Tan, bong and fuk

[Gowgee]

Hi there!

I've read several claims stating that TAN, BONG and FUK are the three most important hands in wing chun. Can someone explain why of all the hands practiced in wing chun, these are said to be the most important?

[stonecrusher69]

Hi there!

I've read several claims stating that TAN, BONG and FUK are the three most important hands in wing chun. Can someone explain why of all the hands practiced in wing chun, these are said to be the most important?


Tan, Bong and fok are thew basic hands used. a lot of the other hands revolve around them. It would be hard to use WC without Tan,Bong and FOk. In Chi sao it would almost impossible to practice without them. Try this dont use tan bong fok at all then answer your own question.

[Gowgee]

Tan, Bong and fok are thew basic hands used. a lot of the other hands revolve around them. It would be hard to use WC without Tan,Bong and FOk. In Chi sao it would almost impossible to practice without them. Try this dont use tan bong fok at all then answer your own question.

Thanks Stonecrusher.

That's a fair enough comment, but tan could be biu couldn't it? and why fuk instead of gum or wu sao for example? Could we say that "sao" here reflects the arm position rather than merely the hand?

[Matt_WCK]

From my understanding (and many lines/styles of Wing Chun have differing views), Tan, Bong and Fuk are vitally important concepts within Wing Chun. While the hand structures are important, understanding how and why they work and what they are for is far more important.

Tan - dispersing/spreading. Tan Sau and related structures work to spread away an opponent's energy from your centre allowing you access. They can be used on either gate but the fundamentals remain the same. Basically think inside to out or from your centre to outside your centre (the hand doesn't move sideways but your body structures 'encourages' your opponent to like a snow plough moves snow to the sides but is only going forwards).

Bong - commonly translated as Wing arm but refers more to the upper arm bone. This is Wing Chun's swiss army knife and it is a transitional structure fundamental in safely changing one arm position to another. First form shows a basic tan/bong rotation which is then used extensively in chi sau. Lap Sau drill (or bong/lap drill) uses a bong/punch rotation while second form introduces three different bongs covering - in-contact bong rotation (bong to lap and bong to lan sau), out-of-contact bong to cover a gap and gain a bridge (pau bong) and low bong (di bong) which is used to jam the mid-low gate. Bong can commonly become an elbow press or strike also. The key thing is that bong sau does not remain as is, rather it always becomes something else.

Fuk - detaining arm. The Fuk sau concept is to basically 'cover' or 'swallow' an opponent's structures enabling access to their centre. Commonly used as a defense or check (as in chi sau) but as with all Wing Chun, think of it as an attack or attack enabler. Fuk sau is, in many ways, the opposite of tan in that it works from the outside-in.

So - from those three ideas or seeds (covering from inside to out/covering from outside to in and safely changing one arm position to another), the rest of Wing Chun grows. The actual hand structures are only part of it.

[Matt_WCK]

Thanks Stonecrusher.

That's a fair enough comment, but tan could be biu couldn't it? and why fuk instead of gum or wu sao for example? Could we say that "sao" here reflects the arm position rather than merely the hand?

Additionally, when you look at Tan as being a concept demonstrated by a technique rather than just a technique - your example of a Biu Sau (presumably used to drive through the centre, forcing the opponent to slide down the outside of your arm?) - this is a tan concept biu sau similar to dispersing or exluding punches (which can also be fuk-concept punches when used on the outside gate).

Referring to your definition of "sau" - i'm no linguist but from my studies in Mandarin and Cantonese, I believe that shou/sau can be used to describe either the arm as a unit or the hand specifically, depending on context. The majority of Wing Chun techniques are driven from the elbow with little emphasis on the hand itself (going back to the snow plough - the forearm/hand is the plough itself - it does it's job due to it's shape. The rest of the body, delivered through the elbow, is the vehicle which pushes the plough).

Hope this sheds some light!

[Gowgee]

Thanks Matt, that was greatly educational!

[WC1277]

Additionally, when you look at Tan as being a concept demonstrated by a technique rather than just a technique - your example of a Biu Sau (presumably used to drive through the centre, forcing the opponent to slide down the outside of your arm?) - this is a tan concept biu sau similar to dispersing or exluding punches (which can also be fuk-concept punches when used on the outside gate).

Referring to your definition of "sau" - i'm no linguist but from my studies in Mandarin and Cantonese, I believe that shou/sau can be used to describe either the arm as a unit or the hand specifically, depending on context. The majority of Wing Chun techniques are driven from the elbow with little emphasis on the hand itself (going back to the snow plough - the forearm/hand is the plough itself - it does it's job due to it's shape. The rest of the body, delivered through the elbow, is the vehicle which pushes the plough).

Hope this sheds some light!

That's actually a decent explanation Matt. Who are you training under if you don't mind me asking?

[Matt_WCK]

That's actually a decent explanation Matt. Who are you training under if you don't mind me asking?

I'm a wanderer in the Wing Chun wilderness - my job means that I move very frequently but I have been fortunate to have one-to-one training from people in the Sam Kwok clan and also the WSL method in addition to doing the rounds in a number of different clubs and the usual seminars/workshops across the UK.

Bizarrely, I learned most of what I understand about Wing Chun by moving away from it and learning other systems (Jujitsu, JKD and taijiquan); it made me examine why Wing Chun does what it does.

There is a fairly big martial arts community in the forces so I do a lot of cross training with guys from other styles so I've played Wing Chun against kickboxers, MMA, TKD, karate etc. The Kendo guys really liked BJD :)

[ShaolinDan]

Hi there!

I've read several claims stating that TAN, BONG and FUK are the three most important hands in wing chun. Can someone explain why of all the hands practiced in wing chun, these are said to be the most important?

I don't know anything about Wing Chun, but it sounds like a great summer to me!








(I'm sorry...I know it's obnoxious, but sometimes the set-up is just too good to resist..."If I don't do it, someone else will.") :)

[WC1277]

I'm a wanderer in the Wing Chun wilderness - my job means that I move very frequently but I have been fortunate to have one-to-one training from people in the Sam Kwok clan and also the WSL method in addition to doing the rounds in a number of different clubs and the usual seminars/workshops across the UK.

Bizarrely, I learned most of what I understand about Wing Chun by moving away from it and learning other systems (Jujitsu, JKD and taijiquan); it made me examine why Wing Chun does what it does.

There is a fairly big martial arts community in the forces so I do a lot of cross training with guys from other styles so I've played Wing Chun against kickboxers, MMA, TKD, karate etc. The Kendo guys really liked BJD :)

Very cool. How'd your WC fair against those other practitioners?

[Matt_WCK]

Very cool. How'd your WC fair against those other practitioners?

Nothing I found convinced me to change arts so I still practice Wing Chun and have gained some eager students from other styles. Wing Chun works for me - simple as that, even on the ground against BJJ and MMA guys although I was instantly disqualified from a 'self defence' competition once for being too violent (and I toned it down)! I found that I really had to get in quick, past the kicks, and not play tag with people who were much better at that kind of thing. Each art is great at what it does, what you have to do is play to your strengths and not let them play to theirs (which is exactly what they are trying to do also).

[guy b.]

You lost the eager crowd at the point where your wing chun worked on the ground against ground grappling specialists. You have to keep these things within the realms of possibility

[Lee Chiang Po]

Pak, tan, and fok is more accurate. Bong is an emergency technique, where if the hand or arm is out of position for service the bong comes into play. It is not something to be used as an initial defense were pak, tan, or fok can be used. These are actually concepts rather than a simple defense technique. Entire fighting systems can be built around any of them. It has been done and people have been nicknamed for them.
Tan, fok, and bong are used in the chi sao game people like to play.

[WC1277]

Pak, tan, and fok is more accurate. Bong is an emergency technique, where if the hand or arm is out of position for service the bong comes into play. It is not something to be used as an initial defense were pak, tan, or fok can be used. These are actually concepts rather than a simple defense technique. Entire fighting systems can be built around any of them. It has been done and people have been nicknamed for them.
Tan, fok, and bong are used in the chi sao game people like to play.

Incorrect sir. I don't think you understood what was being said. There's three main families of movement. Pak sau is not one of them. In fact, Pak sau is within the fok family. What Matt said made perfect sense but then again, within my line Fong Sifu has gone over this before.

[Vajramusti]

Incorrect sir. I don't think you understood what was being said. There's three main families of movement. Pak sau is not one of them. In fact, Pak sau is within the fok family. What Matt said made perfect sense but then again, within my line Fong Sifu has gone over this before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup.
Conceptually,Wing chun motions can be well classified under bong, fok and tan families of motions- that is why they can be called the three seeds. Pak is a fok family motion.

joy chaudhuri

[Happy Tiger]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup.
Conceptually,Wing chun motions can be well classified under bong, fok and tan families of motions- that is why they can be called the three seeds. Pak is a fok family motion.

joy chaudhuri
It is interesting that of the three, bong sau seems to have the widest interpretation of use. In WSL VT although bong sau is important, it is somewhat downplayed compaired to other houses. In TST VT bong sau is very aggressive. And in some bong sau seems to be used as a common transition switchgate.Tan/bong and/or gate.

[LoneTiger108]

Being a big fan of yum yeurng practise I thought I would would add that I learnt two revolutions or cycles of the seed, one being creative and one destructive.

What is being discussed here in this thread is a destructive cycle of tan, bong and fook. This has been the standard for many generations since Ip Man but I rarely hear anyone talk of the tan, fook and bong cycle which is creative in nature.

Now if this makes little or no sense to you I can only attempt to talk more about it here as this is definitely something that has to be seen and felt to truly comprehend.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1172307]Being a big fan of yum yeurng practise I thought I would would add that I learnt two revolutions or cycles of the seed, one being creative and one destructive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don;t know how you are using creative and destructive. If you are referring to chi sao..the bong/tan/fuk balancing is the key-
like controlling the sensitive steering wheel of a good car-you can just control steadily, swerve to avoid a crash or swerve and hit a car or run someone off the road.
If you want to briefly discuss- creative and destructive on your school, I am all ears.

joy chaudhuri

[Lee Chiang Po]

Incorrect sir. I don't think you understood what was being said. There's three main families of movement. Pak sau is not one of them. In fact, Pak sau is within the fok family. What Matt said made perfect sense but then again, within my line Fong Sifu has gone over this before.

Bong is not a primary defense technique. It is used basically when the hand or arm is out of position to defend. It is also something that is most commonly used in chi sao, and I do not consider fok to be in the family of pak. It is distinctly different. So what you must be refering to is chi sao rather than serious combat.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Incorrect sir. I don't think you understood what was being said. There's three main families of movement. Pak sau is not one of them. In fact, Pak sau is within the fok family. What Matt said made perfect sense but then again, within my line Fong Sifu has gone over this before.

Bong is not a primary defense technique. It is used basically when the hand or arm is out of position to defend. It is also something that is most commonly used in chi sao, and I do not consider fok to be in the family of pak. It is distinctly different. So what you must be refering to is chi sao rather than serious combat.

[stonecrusher69]

It is interesting that of the three, bong sau seems to have the widest interpretation of use. In WSL VT although bong sau is important, it is somewhat downplayed compaired to other houses. In TST VT bong sau is very aggressive. And in some bong sau seems to be used as a common transition switchgate.Tan/bong and/or gate.


Bong Sao can be used many ways,so there is no one way to use it. For myself i find it to be useful only at very close range. When the opponent has a very forceful bridge bong can be use TO MOVE THAT FORCE OFF THE LINE..

Also,Bong Sao can be used when the structure of the other hands ( Tan, Fok, Wu) has been compromised.

[WC1277]

Bong is not a primary defense technique. It is used basically when the hand or arm is out of position to defend. It is also something that is most commonly used in chi sao, and I do not consider fok to be in the family of pak. It is distinctly different. So what you must be refering to is chi sao rather than serious combat.

No. They're concepts. For instance you could do a Fok sau technique but have it be tan sau concept. The technique is secondary and ultimately you can be freed from them if you develop the concept movements. An example. You have your guard up. Someone paks(or whatever movement) the inside of your arm to get past it(out of chi sau this would be them paking your fok). A skilled persons response isn't going to be just switch to the back hand and cover. Instead they're going to do as if they were pak'd on the outside where you can absorb the force with your "balloon function" and catch the timing into a tan sau. One of the 4 slow attacks drill(you should know what I'm talking about) but instead it's going to be on the inside and from the guard position. A fok or wu depending on if you're doing Chi Sao or not. The elbow and arm will lock on your center the same way as a tan sau and your body will turn and disperse the incoming force the same way as a tan sau. So what you have there is a technique i.e. fok, wu, anything really but with tan sau concept. This way of looking at WC technique, chi sao, and ultimately structure is what's going to let you ultimately fight freely....

[Sihing73]

Bong is not a primary defense technique. It is used basically when the hand or arm is out of position to defend. It is also something that is most commonly used in chi sao, and I do not consider fok to be in the family of pak. It is distinctly different. So what you must be refering to is chi sao rather than serious combat.

Hello,

Yip Man is said to have stated Bong is the best or worst movement. If done incorrectly better to not do it at all. However, Bong Sau is an excellent defensive movement if one understands its energy. Bong does not stay but is a transitional movement resulting from the force provided by the opponent.

We find Bong Sau not only in Chi Sau but also in Lop Sau drills as well. Therefore it is, imho, correct to consider it one of the three seeds of Wing Chun Hand Movements. Also, if unimportant why would Bong be found throughout the forms and as one of the main techniques on the dummy as well?

I am curious as to what you consider Pak to be since you state it is not from the seed/family of Fook?

[LoneTiger108]

If you want to briefly discuss- creative and destructive on your school, I am all ears.

By simple practice of the seed in sequence of bong, tan then fook you will notice a smoothness, a flow. This is creative.

Now practise the seed sequence of bong, fook then tan and you will notice it is not so smooth, the natural flow has gone. This is destructive.

We tend to use the creative sequence for defense and the destructive sequence for attack in the beginning. Once these methods are combined with another yum yeurng, huen and wu, you basically have the whole system of Wing Chun in your hands. These are 5 core methods that are revisited time and time again.

Now add the technique, like paksau for example. And you should find that paksau can be applied with either of the 5 core methods actually, it is not limited to belongng to one of the seed at all. Same can be said for the three basic hands of kuen, jeurng and jii... :)

[k gledhill]

Hello,

Yip Man is said to have stated Bong is the best or worst movement. If done incorrectly better to not do it at all. However, Bong Sau is an excellent defensive movement if one understands its energy. Bong does not stay but is a transitional movement resulting from the force provided by the opponent.

We find Bong Sau not only in Chi Sau but also in Lop Sau drills as well. Therefore it is, imho, correct to consider it one of the three seeds of Wing Chun Hand Movements. Also, if unimportant why would Bong be found throughout the forms and as one of the main techniques on the dummy as well?

I am curious as to what you consider Pak to be since you state it is not from the seed/family of Fook?


bong and pak are the same energy , one is done for lack of being fast enough to execute the other. Bong is not seen a lot because an arm has a position in space over your intended striking path. The pole gives a lot of direction in force use.

[Sihing73]

bong and pak are the same energy , one is done for lack of being fast enough to execute the other. Bong is not seen a lot because an arm has a position in space over your intended striking path. The pole gives a lot of direction in force use.

Kevin,

Afraid I do not agree with Bong and Pak being the same energy.

Pak Sau is presented at a slight forward/upward/downard angle and is exerting force or presenting an obstruction which accepts the incoming energy and causes the punch, etc to be deflected by the structure.

Bong on the other hand is caused by the energy coming across the outside of the arm and forcing the arm to rotate into Bong Sau. The energy being directed towards the opposite shoulder creates the Bong. Should the energy not cross the hand then a Tuan would be the most likely response. Of course nothing is set in stone.

IME one is reactive and one is active.

Would be interest in who you see them as being the same?

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Sihing73;1172410]Kevin,

Afraid I do not agree with Bong and Pak being the same energy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not.

joy chaudhuri

[k gledhill]

I cant change your minds by typing :D

[Sihing73]

I cant change your minds by typing :D

No, but you could elaborate and explain why you think they are the same energy :D

We are free to disagree, but perhaps if you explained your POV it may lead to a better understanding.

[k gledhill]

Why do bong sao ? to remove an arm that has crossed over your own. Not in contact, just in the space you need to make a punch with wu sao...if you take your arm around to pak sao the timing wont allow it, you may be hit. So we use bong to maintain facing and slap the arm with the fast rotation of the raising elbow, left to right or right to, left....
Boxers use a similar raised forearm to knock a punch away. There is no sticky ideas or arm chasing either. They are trying to cover their midsection and raise the elbow up, We would use the bong as a slapping action as pak sao and quickly drop the elbow back down as chi-sao to strike again. Bong doesnt stay up unless the opponent pulls it at themselves and we cant drop it.
Hand speed not sticking creates ballistic force of impact. We can displace objects with suddn ging force to trun them, upset their centers, create fast assaults with striking to ko them asap...

Chi-sao gives us a partner who will hit me in the face if my bong sao collpases during drilling , striking exchanges. If I over extend it he will counter it, if I over turn with it, he will trap my elbow. Chi-sao is the place to protect the face mindlessly

Sparring you cant think about bongs angles, overturning errors....or make panicked response chasing a guys hands wailing in on you. You need to move strike use bong like a parrying pak sao and get back to hitting him. Not turn it into a pressure fest of over-trapping sumo stuff.

[WC1277]

Why do bong sao ? to remove an arm that has crossed over your own. Not in contact, just in the space you need to make a punch with wu sao...if you take your arm around to pak sao the timing wont allow it, you may be hit. So we use bong to maintain facing and slap the arm with the fast rotation of the raising elbow, left to right or right to, left....
Boxers use a similar raised forearm to knock a punch away. There is no sticky ideas or arm chasing either. They are trying to cover their midsection and raise the elbow up, We would use the bong as a slapping action as pak sao and quickly drop the elbow back down as chi-sao to strike again. Bong doesnt stay up unless the opponent pulls it at themselves and we cant drop it.
Hand speed not sticking creates ballistic force of impact. We can displace objects with suddn ging force to trun them, upset their centers, create fast assaults with striking to ko them asap...

Chi-sao gives us a partner who will hit me in the face if my bong sao collpases during drilling , striking exchanges. If I over extend it he will counter it, if I over turn with it, he will trap my elbow. Chi-sao is the place to protect the face mindlessly

Sparring you cant think about bongs angles, overturning errors....or make panicked response chasing a guys hands wailing in on you. You need to move strike use bong like a parrying pak sao and get back to hitting him. Not turn it into a pressure fest of over-trapping sumo stuff.

Then what would you consider lan sau energy is associated with or out of chi sau why can one Pak with their fok hand while their other is in bong? What is the natural response to Jong sau being threatened by incoming force? How does one not chase if their Pak sau is a response to a crossed arm actively?

[k gledhill]

Then what would you consider lan sau energy is associated with or out of chi sau why can one Pak with their fok hand while their other is in bong? What is the natural response to Jong sau being threatened by incoming force? How does one not chase if their Pak sau is a response to a crossed arm actively?

Lan is an elbow force also as pak sao/ bong sao with a solid barrier to create a barrier as well.
A well used lan sao will also turn an opponent so his following hand wont turn towards you.

An example of lan elbow use would be , I tried to hit you in the face, you covered by dropping your face and turning away slightly, so my right arm is aimed across you left side turning to me to rotate away. It is quicker for my elbow to 'dig' into your arm and make you turn more than you wanted to, stopping you slipping me and rotating back with a strong counter...if I take my arm away and try to use my hand its slower and you are moving in my timing too....if you manage to reface and strike at my apex point my lan sao is already to take your arm and turn it the other way ...

[k gledhill]

http://youtu.be/FQBhp-2nQ-E

2:28 bong sao

[Vajramusti]

http://youtu.be/FQBhp-2nQ-E

2:28 bong sao
---------------------------------------------------------
Showing the same type of PB videos again ? what is the inference from seeing that stuff?
Roll a little and then push....


koy chaudhuri

[guy b.]

Good posts from K Gledhill explaining clearly what wing chun is and what it is not. People shouldn't take these as criticism.

[Ali. R]

Showing the same type of PB videos again ? what is the inference from seeing that stuff?
Roll a little and then push....

I see a lot of systems doing that as well, but I can’t follow the logic. Some are actually taught or told to do that (push); that’s a good question. I’ve heard some say: “Jut, Push or even Pull”, but not within that relevance.

[WC1277]

......Some are actually taught or told to do that (push); that’s a good question. I’ve heard some say: “Jut, Push or even Pull”.......

Focusing on any one of those is the quickest way to getting hit or losing your balance in reality....

[k gledhill]

---------------------------------------------------------
Showing the same type of PB videos again ? what is the inference from seeing that stuff?
Roll a little and then push....


koy chaudhuri

Did you see the time frame?

[LFJ]

If you have your opponent in a weaker position and there is a bench behind them like in the video, or stairs, a wall, another attacker, its a quick way to end a fight or deal with multiple attackers.

Pushing wouldn't be used to create large distance and reset in a fight. Once again, chi-sau is not fighting...

Some of you seem to think pushing and pulling are not practical in fighting. I wonder why? They are part of the system for a reason.

[Vajramusti]

If you have your opponent in a weaker position and there is a bench behind them like in the video, or stairs, a wall, another attacker, its a quick way to end a fight or deal with multiple attackers.

Pushing wouldn't be used to create large distance and reset in a fight. Once again, chi-sau is not fighting...

Some of you seem to think pushing and pulling are not practical in fighting. I wonder why? They are part of the system for a reason.
---------------------------------------------
Of course push/pull can be practical. An issue if it is predictable,

joy chaudhuri

[LFJ]

Kevin,

Afraid I do not agree with Bong and Pak being the same energy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not.


No, but you could elaborate and explain why you think they are the same energy :D

We are free to disagree, but perhaps if you explained your POV it may lead to a better understanding.

There are different types of bong-sau with different types of energy.

Not sure if Joy is just trying to be obnoxious by saying this and then criticizing Philipp Bayer instead of noticing the timestamp referenced in the video, which is the part of relevance to the discussion here.

View the timestamp on the following video and I believe you will see the same elbow energy of paak-sau being used in bong-sau when the position doesn't allow for a paak. The effect is also the same.

As he explained here:


Why do bong sao ? to remove an arm that has crossed over your own. Not in contact, just in the space you need to make a punch with wu sao...if you take your arm around to pak sao the timing wont allow it, you may be hit.


http://youtu.be/FQBhp-2nQ-E

2:28 bong sao

[Vajramusti]

There are different types of bong-sau with different types of energy.

Not sure if Joy is just trying to be obnoxious by saying this and then criticizing Philipp Bayer instead of noticing the timestamp referenced in the video, which is the part of relevance to the discussion here.

View the timestamp on the following video and I believe you will see the same elbow energy of paak-sau being used in bong-sau when the position doesn't allow for a paak. The effect is also the same.

As he explained here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obnoxious? Not my intent. Meaning and context are inter-related. For DEVELOPMENT- bong and pak
are quite different-in APPLICATION you can use bong for a pak function if the occasion warrants it.


joy chaudhuri

[k gledhill]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obnoxious? Not my intent. Meaning and context are inter-related. For DEVELOPMENT- bong and pak
are quite different-in APPLICATION you can use bong for a pak function if the occasion warrants it.


joy chaudhuri


Joys ideas of use arent ours. So he would not develop the same goals as us.

[Vajramusti]

Joys ideas of use arent ours. So he would not develop the same goals as us.
-------------------------------------------------

I am glad that you warned folks.

joy chaudhuri

[Sihing73]

Amazing to me that an art that springs from one root can have so many varied branches.

Like life some nurture and grow and others die.

Said it before and will say it again. If anyone had the one true way then they would be wiping the floor with everyone else and be obviously superior.

Since that is not the case it leads me to wonder why something as simple as understanding the energy of Bong as opossed to Pak can be so diverse and potentially misleading.

I mean I would think that the core basics would remain somewhat consistent when drinking from the same source.

Hmmmm here is my new POV. The energy of Bong and Pak are the same as they all make use of the human body. Thus the human kinetics is the key and all energy is one and the same.

See now we can all agree, unless someone wants to argue that the human body provides different energy for their approach than everyone else :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Amazing to me that an art that springs from one root can have so many varied branches.

Like life some nurture and grow and others die.

Said it before and will say it again. If anyone had the one true way then they would be wiping the floor with everyone else and be obviously superior.

Since that is not the case it leads me to wonder why something as simple as understanding the energy of Bong as opossed to Pak can be so diverse and potentially misleading.

I mean I would think that the core basics would remain somewhat consistent when drinking from the same source.

Hmmmm here is my new POV. The energy of Bong and Pak are the same as they all make use of the human body. Thus the human kinetics is the key and all energy is one and the same.

See now we can all agree, unless someone wants to argue that the human body provides different energy for their approach than everyone else :D

I THINK they are trying to say that how that energy is EXPRESSED is different.
;)

[Wayfaring]

I don't think bong and pak energy are the same either. We use 2 bongs with different energies and neither are similar to pak. To me the bong arm shape doesn't have structure in that direction so I wouldn't use it that way - very awkward movement with little structure, so it doesn't fit to me.

However, if someone can make it work in fighting then add it as a possibility to the arsenal. In grappling we have a term called a "lower percentage submission". This is a sub which catches noobs and white belts, and it doesn't work well on higher than blue. To me that's the category that a side to side pak motion with a bong sau applies to. At least to me.

[k gledhill]

You have to have the energy expressed to appreciate the value of the technique. The whole tactical approach becomes clearly evident when you see the results of ballistic force on a resisting opponent ;) The science of fighting

Bong is a technique that need to be 100% if we use it, ergo mindless chi-sao reps

[Sihing73]

You have to have the energy expressed to appreciate the value of the technique. The whole tactical approach becomes clearly evident when you see the results of ballistic force on a resisting opponent ;) The science of fighting

Bong is a technique that need to be 100% if we use it, ergo mindless chi-sao reps

Hmm so are you saying that those who do things differently have never experienced this energy expression? Does this mean that only a select few have the training and understanding of how to apply the techniques and energy correctly?

I would agree that Bong is either good or bad. If done properly it is an excellent technique. If done badly it is worthless.

So, do you advocate using the Bong as a forceful technique? Does the Bong Shape form of its own accord or as a result of energy given to it? If of energy given to it how can it also be like Pak? I am actually interested in your answers but not if they are without substance.

[k gledhill]

Hmm so are you saying that those who do things differently have never experienced this energy expression? Does this mean that only a select few have the training and understanding of how to apply the techniques and energy correctly?

I would agree that Bong is either good or bad. If done properly it is an excellent technique. If done badly it is worthless.

So, do you advocate using the Bong as a forceful technique? Does the Bong Shape form of its own accord or as a result of energy given to it? If of energy given to it how can it also be like Pak? I am actually interested in your answers but not if they are without substance.

Bong shouldnt be a reliant on another to create it, thats a chi-sao warrior thinking. You use it IN chi-sao to develop it for fighting out of chi-sao drills.
You use it with ballistic force like a pak sao to displace a bridge, not create it. I want to hit you not feel your intentions.

did you see the clip ?

[Sihing73]

Hm, so in your view Bong is created on its own, would that be correct?

So if I am understanding you correctly; you use Bong to disrupt an opponents structure much like Pak or Gaun. Is that correct?

Why would you use the shap of Bong to cause disruption? Aren't there other shapes more accessible which serve the same purpose and do not put your arm in an unnatural position?

So the Bong in the Dummy form, as you do it, is used to exert force akin to striking, would this be correct?

The low Bong Saus in the forms are they also used to disrupt? If so, again why the distinct shape?

What I am getting at is why Bong, what causes the shape and energy of Bong and why use it when other shapes are more natural and accessible?

[k gledhill]

Hm, so in your view Bong is created on its own, would that be correct?

So if I am understanding you correctly; you use Bong to disrupt an opponents structure much like Pak or Gaun. Is that correct?

Why would you use the shap of Bong to cause disruption? Aren't there other shapes more accessible which serve the same purpose and do not put your arm in an unnatural position?

So the Bong in the Dummy form, as you do it, is used to exert force akin to striking, would this be correct?

The low Bong Saus in the forms are they also used to disrupt? If so, again why the distinct shape?

What I am getting at is why Bong, what causes the shape and energy of Bong and why use it when other shapes are more natural and accessible?

The elbow of the bong is the critical part, raising the elbow of thebong so you slap a punch to opposite ears. This enables you to attack forwards while making a punch go past your face either side.
The low bong on the dummy is to develop the sharp slapping force. The height of bong is only relevant to the arm your using it on and yours, same energy , same tactical purpose. Displacing a bridge.

The low bongs in the form are purely to create sharp rotational force to the center line, but you only use one at a time fighting obviously, at the required height of the interaction. Once you get it you will injure your students so take care. You can easily fracture an arm.

[GlennR]

]The elbow of the bong is the critical part, raising the elbow of thebong so you slap a punch to opposite ears. This enables you to attack forwards while making a punch go past your face either side.

Is there a bridge already or are you using bong to create the bridge (and then your subsequent action) ?

[k gledhill]

Is there a bridge already or are you using bong to create the bridge (and then your subsequent action) ?

No bridge, no bridge seeking, bong is making the gap to strike into. There is something in your way, you remove it violently. The contact of arms is micro second of energy transfer, ballistic force. Like you would slap an arm away form your center, sideways.

[WC1277]

The elbow of the bong is the critical part, raising the elbow of thebong so you slap a punch to opposite ears. This enables you to attack forwards while making a punch go past your face either side.
The low bong on the dummy is to develop the sharp slapping force. The height of bong is only relevant to the arm your using it on and yours, same energy , same tactical purpose. Displacing a bridge.

The low bongs in the form are purely to create sharp rotational force to the center line, but you only use one at a time fighting obviously, at the required height of the interaction. Once you get it you will injure your students so take care. You can easily fracture an arm.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you're developing that technique for that purpose then you are truly no different then a "chi sao warrior" whom doesn't see the big picture. That technique is a WC trick. A trick is anything someone does in chi sao or sparring that specifically focuses on a weakness within the person or the system. Your "bong" is a trick that is and would be of value to only one who is punching you with their elbow down. That's the way a lot of people see the WSL system. A system of tricks modified specifically for other Chinese martial arts. Even Hawkins Cheung alluded to that. Your "bong", and I mean the WSL/PB bong, is pretty much worthless to the majority of western styles of fighting however and you need to recognize that one of these days. On another note, Ip Man did not either fight or do chi sao the way PB teaches his system. If one could say WSL was a mixture of Ip Man and his own evolvement, one could say PB is a complete detachment from Ip Man WC entirely. So do yourself a favor and remember that next time you proclaim your inherited truth. There are many students who have said that Ip Man barely moved in chi sao and his entire focus was on, not to qoute Bruce Lee here, but was being like water in both attack and defense. This tactical, angling, ballistic force crap is and was not a focus. It was timing and absorbing/redirecting force. Period.

Also there is a difference between low bong and high bong. You are correct that low bong is created on your own but it's not for "ballistic" reasons. Your body does the work but your bong does the scooping and this is important.....towards your opponents center, to disrupt their center of gravity!!!!!! Geez Luiz!

[k gledhill]

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you're developing that technique for that purpose then you are truly no different then a "chi sao warrior" whom doesn't see the big picture. That technique is a WC trick. A trick is anything someone does in chi sao or sparring that specifically focuses on a weakness within the person or the system. Your "bong" is a trick that is and would be of value to only one who is punching you with their elbow down. That's the way a lot of people see the WSL system. A system of tricks modified specifically for other Chinese martial arts. Even Hawkins Cheung alluded to that. Your "bong", and I mean the WSL/PB bong, is pretty much worthless to the majority of western styles of fighting however and you need to recognize that one of these days. On another note, Ip Man did not either fight or do chi sao the way PB teaches his system. If one could say WSL was a mixture of Ip Man and his own evolvement, one could say PB is a complete detachment from Ip Man WC entirely. So do yourself a favor and remember that next time you proclaim your inherited truth. There are many students who have said that Ip Man barely moved in chi sao and his entire focus was on, not to qoute Bruce Lee here, but was being like water in both attack and defense. This tactical, angling, ballistic force crap is and was not a focus. It was timing and absorbing/redirecting force. Period.

Also there is a difference between low bong and high bong. You are correct that low bong is created on your own but it's not for "ballistic" reasons. Your body does the work but your bong does the scooping and this is important.....towards your opponents center, to disrupt their center of gravity!!!!!! Geez Luiz!


You dont know what your talking about WC1277 , if that's your real name :D

BTW Hawkins Cheung once complemented me personally on my bong saos at a dinner after a seminar we did at his school in L.A. my left one he said was better :)

No tricks, skill. I use this stuff to spar guys, it works. In fact I get compliments from the other boxing coaches in the gym I train at in Brooklyn. They are all fighters not chi-sao warriors like yourself ;)

I also want you to remember I met and did a little friendly exchanging with a guy who had done years with your lineage. In a second or two I had hit him easily like a kids game as he chased my hands one way I hit him another...he didnt know what to do if I didnt let him touch my hands ....even he agreed he would have to unlearn the obvious mistakes of over indulging in arm pressure seeking...his words. Sad all those years wasted.

[WC1277]

You dont know what your talking about WC1277 , if that's your real name :D

BTW Hawkins Cheung once complemented me personally on my bong saos at a dinner after a seminar we did at his school in L.A. my left one he said was better :)

No tricks, skill. I use this stuff to spar guys, it works. In fact I get compliments from the other boxing coaches in the gym I train at in Brooklyn. They are all fighters not chi-sao warriors like yourself ;)

I also want you to remember I met and did a little friendly exchanging with a guy who had done years with your lineage. In a second or two I had hit him easily like a kids game as he chased my hands one way I hit him another...he didnt know what to do if I didnt let him touch my hands ....even he agreed he would have to unlearn the obvious mistakes of over indulging in arm pressure seeking...his words. Sad all those years wasted.

If that's my real name? What!?

Speaking of names, it'd be sure nice to know the name of the gentleman you speak of? Also, a seminar with whom?

[Ozzy Dave]

Your "bong", and I mean the WSL/PB bong, is pretty much worthless to the majority of western styles of fighting however and you need to recognize that one of these days.

I don't understand what you are getting at here, are you saying it dosen't work against boxing for instance?


This tactical, angling, ballistic force crap is and was not a focus. It was timing and absorbing/redirecting force. Period.

I have to say I agree with Kevin on this one, his description of bong sao is spot on from my experience.

The angling ballistic force is what is required for redirecting force, absorbing force is another way of saying "getting hit". The higher your level the less overt your application appears that's all.

Dave

[k gledhill]

I don't understand what you are getting at here, are you saying it dosen't work against boxing for instance?



I have to say I agree with Kevin on this one, his description of bong sao is spot on from my experience.

The angling ballistic force is what is required for redirecting force, absorbing force is another way of saying "getting hit". The higher your level the less overt your application appears that's all.

Dave

It works for me very well, its fast and helps to overturn guys without turning ourselves. It worked for YM~WSL~PB, its good enough for me :D

The beauty of the idea is that the speed of bong is not only in raising the elbow, but lowering it equally as fast back to a centered striking elbow position in the blink of an eye....FAST.

[GlennR]

It works for me very well, its fast and helps to overturn guys without turning ourselves. It worked for YM~WSL~PB, its good enough for me :D

Well im glad it does, but having said that it goes against how id use/what ive been taught bong.

But all the ballistic stuff aside, i agree with WC1277 in regards to a boxers punch with elbows out, say a cross or jab. Youre going to have to raise that arm up to pick up the forearm, particularly if he's tall.

Not being the WC purist, but i just dont see it working.

But im open to being convinced otherwise

[k gledhill]

Well im glad it does, but having said that it goes against how id use/what ive been taught bong.

But all the ballistic stuff aside, i agree with WC1277 in regards to a boxers punch with elbows out, say a cross or jab. Youre going to have to raise that arm up to pick up the forearm, particularly if he's tall.

Not being the WC purist, but i just dont see it working.

But im open to being convinced otherwise

As mentioned bong is low %

Ah here we have an arm chasers perspective...we can, dare I say it....move too.
I know a crazy notion of simply angling and moving to a guys punches :D

The ideas of parrying are to clear a way for my attacks. I have kicks too, that can be in range long before a boxers punch.

Have a look at Sean66 clip in the chi-sao thread for movement ideas.

I do fine with boxers. Boxing is a skill set like any martial art, each individual is different from the next, weight, reach, fitness levels, skills.

[k gledhill]

In the first form the Bong Sou is unfinished. - Wong Shun Leung

[Vajramusti]

In the first form the Bong Sou is unfinished. - Wong Shun Leung
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Without a context or a longer full explanation by WSL himself- not KG's interpretation -the intent pf the WSL snip
is unclear and incomplete.

Changes in slt motions occur with chum kiu development.

joy chaudhuri

[GlennR]

As mentioned bong is low %

Actually pull it of all the town in the clinch range


Ah here we have an arm chasers perspective...we can, dare I say it....move too.
I know a crazy notion of simply angling and moving to a guys punches :D

No, a boxers perspective..... and from my POV you ll be too slow to pick up a jab and at the wrong angle to pick up the cross. Sounds like youre trying to outbox a boxer.......... it just wont work


The ideas of parrying are to clear a way for my attacks

Fine but isnt that all a bit 1-2..... in fact it borders on trading shots


. I have kicks too, that can be in range long before a boxers punch.

Ok, he's a MT guy now..... what now?


Have a look at Sean66 clip in the chi-sao thread for movement ideas.

I have, but i dont remember any effective "broken bongs" from memory... ill have another look though


I do fine with boxers. Boxing is a skill set like any martial art, each individual is different from the next, weight, reach, fitness levels, skills.

Ofcourse, but the argument is about diff ideas about bong


Here's a clip of some fairly handy boxers throwing jabs.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBnBcGst5CI

Just watch the 1st 30 seconds and look at Bowes jab... how are you going to pick that up with bong? Especially if you are a bit shorter?
And if your reply is to come in/angle, youll just be too slow

[WC1277]

Have a look at Sean66 clip in the chi-sao thread for movement ideas.


The funny thing is, if watched closely, every bong sau used in that clip that wasn't out of lop sau was the exact opposite of your description of bong sau. They were all created by the opponent....

.....and you still haven't answered my questions?....

[k gledhill]

Actually pull it of all the town in the clinch range



No, a boxers perspective..... and from my POV you ll be too slow to pick up a jab and at the wrong angle to pick up the cross. Sounds like youre trying to outbox a boxer.......... it just wont work



Fine but isnt that all a bit 1-2..... in fact it borders on trading shots



Ok, he's a MT guy now..... what now?



I have, but i dont remember any effective "broken bongs" from memory... ill have another look though



Ofcourse, but the argument is about diff ideas about bong


Here's a clip of some fairly handy boxers throwing jabs.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBnBcGst5CI

Just watch the 1st 30 seconds and look at Bowes jab... how are you going to pick that up with bong? Especially if you are a bit shorter?
And if your reply is to come in/angle, youll just be too slow

um no, not trying to use bong sao for jab or cross as a primary, but you're maybe misinterpreting my post..intentionally :)
Who could catch a jab with bong ? classic 'snatch pebble from hand' scenario...:)

angling and movement guys. A & M !

[k gledhill]

The funny thing is, if watched closely, every bong sau used in that clip that wasn't out of lop sau was the exact opposite of your description of bong sau. They were all created by the opponent....

.....and you still haven't answered my questions?....

Whatever wc1277 , if thats your real name :D

[k gledhill]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Without a context or a longer full explanation by WSL himself- not KG's interpretation -the intent pf the WSL snip
is unclear and incomplete.

Changes in slt motions occur with chum kiu development.

joy chaudhuri

without chum kil , dynamics , ballistics, etc....come on Joy I thought you knew everything :)

Not KG's ideas, what does he know , eh ? ;) Dont believe me , go out and try it in a fight Joy.

[Vajramusti]

without chum kil , dynamics , ballistics, etc....come on Joy I thought you knew everything :)

Not KG's ideas, what does he know , eh ? ;) Dont believe me , go out and try it in a fight Joy.



----------------------

??? Not very clear on what you try to convey at times. Believe you in what?Of course chum kiu is part of wing chun development and adds dimensions to slt motions.. That is not much of an insight
and a little snip pf a WSL quote does not make it so..

joy chaudhuri

[k gledhill]

----------------------

??? Not very clear on what you try to convey at times. Believe you in what?Of course chum kiu is part of wing chun development and adds dimensions to slt motions.. That is not much of an insight
and a little snip pf a WSL quote does not make it so..

joy chaudhuri

That was the quote.....Its pretty clear that without some dynamics its all arm alone in slt.

[Vajramusti]

That was the quote.....Its pretty clear that without some dynamics its all arm alone in slt.
--------------------------------------------------
No kidding- of course but some devil in the important details. Arms are not sticks.
BTW- there is always a context-time, place, audience. preceding discussion.

joy chaudhuri

[GlennR]

um no, not trying to use bong sao for jab or cross as a primary, but you're maybe misinterpreting my post..intentionally :)

Well then what do you use it for? Home renovation?


Who could catch a jab with bong ? classic 'snatch pebble from hand' scenario...:)

Classic "im not going to answer"


angling and movement guys. A & M !

So youll step out of the way. Well you'll have to otherwise youll get belted using your thinking

[k gledhill]

Well then what do you use it for? Home renovation?



Classic "im not going to answer"



So youll step out of the way. Well you'll have to otherwise youll get belted using your thinking

Bong Low % , repeating myself here.

Um yeah, belted, thanks for the obvious, we use A & M predominantly :rolleyes:

classic, dont understand the analogy response. :D

VT has a straight kick all its own , why the MT snip ?

[k gledhill]

--------------------------------------------------
No kidding- of course but some devil in the important details. Arms are not sticks.
BTW- there is always a context-time, place, audience. preceding discussion.

joy chaudhuri

So why ask me to spell it out ?

We see a lot of guys who try to do the opposite of ballistic destruction of structure, bringing pain along with it, by allowing structure to stay unmoved and leaning AWAY from the levers and axis lines available. Destroying the bridges or attempts made, sink them, bridge the gap by clearing the way, end the fight asap , iow how to remove obstructions.

Its like they are attacking a person by leaning away in error at the same time with an arm that is simply making contact while the punch is also leaning away ....this is allowing an arm and a person to remain unchecked.

[Vajramusti]

So why ask me to spell it out ?

We see a lot of guys who try to do the opposite of ballistic destruction of structure, bringing pain along with it, by allowing structure to stay unmoved and leaning AWAY from the levers and axis lines available. Destroying the bridges or attempts made, sink them, bridge the gap by clearing the way, end the fight asap , iow how to remove obstructions.

Its like they are attacking a person by leaning away in error at the same time with an arm that is simply making contact while the punch is also leaning away ....this is allowing an arm and a person to remain unchecked.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Very little precision of context or meanings in this part of the discussion. Let's forget it.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

I can't actually believe this thread is still going?

Something that starts out as quite an open discussion about the three seeds has turned into pretty closed minded banter about bong sau!

Typical really, so I'm not surprised at all.

[k gledhill]

-------------------------------------------------------------
Very little precision of context or meanings in this part of the discussion. Let's forget it.

joy chaudhuri

You're not the only one I am making posts for.
If you don't understand something ask. Your pompous dismissive replies are tedious.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can't actually believe this thread is still going?

Something that starts out as quite an open discussion about the three seeds has turned into pretty closed minded banter about bong sau!

Typical really, so I'm not surprised at all.

Bah !!
At only 78 replies, this thread pales in comparison with the chi sao thread and the 250 there !!
:D

[LoneTiger108]

Bah !!
At only 78 replies, this thread pales in comparison with the chi sao thread and the 250 there !!
:D

:eek: Don't get me started on Chisau! Without a good grouding in the Wing Chun three seeds, what chisau?

[k gledhill]

:eek: Don't get me started on Chisau! Without a good grouding in the Wing Chun three seeds, what chisau?

You had to go there.....:D

[GlennR]

Bong Low % , repeating myself here.

Um yeah, belted, thanks for the obvious, we use A & M predominantly :rolleyes:

classic, dont understand the analogy response. :D

VT has a straight kick all its own , why the MT snip ?

You were saying WC had kicks, i was just highlighting its not alone.

So im confused, you tell everyone how bong should be, show a 1 second snippet of Bayer at a seminar highlighting your point (while he does bong at contact throughout the rest of that clip) and then when asked how it would work in a given situation your reply is "angle & move"..... why not just duck if thats your approach

[k gledhill]

You were saying WC had kicks, i was just highlighting its not alone.

So im confused, you tell everyone how bong should be, show a 1 second snippet of Bayer at a seminar highlighting your point (while he does bong at contact throughout the rest of that clip) and then when asked how it would work in a given situation your reply is "angle & move"..... why not just duck if thats your approach


VT has kicks that work in unison with hands, facing. Using bong sao in a fight comes from development in forms, chi-sao for energy exchanges so it doesnt collapse into our face while using it, dummy for enhancing ballistic force accuracy.
A & M is a way to limit the opponents ability to face and function 100%. Ballistics help to attack arms trying to, or intercepting our attack lines. Bong is simply the fastest way if your arm is over mine, without withdrawing my hand.

[Vajramusti]

:eek: Don't get me started on Chisau! Without a good grouding in the Wing Chun three seeds, what chisau?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting note- not directed at anyone.
Sometimes there is a de-emphasis on Chi Sao.
Ko Kin was one of the early and long standing students of WSL. An acquaintance of mine atteneded his school. Here is Ko Kon's take on the importance of chi sao:

What is the main importance of Chi Sau?

Ko Kin There are many variations and thus it is an important drill to be used for real life fighting. It also promotes a habit to develop instinctive reactions to your opponent’s force. Some people in other countries I have heard practise Ving Tsun and place little or no importance on Chi Sau and instead use set routines, maybe they do not really understand Ving Tsun and they should really be doing something else. Chi Sau is not used for planned attacks and defences. It is used in a situation where anything and everything can happen. You should not need to think about what you are going to do, but to merely feel your opponent’s force, deflect it and penetrate through to your opponent. Do not follow your opponent’s hands, but follow your opponent with your punches.
-----------------------------------------------

joy chaudhuri

[CFT]

I'm sure not a few of us are talking pass each other. That Ko Kin statement doesn't contradict anybody's position on chi sau that I have read here on these forums.

The only issue is the timeframe for "feeling the opponent's force". Chi sau practice should refine the contact response to obstacles (i.e. opponent's limbs) to our striking.

[LoneTiger108]

... Ko Kin said: Some people in other countries I have heard practise Ving Tsun and place little or no importance on Chi Sau and instead use set routines, maybe they do not really understand Ving Tsun and they should really be doing something else.

I'm sorry Joy, but this is just as narrow minded as, say, Tan sau is only for striking! ;) It isn't a good example of how to behave in the Wing Chun community. It is specifically aimed at alienating anyone who learnt from Sifus that were nothing to do with Ip Man in HK. Namely the Kulo Wing Chun being promoted at the time.

If your curriculums originate from the HK era then Chisau will be a major influence, if they come from an earlier time they may not spend so much time on Chisau. Nothing bad about that IMHO, but there does need to be a good balance.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the HK method introduces double rotaton during Chum Kiu? I ask because what I see much of these days there is very little evidence of this being adhered to and students enter Chisau far far too early.

[CFT]

I don't think you should take the term 'chi sau' too literally. Like you say there are different interactive platforms.

[GlennR]

I'm sorry Joy, but this is just as narrow minded as, say, Tan sau is only for striking! ;) It isn't a good example of how to behave in the Wing Chun community. It is specifically aimed at alienating anyone who learnt from Sifus that were nothing to do with Ip Man in HK. Namely the Kulo Wing Chun being promoted at the time.

If your curriculums originate from the HK era then Chisau will be a major influence, if they come from an earlier time they may not spend so much time on Chisau. Nothing bad about that IMHO, but there does need to be a good balance.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the HK method introduces double rotaton during Chum Kiu? I ask because what I see much of these days there is very little evidence of this being adhered to and students enter Chisau far far too early.

Well said Spencer, Joys preference to IM is fine but borders on the offensive from time to time........ we do agree on the odd occasion ;)

[Vajramusti]

I'm sure not a few of us are talking pass each other. That Ko Kin statement doesn't contradict anybody's position on chi sau that I have read here on these forums.

The only issue is the timeframe for "feeling the opponent's force". Chi sau practice should refine the contact response to obstacles (i.e. opponent's limbs) to our striking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chee-IMO
KoKin's statement Reinforces the importance of chi sao.On the forum there has been some questioning of the importance of chi sao as I recall.
There is also more to the chi sao- among other things it keeps on building up hand structures, teaches dynamic control of motions minimizing entries to one's body, maximizing entry into the others' body or bodies unbalancing structure of opponent even before a striking... even sensing forces and power before contact.

joy chaudhuri

[Vajramusti]

I'm sorry Joy, but this is just as narrow minded as, say, Tan sau is only for striking! ;) It isn't a good example of how to behave in the Wing Chun community.

(((Wing chun community? In the strict sense of the word? Really?? perhaps a wish??))

It is specifically aimed at alienating anyone who learnt from Sifus that were nothing to do with Ip Man in HK. Namely the Kulo Wing Chun being promoted at the time.

((???????Kulo has their own touch/timing chi sao routines.YKS has chi sao.))


Correct me if I am wrong, but the HK method introduces double rotaton during Chum Kiu? I ask because what I see much of these days there is very little evidence of this being adhered to and students enter Chisau far far too early.

(((The slt has sections for single hand and double hand training))

joy chaudhuri

[Happy Tiger]

>sigh< l'm learning more from how ya'll impart knowlege than what you are imparting. Good to know if I ever become a teacher of Gung Fu.

[k gledhill]

I'm sure not a few of us are talking pass each other. That Ko Kin statement doesn't contradict anybody's position on chi sau that I have read here on these forums.

The only issue is the timeframe for "feeling the opponent's force". Chi sau practice should refine the contact response to obstacles (i.e. opponent's limbs) to our striking.

Plus development of coordination in hands to react without contact. Iow we can 'read' force coming at us and react intuitively. A lot of VT is in the mind as movement based on entry from Chi sao.

[CFT]

Plus development of coordination in hands to react without contact. Iow we can 'read' force coming at us and react intuitively. A lot of VT is in the mind as movement based on entry from Chi sao.Do you see how close this is to what Joy is saying?

[Vajramusti]

Do you see how close this is to what Joy is saying?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely.

joy

[k gledhill]

Do you see how close this is to what Joy is saying?

Sure, the subtleties are in doing too much feeling chasing hands. Compared to reflex reactions based off chi sao. Subtle but a world apart in end results

[Vajramusti]

Sure, the subtleties are in doing too much feeling chasing hands. Compared to reflex reactions based off chi sao. Subtle but a world apart in end results
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not chasing hands is an oft quoted wc principle-but one has to apply that principle with practiced precision.

joy chaudhuri

[k gledhill]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not chasing hands is an oft quoted wc principle-but one has to apply that principle with practiced precision.

joy chaudhuri

The subtlety is the idea that someone finds YOUR hands as you are hitting them, they are trying to stop you, the chi-sao allows us to flow on, but one arm leading one arm following, not as the drill with both arms extended looking to feel/chase for control prior to striking always.

Put another way, if a guy knows you are a 'sticky hand driller' he can play with that by offering hands as barriers and then suddenly removing the intended contact, this can be done while slipping, shifting , leaving the guy looking like he is simply trying to touch your arms, not hit you in the jaw. A humiliating experience for guys who have done years and years of chi-sao.

We fight with our centerline as reference not the opponents arms. Our arms move with our centerline , not off it to chase....

[WC1277]

The subtlety is the idea that someone finds YOUR hands as you are hitting them, they are trying to stop you, the chi-sao allows us to flow on, but one arm leading one arm following, not as the drill with both arms extended looking to feel/chase for control prior to striking always.

Put another way, if a guy knows you are a 'sticky hand driller' he can play with that by offering hands as barriers and then suddenly removing the intended contact, this can be done while slipping, shifting , leaving the guy looking like he is simply trying to touch your arms, not hit you in the jaw.

We fight with our centerline as reference not the opponents arms. Our arms move with our centerline , not off it to chase....

What is your point? I don't know about others but our system is very heavily based on NOT chasing and the interaction of incoming force and redirection or neutralization while maintaining centerline facing while attacking. I dare say this, but the majority of your beloved videos are filled with chasing. There is much more to chasing than just arm chasing btw....

[k gledhill]

What is your point? I don't know about others but our system is very heavily based on NOT chasing and the interaction of incoming force and redirection or neutralization while maintaining centerline facing while attacking. I dare say this, but the majority of your beloved videos are filled with chasing. There is much more to chasing than just arm chasing btw....

Whatever wc1277....:D you keep thinking that way.

[Happy Tiger]

This is why, for me, VT 3 rule is most basic. When the hand is free, hit instinctively and directly. Ya'll are in a sea of technocrap right now, sorry to say. Rule 3. Half of everything in VT is out if one only remains true to rule 3.

[WC1277]

Whatever wc1277....:D you keep thinking that way.

The difference Kevin is that when we move forward with our structure that includes our arm triangle therefor both hands always go forward within the triangle working together. Fong Sifu describes what is called concrete chisel and wood chisel. If you're familiar how those two instruments work you could relate it to WC structure. While we try to always go in with concrete chisel and only switch to wood if the opponent makes us, it appears as if not only does the PB use almost entirely wood chisel, you also create it yourself which defeats the purpose in the first place and leads to 'planning'. This also results in you having two moves instead of one. Your body turns to create it and then has to turn again to hit with any kind of significant power. That is no good. It's ok to use both types of chisel but using wood on your own for no reason is pointless....

[sanjuro_ronin]

No WC system chases hands, that is the one thing that in EVERY "bridge art" you MUST not do.
So, why do we see so much of it?
Simple, when you spend most of your time "seeking" to bridge, you will "chase" that bridge.
When your system is based on CONTACT, you will "seek" that contact.

[WC1277]

No WC system chases hands, that is the one thing that in EVERY "bridge art" you MUST not do.
So, why do we see so much of it?
Simple, when you spend most of your time "seeking" to bridge, you will "chase" that bridge.
When your system is based on CONTACT, you will "seek" that contact.

Agree, which is one reason why learning to attack with both hands together is paramount to not chasing, let alone the other benefits structure wise....

[Sean66]

Look again at PB's videos.
There is no chasing.
It's all about letting the other guy fall into a counter attack. Tons of voiding and sophisticated control of time and space in those videos.

I think PB is giving a workshop in NY at Kevin's gym in July...those that are in the area should go and experience first-hand what we're talking about.

[k gledhill]

The difference Kevin is that when we move forward with our structure that includes our arm triangle therefor both hands always go forward within the triangle working together. Fong Sifu describes what is called concrete chisel and wood chisel. If you're familiar how those two instruments work you could relate it to WC structure. While we try to always go in with concrete chisel and only switch to wood if the opponent makes us, it appears as if not only does the PB use almost entirely wood chisel, you also create it yourself which defeats the purpose in the first place and leads to 'planning'. This also results in you having two moves instead of one. Your body turns to create it and then has to turn again to hit with any kind of significant power. That is no good. It's ok to use both types of chisel but using wood on your own for no reason is pointless....

Good for you wc1277, you chisel away....

[k gledhill]

Look again at PB's videos.
There is no chasing.
It's all about letting the other guy fall into a counter attack. Tons of voiding and sophisticated control of time and space in those videos.

I think PB is giving a workshop in NY at Kevin's gym in July...those that are in the area should go and experience first-hand what we're talking about.

The time and space factor, the time lag for thinking or not, panic time, what do I do now.....all comes to a point ...very quickly :D

[Happy Tiger]

In general, any kind of leading ,feinting or drawing should be done before contact\bridge is even made. Once in physical contact,it's this that comes to chasing so easily. Attempting to set up, lead, feint or draw in phon sau range exposes oneself to many vaguearities and unpredictable factors ... things get retarded quickly. The biggest illusion in VT is you can do this kind of rigamorole in real fighting .It just doesn't work that way in my experience. In a real fight, once the quicksilver bridge is made, do you really want to get into a chess match with a guy who's trying to kill you?

[Ali. R]

The time and space factor, the time lag for thinking or not, panic time, what do I do now.....all comes to a point ...very quickly :D

Sounds like the words of a fighter to me -or- he’s been there done that.;)

[guy b.]

I don't see what is so difficult to understand avout what k. gledhill is saying. How could wing chun work in any other way. Obviously it is a hitting art, not a weird hand wrestling type thing. Obviously bong is nothing to do with ****ing around "bridged" to another person because that doesn't happen in a real encounter: chi sau is a drill.

[EternalSpring]

...does anyone here advocate "chasing" the hands?

if not, I think it's about time people stopped talking about how Chi sao w/ chasing hands is bad. Because it seems no one is defending the idea that you just chase whatever you feel, yet someone always manages to bring it up.

[guy b.]

Seeking to bridge rather than hit is chasing hands. People here definitely advocate this as a strategy.

[Vajramusti]

Seeking to bridge rather than hit is chasing hands. People here definitely advocate this as a strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some neither chasing hands, nor seeking to bridge,

joy

[Happy Tiger]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some neither chasing hands, nor seeking to bridge,

joy
Yes, the bridge will make itself automatically. As my sifu said, "don't be tempted to 'fish' off the bridge.Cross immediatly..this is where your fish is." Better to let go of the bridge than fish off it.

[guy b.]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some neither chasing hands, nor seeking to bridge,

joy

You wait for someone to "bridge" (i.e. hit you) and then you chi sau with them rather than hitting them back?

[Happy Tiger]

You wait for someone to "bridge" (i.e. hit you) and then you chi sau with them rather than hitting them back?
Ya man :) That's why I always go back to when hand is free hit instinctively and directly. That should be before receive what comes, follow what goes. These others could be interpreted as the beginnings of 'bridge building\seeking .Just hit.

[Vajramusti]

You wait for someone to "bridge" (i.e. hit you) and then you chi sau with them rather than hitting them back?
---------------------------------------------------------
???
I said nothing of the sort. I do chi sao to improve wing chun skills. I don't do chi sao with
real opponents.

JC

[Happy Tiger]

Since sifu Alan Orr is up front right now, I thought this fits well here. Right or wrong, this is how I was taught as well. Thanks for the great clips, Alan.
Where is Tan and Bong (and fook) in sparring/ real fighting???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9mTuia70A&feature=relmfu

[Jeff_H]

Tan Bong and Fuk aren't always used together. Sometimes they are but that depends on the other person. People these days are more into other things that don't often require it anymore. Just stick when you have to, and hit when you don't. Simple.

[EternalSpring]

Seeking to bridge rather than hit is chasing hands. People here definitely advocate this as a strategy.

Oh wow, I wasn't aware of that. I thought most people looked at it more as going for the hit and anything that gets in the way will create the bridge. Although I guess there may be some merit if the idea of "seeking to bridge rather than hit" means "defending and using the defense to create the bridge." Although I would agree that's risky as hell, at least for someone like me who cant just wait there and expect to block anything thrown at me lol.

[Jeff_H]

Oh wow, I wasn't aware of that. I thought most people looked at it more as going for the hit and anything that gets in the way will create the bridge. Although I guess there may be some merit if the idea of "seeking to bridge rather than hit" means "defending and using the defense to create the bridge." Although I would agree that's risky as hell, at least for someone like me who cant just wait there and expect to block anything thrown at me lol.I like your post. I think you are correct on all counts.

[WC1277]

You just go straight to your target. Period. You don't wait. You don't square up. You don't feint. You get into range and you either attack or you deal with whatever is in between your fist and your target and then continue to attack. You don't push your opponent backwards. You don't move him sideways. You don't seek his bridge. You don't "try" to block his attack. You especially don't try to block circular motions around the line. You don't even hit until you're as close as your bent arm will allow. You're going to get hit. You're going to miss. You're only focus is that target. Your only goal is to disrupt his center of gravity. You want to keep him close. You want him to fall into you, not away. Even if he does move back, you need to make him attach his body to yours as he moves back. You need to make him feel as if he's caught in front of an object that won't push him over but won't let him gain his footing. If he moves forward you need to make him feel like his momentum moves past you. If he remains still, you need to make him feel like he's leaning on a wall where he has to move his weight to one side or the other to use a free arm. It might not work. You might fail. You might miss attack after attack. But whatever you do just maintain the target. That is what will protect you. That is what will determine the outcome.

If you attack when not in range. You'll fail. If you angle on your own and not as a readjustment to face your target. You'll fail. If you're scared or angry, you won't have natural tension in your joints. You'll fail. If you think about the arm in front of your target. You'll fail. If you use regular timing. You'll fail. If you bounce your arms around. You'll fail. If you even have your guard up before you're just in range. You'll fail. If your body follows your hand. You'll fail.

WC is both the hardest and easiest way of fighting. Chi Sao, drills, the whole system, everything you've learned is all dependent on one huge glaring yet incredibly simple thing at the end of it all. If you're doing anything other than maintaining a target then you're most likely not going to benefit all that much from your training in a real altercation. The system isn't, wasn't, and never will be a system of techniques. It has always been a system of conceptual structure and the way force interacts with that structure. So if you're using your WC for anything other than attacking straight into the center mass of the body(and staying there) immediately upon deciding to possibly kill someone, you're probably better off either switching Sifu's or quitting WC altogether. It will not serve you well in the end.

Just my two cents....

[LoneTiger108]

WC is both the hardest and easiest way of fighting. Chi Sao, drills, the whole system, everything you've learned is all dependent on one huge glaring yet incredibly simple thing at the end of it all.

Which is??

IMHHHO The core understanding of Bong, Tan and Fook :D

[WC1277]

Which is??

IMHHHO The core understanding of Bong, Tan and Fook :D

Maintaining the target

[LoneTiger108]

Maintaining the target

But the target does not have to be the centre of mass does it?? Like you suggest??

I could stomp on your foot and then punch your nose :D

[Vajramusti]

But the target does not have to be the centre of mass does it?? Like you suggest??

I could stomp on your foot and then punch your nose :D
--------------------------------------------
IMO you misunderstood his post. Distinction between development and applications is important.
Sure- in applications-- you can target foot, nose or mouth.

[Savi]

"Target" can be many things or one thing.

"Target" can also become a wrong focal point, ie focusing on the arms and neglecting its relation (and your proximity) to the center of gravity. It's what you pay your undivided attention to.

Stomping on someone's foot can create a distraction and possibly open up opportunity, and it might not.

Whatever your focal point may be, never lose sight of dominating the opponent's center of gravity and controlling all angles of attack and defense. Efficiency is always important.

[k gledhill]

Good article by DP http://www.wslwingchun.my/not-getting-fook-ed-why-not