

 

[guy b.]

I am only stating obvious logical conclusions that anyone can and has reached.

Relying on flawed understandings of YM's system as evidence of varying equally valid interpretations is not logical. The best way to discern the system from the misunderstanding is to look at coherence. Since the system passed down to me is coherent and lacks contradicory understandings, I have no reason to doubt what WSL and others have said about it.

 

[guy b.]

I can assure you that what HKM does is very different from what PB does. Therefore by your logic HKM must not do Ip Man Wing Chun. I think if Joy had been following this thread closer he would have realized that this is what you have now been saying in your most recent ramblings on this forum.

I would be very happy to discuss the differences between HKM's teachings and VT, if such a difference exists. Please list some differences and we can investigate.

 

[guy b.]

WSL best known followers apparently do things differently, yet they all practice WSL VT. And you continue to spout this stuff. Guy, you really have lost all credibility on this forum ...at least apart from your one co-religionist.

The people who spent most time with WSL do things the same. Those who spent less or no time sometimes do things differently.

I don't understand what is wrong in believing that WSL taught just what YM did- this is what he said after all. The coherence of the system passed down via WSL supports this conclusion. It is exceedingly unlikely that he created such a thing from a broken mess of contradiction. You and KPM seem to be asking me to disbelieve what has been said by WSL and my teachers, along with the evidence that my own mind perceives in the form of the system understanding, and to apply a broad brush "its all ok" relativistic approach to any interpretation of VT, no amtter how flawed. I am not telling anyone that they do not also practice VT, that is for them to decide. I am only stating that I do practice that system.

 

[Phobius]

Was it not already stated that there is a difference between DP and PB? Or you claim DP spent less time doing WSLVT than you?

 

[guy b.]

Was it not already stated that there is a difference between DP and PB? Or you claim DP spent less time doing WSLVT than you?

DP spent less time with WSL than PB.

 

[Phobius]

DP spent less time with WSL than PB.

And you spent less time with PB than DP spent with WSL.

Given how coherent it is, you are better at VT than DP? Given how you grasp all essence of VT when he could not?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm not a fan of all the scenarios you create. They assume you are so inhumanly fast that things are happening for you in slow-motion and you have time to respond quickly enough with the appropriate actions. Are you fighting in the matrix or something?

"You're faster than this. Don't think you are. Know you are."

done when my original punch has been interrupted ...

I was trying to create a scenarios according your description. So in your scenarios, has your opponent's arm interrupted your punch yet? What if your opponent's interruption is a hard block that knock your punch away from your intentional striking path?

So

- What's the chance that your original punch will not be interrupted?
- If your punching arm is interrupted, what's the chance that you can "neutralize" it by using one arm only without the helping from your other hand?

 

[Phobius]

#3 is block then strike with the same arm.

He already described what he meant and it was not simultaneous.

See this post.

"3. block and punch back by using the same arm - Your opponent punch, you use right 扶手(Fu Shou) to block his punch. Redirect his punching arm to pass your face (sensing and manipulating arms). You then punch back with the same right hand."

In English, we say "simultaneous attack and defense" or "simultaneous defense and counter" because we prefer a terse expression to match the maxim in Chinese. But English is not as expressive or exact in so few words as Chinese. Lin siu daai da is in fact not saying "simultaneous" and not saying "defense" in general to allow for dodging to be a possible meaning.

I shall explain.

"Lin... daai..." is a common Chinese grammatical structure, and no part of it means "precisely simultaneous" or even just "simultaneous".

It means "both... and...", "... as well as...", "... together with...".

Literally, lin means to link; continuous; in succession, and daai means to lead; to bring along.

So what you get when you insert siu (eliminate; dispel; remove) and da (to hit; to strike) is an idea of deflection closely followed by a strike in one continuous action.

It's one continuous action with two functions happening in such quick succession that we just call it simultaneous in English.

"Da-sau jik si siu-sau" spells it out for you. The same arm accomplishes both of the above. That's the unique skill of VT.

Huh? You are not being coherent. First you state that it has to be simultaneous attack, since it is not it is not VT. Given that it is first block/deflect and then followed by a punch.

After that you state that it does in fact not say "simultaneous", instead it means "continuous" and linked such as following closely by.

Thirdly you state that we just call it simultaneous in English, when in fact you just state that it isnt but that you personally want to call it simultaneous. It is not by the true meaning of the word simultaneous.

So let me get this straight, someone says it is a block/deflect followed by a punch, you say they are wrong since it is not LSDD. Then you follow up by saying LSDD is a block/deflect followed by a punch in the very definition of it.

Oh, and we start training this to the beginners already at lesson two or in some cases even lesson one. Not very complicated, but takes time to perfect. I do not disagree with the block/deflect followed closely by a punch.

Simultaneous punch and deflect however is a rule that would weaken structure in many situations. Simply because it can force a chasing of the arm when in fact the way is already free and you should only attack.

 

[geezer]

...The problem you have, as well as KPM and others, is that you use imperfect English translations to fit the terminology of VT to whatever you need it to say.

LFJ, thanks for the clarification of the Cantonese phrases. I find that helpful. And, you know, I don't think we disagree here. Of course "simultaneous attack and defense" is never precisely simultaneous. Poor choice of words on my part.

The other phrase "attacking hand is defending hand" does emphasize the role of a single hand deflecting and striking in a single beat. Perhaps that's where I'd differ from John Wang when he compares that same tactic as practiced in Karate and some other Kung Fu styles that do movements that may look similar, but take two beats to accomplish.

 

[KPM]

LFJ, thanks for the clarification of the Cantonese phrases. I find that helpful. And, you know, I don't think we disagree here. Of course "simultaneous attack and defense" is never precisely simultaneous. Poor choice of words on my part.

The other phrase "attacking hand is defending hand" does emphasize the role of a single hand deflecting and striking in a single beat. Perhaps that's where I'd differ form John Wang when he compares that same tactic as practiced in Karate and some other Kung Fu styles that do movements that may look similar, but take two beats to accomplish.

Steve, did you learn that second line of the Kuen Kit in your Wing Chun studies?