"Sinking" the Bridge

[WC1277]

When force is voluntarily applied against anything delivered from you to a target regardless of system, there is a compression on your own body in return. Right, we've discussed this topic before. Newtons three laws of motions. The one above is the third law. The second law is the ol' F=ma or force equals mass times acceleration. The first law is essentially that an object is either at rest or in motion within an inertial reference frame unless acted upon by a force. This law is first for a reason. For instance, once a baseball is thrown at whatever speed, it cannot speed up or change direction UNLESS an external force acts upon it such as a mini rocket that kicks in halfway for speed or wind sheer for direction(3rd law). Once the baseball is thrown, that's it. This baseball also, will only go as fast as the second law distinguishes, f=ma, period(see 1st law). And lastly, this baseball will absorb as much force as it gives(3rd law) when it finally hits something or when it potentially accelerates(see 1st law).

The human body is no exception to these rules. When you throw a punch and contract your muscle, however much(2nd law), once the motion starts you can't increase that force(1st law) by contracting more after it started unless there's rebounding resistance such as contact (3rd law). Here's the kicker. Bio mechanically, you have to shut the muscle off momentarily before you can reapply force to that rebound. When you pull a muscle in your back or where ever, your body involuntarily violated this bio mechanical principle. ....Or...you can use your body to drive into the rebound while the arm muscle is in the process of trying to re-contract.

So what's all if this have to do with WC? For starters, if someone truly does a correct infamous one inch punch, they are following these laws(newton and biomechanics) and shutting their arm muscle down momentarily upon contact and reapplying force immediately into the rebound with their body. Interesting, huh?

So what's this have to do with bridging? If you notice, when a WC practitioner actually applies the "inch power" and moves someone powerfully, contact is already made and a compression has already happened. The force applied is into the rebound.

-----

If you understood what I wrote above, and I hope you did. WC's core function relies upon a compression of the body. There is a reason the one inch punch works the way it does. Every lineage does this compression in one way or another, even WSL/VT. So it's not that no one has 'the secret' but many don't understand how to convey it into their training. The biggest misconception IMO is that people think this function needs to somehow be "setup" like a jab to a cross in boxing. It's not there or developed for that purpose and every lineage I've seen that try to set this function up create bad habits IMO

-------

btw Chum kiu means "sinking" the bridge and is directly related to the function above. You 'hammer the nail'. One reason, "turning" and the balance of that turn matters.

[SwanseaMike]

Thanks so much for this, it really helps and I know that I am part of a growing group who don't post up on the forum but are really learning from your input here.
Thanks

[Grumblegeezer]

...btw Chum kiu means "sinking" the bridge and is directly related to the function above. You 'hammer the nail'. One reason, "turning" and the balance of that turn matters.

Interesting ideas on compression and release of power. Thanks.

Now about Chum Kiu...as you may know some branches of the Yip Man lineage use the translation Sinking the Bridge (沉橋) while other groups, such as the branch I hail from use different characters that are pronounced the same way in Cantonese but which have the meaning Seeking the Bridge (尋橋). Accordingly, they would view the emphasis of the form somewhat differently. Personally, I enjoy considering these differences as presenting an opportunity to see different facets of the art.

[Hendrik]

Could you please show an example of what you refer as inch punch?


When force is voluntarily applied against anything delivered from you to a target regardless of system, there is a compression on your own body in return. Right, we've discussed this topic before. Newtons three laws of motions. The one above is the third law. The second law is the ol' F=ma or force equals mass times acceleration. The first law is essentially that an object is either at rest or in motion within an inertial reference frame unless acted upon by a force. This law is first for a reason. For instance, once a baseball is thrown at whatever speed, it cannot speed up or change direction UNLESS an external force acts upon it such as a mini rocket that kicks in halfway for speed or wind sheer for direction(3rd law). Once the baseball is thrown, that's it. This baseball also, will only go as fast as the second law distinguishes, f=ma, period(see 1st law). And lastly, this baseball will absorb as much force as it gives(3rd law) when it finally hits something or when it potentially accelerates(see 1st law).

The human body is no exception to these rules. When you throw a punch and contract your muscle, however much(2nd law), once the motion starts you can't increase that force(1st law) by contracting more after it started unless there's rebounding resistance such as contact (3rd law). Here's the kicker. Bio mechanically, you have to shut the muscle off momentarily before you can reapply force to that rebound. When you pull a muscle in your back or where ever, your body involuntarily violated this bio mechanical principle. ....Or...you can use your body to drive into the rebound while the arm muscle is in the process of trying to re-contract.

So what's all if this have to do with WC? For starters, if someone truly does a correct infamous one inch punch, they are following these laws(newton and biomechanics) and shutting their arm muscle down momentarily upon contact and reapplying force immediately into the rebound with their body. Interesting, huh?

So what's this have to do with bridging? If you notice, when a WC practitioner actually applies the "inch power" and moves someone powerfully, contact is already made and a compression has already happened. The force applied is into the rebound.

-----

If you understood what I wrote above, and I hope you did. WC's core function relies upon a compression of the body. There is a reason the one inch punch works the way it does. Every lineage does this compression in one way or another, even WSL/VT. So it's not that no one has 'the secret' but many don't understand how to convey it into their training. The biggest misconception IMO is that people think this function needs to somehow be "setup" like a jab to a cross in boxing. It's not there or developed for that purpose and every lineage I've seen that try to set this function up create bad habits IMO

-------

btw Chum kiu means "sinking" the bridge and is directly related to the function above. You 'hammer the nail'. One reason, "turning" and the balance of that turn matters.

[WC1277]

Could you please show an example of what you refer as inch punch?

No Hendrik, I don't. I haven't seen one video on youtube that properly does the one inch punch. Most are using Bruce Lee's method.

There are examples of people properly using "inch power" however. But they aren't really application based. You can see Fong Sifu do it in 'Ma Bo Chi Sao' at the beginning of that "ultimate demonstration" clip. You can even see PB use it properly sometimes. I do, however, think he uses too much muscle once he "re-contracts" after the body drives into the rebound(you can see it if you have the eye). Remember, though, Fong Sifu shows it as a "demo", PB is using it in chi sao sparring. The actual application has little to do with either of these examples.

Chum Kiu will show you the way. How many times have you heard that!? ;). But it's true with regards to this function. Like usual, I've tried a thousand different ways to stress how important the "balanced" motions in chum kiu are. The rotation outside-in/in-outside in relation to the stance is paramount(fyi -biu gee will show you in relation to "one arm" long bridge). Essentially, if you really follow the principles of movement in chum kiu. Every ROTATION will have the body "drive" into the rebound that either arm(blocking or attacking) will experience IF contact is made. Simple, huh? ...and genius!

Understand now why so much confusion and fighting within the WC world. 99% of people don't understand this function, why it's there, how to develop it, or even where it's found. Let alone, the ones who can do it from time to time don't understand why or how either!

Mind blowing, isn't it! ;)

[Graham H]

So what's all if this have to do with WC?

Nothing! lol

[LoneTiger108]

Now about Chum Kiu...as you may know some branches of the Yip Man lineage use the translation Sinking the Bridge (沉橋) while other groups, such as the branch I hail from use different characters that are pronounced the same way in Cantonese but which have the meaning Seeking the Bridge (尋橋).

I too am from a 'Seeking Bridge' family ;) but, like yourself, that doesn't stop me listening to others views on the subject of Form especially. We do however have methods within the form like Chum Jang (尋肘) where we are literally sinking the elbow into the hip and waist lines in order to generate exlposive power through a rotation, similar to the compression WC1277 is talking about I guess.

Here's a good clip that attempts to show it in relation to 'opening the back'
http://youtu.be/8w3ljwVNST0

[chaotic2k]

Learnt and seen both approches. Sinking is all good but should found in siu leem tau and throughout the system. I use sink, swallow and spit which is found in many different arts. I feel that the meaning of the name Chum Kiu is just a fraction of what form teaches. It obvious that key elements are training position (seeking), facing, timing, wrestling (yes i said it) and structure (sink, swallow and spit).

Reason so much in fighting in wing chun is a thread in its self. Think alot of major and not so major players can get away with making bold claims but actually never do it under pressure. Anyone seen such so called masters fight at world class level? Too much B.S in wing chun. It attracts geeks or freaks. ;)

[Hendrik]

I think it is better for you to Make a YouTube to communicate what you mean.

You need to clearly define what is inch power. Otherwise no one will know what are you talking about.



No Hendrik, I don't. I haven't seen one video on youtube that properly does the one inch punch. Most are using Bruce Lee's method.

There are examples of people properly using "inch power" however. But they aren't really application based. You can see Fong Sifu do it in 'Ma Bo Chi Sao' at the beginning of that "ultimate demonstration" clip. You can even see PB use it properly sometimes. I do, however, think he uses too much muscle once he "re-contracts" after the body drives into the rebound(you can see it if you have the eye). Remember, though, Fong Sifu shows it as a "demo", PB is using it in chi sao sparring. The actual application has little to do with either of these examples.

Chum Kiu will show you the way. How many times have you heard that!? ;). But it's true with regards to this function. Like usual, I've tried a thousand different ways to stress how important the "balanced" motions in chum kiu are. The rotation outside-in/in-outside in relation to the stance is paramount(fyi -biu gee will show you in relation to "one arm" long bridge). Essentially, if you really follow the principles of movement in chum kiu. Every ROTATION will have the body "drive" into the rebound that either arm(blocking or attacking) will experience IF contact is made. Simple, huh? ...and genius!

Understand now why so much confusion and fighting within the WC world. 99% of people don't understand this function, why it's there, how to develop it, or even where it's found. Let alone, the ones who can do it from time to time don't understand why or how either!

Mind blowing, isn't it! ;)

[k gledhill]

Nothing! lol

Belly laugh out loud !! joy calls it searching for the bridge in his article. Wc1277 sinking in his post ?

[WC1277]

Learnt and seen both approches. Sinking is all good but should found in siu leem tau and throughout the system. I use sink, swallow and spit which is found in many different arts. I feel that the meaning of the name Chum Kiu is just a fraction of what form teaches. It obvious that key elements are training position (seeking), facing, timing, wrestling (yes i said it) and structure (sink, swallow and spit).


Of course there's much more to Chum kiu that it develops.:rolleyes:



Reason so much in fighting in wing chun is a thread in its self. Think alot of major and not so major players can get away with making bold claims but actually never do it under pressure.

Explaining physics and it's relation to a function is not a "bold claim".



Anyone seen such so called masters fight at world class level?

Yes

[WC1277]

Belly laugh out loud !! joy calls it searching for the bridge in his article. Wc1277 sinking in his post ?

To quote Joy: "the devil is in the details" ;)

[k gledhill]

To quote Joy: "the devil is in the details" ;)

Yes, details I agree. ; )

[chaotic2k]

Of course there's much more to Chum kiu that it develops.:rolleyes:



Explaining physics and it's relation to a function is not a "bold claim".



Yes


Who have you seen? Any proof you can share on the forum?

As for bold claims, show me a vid of your ideas preformed by you....

Dont get me wrong, your posts are interesting and i enjoy you take and ideas ITS just im not sold my friend ;)

[Vajramusti]

To quote Joy: "the devil is in the details" ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yup it's usually called searching for the bridge-but sinking the bridge is what good chum kiu is about. A name and action are not always the same. Spoken Cantonese is tricky business- with so many tones close to each other-the English chum actually has two different sounds in Cantonese. I actually looked them up and listened to the two different tones for chum. I also discussed this with our Chee once upon a time.There is a lot of confusion on this but there should not be any when it comes to understanding and doing the motions.

But I am not a missionary-so the kg crowd can have their insecure laughs.

Searching is too general a term for the precision of sinking. KG's elbows when I saw him do chum kiu had little sinking in them.

The sinking of the elbows properly also sinks the bridge and adds explosive power specially when the body structure and the feet are working well.

[k gledhill]

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

Yup it's usually called searching for the bridge-but sinking the bridge is what good chum kiu is about. A name and action are not always the same. Spoken Cantonese is tricky business- with so many tones close to each other-the English chum actually has two different sounds in Cantonese. I actually looked them up and listened to the two different tones for chum. I also discussed this with our Chee once upon a time.There is a lot of confusion on this but there should not be any when it comes to understanding and doing the motions.

But I am not a missionary-so the kg crowd can have their insecure laughs.

Searching is too general a term for the precision of sinking. KG's elbows when I saw him do chum kiu had little sinking in them.

The sinking of the elbows properly also sinks the bridge and adds explosive power specially when the body structure and the feet are working well.


You are on the right track for power but you missed some details. ; )

[WC1277]

You are on the right track for power but you missed some details. ; )

What's that? I thought you're beloved cohorts said "seeking" the bridge was related to the open line being the bridge. ;)

I explained the jist of the function. That's all. To paraphrase your words, other details 'I must show'.

btw you should pay attention to your dear Sifu when he uses this function as well. It's crazy that his body, arms and legs, follow a specific rotation and balance, isn't it?!:rolleyes:

[k gledhill]

What's that? I thought you're beloved cohorts said "seeking" the bridge was related to the open line being the bridge. ;)

I explained the jist of the function. That's all. To paraphrase your words, other details 'I must show'.

btw you should pay attention to your dear Sifu when he uses this function as well. It's crazy that his body, arms and legs, follow a specific rotation and balance, isn't it?!:rolleyes:

You still don't even understand our method to argue. ; ) but you are, showing a penchant for uninformed statements.

[WC1277]

You still don't even understand our method to argue. ; ) but you are, showing a penchant for uninformed statements.

Pot calling the kettle black, are we?

[k gledhill]

Pot calling the kettle black, are we?

So you have met a wsl pb vt student ?

[WC1277]

So you have met a wsl pb vt student ?

I've met and flowed with 2 different students of the WSL lineage. I do not remember their teachers but only that they both trained out of Hong Kong. That's besides the point Kevin. I didn't say anything negative about PB in relation to this thread. In fact, I pointed out that he has done this function. My point to you is that you should pay attention to his 'balanced' rotation of the body when he does it. It's in line exactly with chum kiu movement. We've argued back and forth for a while now predominately because you've attacked me in relation to my points about that balanced rotation of the body. This thread was yet another attempt by myself to "describe" the related function and importance of this balance. If you want to "shuffle" around an opponent and think "bridging" refers to an open line. Have at it! I'm getting tired of your "subtle" shift in thinking that you can't explain beyond general terms. I'm getting tired of you not realizing 99% of WC is developmental. Good luck with making the square fit into the circle...

[k gledhill]

I've met and flowed with 2 different students of the WSL lineage. I do not remember their teachers but only that they both trained out of Hong Kong. That's besides the point Kevin. I didn't say anything negative about PB in relation to this thread. In fact, I pointed out that he has done this function. My point to you is that you should pay attention to his 'balanced' rotation of the body when he does it. It's in line exactly with chum kiu movement. We've argued back and forth for a while now predominately because you've attacked me in relation to my points about that balanced rotation of the body. This thread was yet another attempt by myself to "describe" the related function and importance of this balance. If you want to "shuffle" around an opponent and think "bridging" refers to an open line. Have at it! I'm getting tired of your "subtle" shift in thinking that you can't explain beyond general terms. I'm getting tired of you not realizing 99% of WC is developmental. Good luck with making the square fit into the circle...

Ah so that's a no. Fighting is usually explained hands on, subtlety is hands on.

[Vajramusti]

Ah so that's a no. Fighting is usually explained hands on, subtlety is hands on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a waste of time to discuss things with Kg and JG.

[wingchunIan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a waste of time to discuss things with Kg and JG.

Being a bit slow who's JG?

[Graham H]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a waste of time to discuss things with Kg and JG.

Only because you have no clue about our method. As you think your are some Wing Chun Dalai Lama that must grate on you a bit.

[Ali. R]

It seems that most here are speaking in volumes and in the other way. Joy said nothing wrong at all and once again he's 100% correct.

Take care,

[Graham H]

once again he's 100% correct.

Take care,

............in your opinion

[Ali. R]

That’s far from my opinion, it’s something I was taught and known for over 28 years,

Take care,

[Graham H]

That’s far from my opinion, it’s something I was taught and known for over 28 years,

Take care,

28 years eh? Must be correct then. :rolleyes:

[Ali. R]

No not necessarily, because other points of views may be correct as well. But, Joy’s points have been around and within my wing chun training sense the mid-late 70’s.

Take care,

[Graham H]

No not necessarily, because other points of views may be correct as well. But, Joy’s points have been around and within my wing chun training sense the mid-late 70’s.

Take care,

.....at around the time when Wing Chun exploded around the world and many people opened up schools without knowing much. Claiming that they had all been closed door students of Yip Man himself or beat Bruce Lee up?

Wing Chun went wrong before the 70's.

[k gledhill]

Time and or allegiances are not a guarantee of anything.

[Wayfaring]

You are on the right track for power but you missed some details. ; )

This post is completely unhelpful and resulted in 2 pages of bickering about basically nothing.

If you think details are missing, then add them in rather than just the criticism. Even if it's not "wrong" but a different familial interpretation and insight that's fine too and can be helpful to add to discussion and the art in general.

I mean Joy's post that there are dual meanings to the term chum kiu is fairly evident in the language, and certainly something most everyone has encountered in WCK.

And yes, the criticism of the "seeking the bridge" term that we don't chase hands as that sounds but chase center is also a very very common argument.

And the term "sinking" can lead to all sorts of great discussion about underlying power, jing, on-off energy, etc. but all we are doing here is sniping and running around in circles.

[Wayfaring]

Time and or allegiances are not a guarantee of anything.

Other than time and / or allegiance ;)

Not a guarantee of skill and definitely not a causal relationship to fighting ability. True.

[Vajramusti]

This post is completely unhelpful and resulted in 2 pages of bickering about basically nothing.

If you think details are missing, then add them in rather than just the criticism. Even if it's not "wrong" but a different familial interpretation and insight that's fine too and can be helpful to add to discussion and the art in general.

I mean Joy's post that there are dual meanings to the term chum kiu is fairly evident in the language, and certainly something most everyone has encountered in WCK.

And yes, the criticism of the "seeking the bridge" term that we don't chase hands as that sounds but chase center is also a very very common argument.

And the term "sinking" can lead to all sorts of great discussion about underlying power, jing, on-off energy, etc. but all we are doing here is sniping and running around in circles.
------------------------------------

-true

[LFJ]

I'm getting tired of your "subtle" shift in thinking that you can't explain beyond general terms.

Frustrating when something so subtle is difficult to understand, huh? It really is a subtle shift, but if you miss by and inch, you miss by a mile.

[k gledhill]

This post is completely unhelpful and resulted in 2 pages of bickering about basically nothing.

If you think details are missing, then add them in rather than just the criticism. Even if it's not "wrong" but a different familial interpretation and insight that's fine too and can be helpful to add to discussion and the art in general.

I mean Joy's post that there are dual meanings to the term chum kiu is fairly evident in the language, and certainly something most everyone has encountered in WCK.

And yes, the criticism of the "seeking the bridge" term that we don't chase hands as that sounds but chase center is also a very very common argument.

And the term "sinking" can lead to all sorts of great discussion about underlying power, jing, on-off energy, etc. but all we are doing here is sniping and running around in circles.

Feuding prevents me from helping joy or what's his alias with details. ; )

[Wayfaring]

Feuding prevents me from helping joy or what's his alias with details. ; )

Feuding? You mean like the Hatfields and the McCoys on the history channel? And on the internet?

Sounds like a waste of time to me. And I should know, I've done enough of it. ;)

[guy b.]

This post is completely unhelpful and resulted in 2 pages of bickering about basically nothing.

To be fair Kevin does post quite a lot of detail at other times. Maybe more than he should, I don't know? I haven't seen many others post as much actual meat

[kung fu fighter]

Yip Man interpreted the chum kiu form to mean "seeking bridge" rather than the older meaning of "sinking bridge" that the older branches of WCK retain because he felt it was a more accurate discription of what your hands are seeking to do in the form.

what tactics do you employ to "search for the bridge" ?

[Grumblegeezer]

Yip Man interpreted the chum kiu form to mean "seeking bridge" rather than the older meaning of "sinking bridge" that the older branches of WCK retain because he felt it was a more accurate discription of what your hands are seeking to do in the form.

what tactics do you employ to "search for the bridge" ?

I did not know that Yip Man was the first to use the term "seeking the bridge". That's interesting. Can you verify this, or give us your source?

[kung fu fighter]

I did not know that Yip Man was the first to use the term "seeking the bridge". That's interesting. Can you verify this, or give us your source?

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung/articles/article_chu01.html

"Yip Man’s genius is credited for being a scholarly man, he renamed the terms in favor of more ideological concepts. Hence, the “Little Training Set” is renamed “Little Idea” in Yip Man’s version. Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun also retains the older name “Chum Kiu” as “Sinking Bridge” for the 2nd form, rather than “Seeking Bridge” as in the Yip Man art." Robert Chu

http://diendan.thaicucquyen.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=222&sid=b9800f461ade706b579d173fc60f27ac

"Yip Man continued to remold his wing chun throughout his teaching career by Stressing the names - sil nim tao (as opposed to sil lien tao) and chum kiu (seeking bridge as opposed to sinking bridge), continually fine tuning the choreography of the three forms, more so the mok yan jong form, and developing and several times modifying his knife form (which he renamed Bat Jaam Doh). Subsequently, Yip's students adopted these innovations into their practice and teaching and a new lineage was born. Some of Yip Man's students carry this tradition on today. "


"I seem to remember reading that it was Yip Man who changed it to "seek". CFT

[LFJ]

what tactics do you employ to "search for the bridge" ?

You first have to define "the bridge". That can make "searching" for it, or not, mean something completely different.

In my interpretation it refers to an open line of attack. Crossing the bridge is having hit the target. When the opponent presents obstruction we are stuck on our side of the river so to speak. Therefore, we have to find an open line of attack- search for the bridge and cross it.

Sometimes a line will appear by itself due to the opponent's mistake. Kiu loi kiu seung gwo = When a bridge appears, cross it. Other times we have to create the situation ourselves. Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.

We do so by employing a combination of tactical footwork, angling, and intercepting attacks which cut off the opponent's line while creating superior ones. Lin siu daai da = Link dissipating with striking. In one action that is simultaneous attack and defense with a single limb. With two functions per limb it is effectively like having four arms, which makes for a more efficient means of finding and crossing bridges, i.e. hitting the target.

Of course that is all far easier said than done, but that's why we train!

In a sense, "sinking" the bridge can refer to cutting off the opponent's line. But that tactic is really more offensive in nature. Cutting the opponent's line comes more by virtue of our punching structure in combination with tactical footwork, angling, etc.. So I think changing it to "seeking" the bridge better reflects the overall goal, which is not just to stop the opponent's advances but to take them out.

[tc101]

Yip Man interpreted the chum kiu form to mean "seeking bridge" rather than the older meaning of "sinking bridge" that the older branches of WCK retain because he felt it was a more accurate discription of what your hands are seeking to do in the form.

what tactics do you employ to "search for the bridge" ?

I learned that whether interpreted as sinking bridge or seeking bridge the meaning is the same or you could say it is two ways of saying the same thing or describing the same thing. Chum kiu is not about obtaining bridge contact. Some people think that because of the term seeking. I learned it is rather what you are seeking to do with your bridge so chum kiu is not try to find a bridge but here is what you try to do with your bridge. Sinking is the thing you are trying to do when you have a bridged situation. Anyway that is how I was taught.

[KPM]

In my interpretation it refers to an open line of attack. Crossing the bridge is having hit the target. When the opponent presents obstruction we are stuck on our side of the river so to speak. Therefore, we have to find an open line of attack- search for the bridge and cross it.

Yeah. We've had this discussion before. Most Wing Chun people I have encounter have the typical Southern Chinese Martial Art understanding of "Kiu" as "bridge" meaning contact. "Kiu" typically refers to the forearm. The forearms are primarily what establish contact with an opponent. Therefore "seeking for a bridge" would be seeking for contact with the opponent. Now "contact" may very well be my fist contacting the opponent's face! That is the "bridge"! But contact may also be what happens when the opponent stops my attempt to establish contact of my fist to his face. Now the "bridge" is the contact of my forearm to the opponent's as he does a Bong Sao to stop my punch and I have to know what to do with that bridge contact. So in my understanding, "seeking a bridge" means seeking to engage the opponent.

Sometimes a line will appear by itself due to the opponent's mistake. Kiu loi kiu seung gwo = When a bridge appears, cross it. Other times we have to create the situation ourselves. Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.

"When a bridge (contact) appears, cross it" means that when the opponent has stopped your attempt to land a strike by throwing up an obstruction (thus establishing contact) you must know how to deal with it or "cross it" by flowing into the next response. "If there is no bridge, create it" means that if the opponent is offering no obstruction then create a "bridge" or contact of your fist to his face! If he is offering an obstruction in the form of his own attack or using a guard that covers where you want to hit, then create a "bridge" or contact by Pak'ing or Tan'ing his forearm, etc. and then "cross hit" by hitting him in the face!

If "bridge" meant an opening, that would refer to an unoccupied space between yourself and the opponent. So yes, you could see "when a bridge appears cross it" as meaning to strike when you see an opening. You could see "if there is no bridge create it" as meaning that if the opponent throws up an obstruction, clear it out of the way with a Pak or Tan etc. to create an opening. But in the context of how "bridge" and "Kiu" is used throughout Southern CMA, this interpretation doesn't fit. I don't think Wing Chun would diverge widely from other Southern CMA in its use of basic terms. And just look at what is being taught in the Chum Kiu form. Its hard for me to see where it is teaching how to seek openings in the opponent's defense. But is easy for me to see where it is teaching what to do when you have established contact or "formed a bridge" with the opponent.


In a sense, "sinking" the bridge can refer to cutting off the opponent's line. But that tactic is really more offensive in nature.

If you see "bridge" as contact with the opponent, then you can see "sinking" as pressing downward and forward into the line to disrupt the opponent's balance and COG. But not all of the techniques in the Chum Kiu form involve pressing downward (though several do). Maybe that's why Ip Man preferred to call it "searching" rather than "sinking"? But how the heck do you "sink" an open space between you and the opponent? :confused:

[LFJ]

I don't think Wing Chun would diverge widely from other Southern CMA in its use of basic terms.

Even the various lineages of Wing Chun can certainly diverge widely on the interpretation of basically the same actions in the forms. It's not so farfetched as it may seem to you. I made the analogy before where Buddhism uses the same basic term "karma" that is found as a central teaching in other religions from the region but gives it a very different meaning. So it's not impossible.

You can also look at Wing Chun from a Northern CMA interpretation of the actions contained in the forms and it will become something different entirely. But the case could be made. This doesn't change what Wing Chun is internally though- that is, the way it is understood and trained by its practitioners. So it is irrelevant.


And just look at what is being taught in the Chum Kiu form. Its hard for me to see where it is teaching how to seek openings in the opponent's defense. But is easy for me to see where it is teaching what to do when you have established contact or "formed a bridge" with the opponent.

Of course. Because our lineages have vastly different ideas on what "is being taught" there.


But how the heck do you "sink" an open space between you and the opponent? :confused:

If you are unable to cross a river, what must you do? Search for the bridge. If the water is the opponent's defense, the bridge is a opening for you to get over it. Metaphorically, that is the open path you take to get to the other side. It's a metaphorical "bridge" by function. You metaphorically "sink" the opponent's bridge when you cut off their path. The bridge collapses into water, i.e. what was an open attacking line becomes an obstruction.

Your understanding shows the problem with trying to take "bridge" literally as a physical structure one should create with their opponent. A bridge is an open path that facilitates crossing to the other side where otherwise impossible, troublesome or dangerous. When an opponent throws up a defense, that is an obstruction. You have to work around it and cannot cross directly. So it doesn't really function as a bridge. You wouldn't want to sink the bridge you want to cross. There's no reason to call it that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Gaoliang_Bridge.JPG

See above. The water is the defense keeping you from crossing. The bridge is the open path you take to cross. If you find a bridge, cross it. If there isn't one, create it. If the opponent finds a bridge to your side of the river, collapse it into the water. Solid metaphor. Take it literally and you run into all types of funny problems.

Anyway, I think we've had enough of this before. We can simply agree that our systems are very different and leave it at that.

[kung fu fighter]

You first have to define "the bridge". That can make "searching" for it, or not, mean something completely different.

The literal translation of Kiu or bridge in Southern Chinese Martial Art is establishing contact with your forearms to the opponent's forearm to create a connection, in the same way a bridge is used to connect two land mass.

I agree with Keith, "seeking a bridge" means seeking to engage the opponent. what specific means do you utilize to achieve this?


In my interpretation it refers to an open line of attack. Crossing the bridge is having hit the target. When the opponent presents obstruction we are stuck on our side of the river so to speak. Therefore, we have to find an open line of attack- search for the bridge and cross it.

Striking into an open line is great because you can possibly hit the opponent using timing, however the opponent can still hit you back because you don't have full control of his bridge arms or body structure to the same degree which controlling a bridge can provide. For example if you strike into an open line with a boxer who's defense is to use his footwork to circle you, you could end up striking into a thin air or empty space thus hitting nothing, and leaving yourself completely exposed and wide open to his heavy counter cross or hook, not to mention kicks and takedowns if he is an MMA or muai thai fighter.



We do so by employing a combination of tactical footwork, angling, and intercepting attacks which cut off the opponent's line while creating superior ones.

Can you elaborate on this, which wck stepping do you use for your tactical footwork etc.?




I learned that whether interpreted as sinking bridge or seeking bridge the meaning is the same or you could say it is two ways of saying the same thing or describing the same thing. Chum kiu is not about obtaining bridge contact. Some people think that because of the term seeking. I learned it is rather what you are seeking to do with your bridge so chum kiu is not try to find a bridge but here is what you try to do with your bridge. Sinking is the thing you are trying to do when you have a bridged situation. Anyway that is how I was taught.

Some good points made! and this was what I was taught as well. however a bridge has to be established in order to apply this, where in the system is one taught tactics of how to create a bridge safely?

[LFJ]

The literal translation of Kiu or bridge in Southern Chinese Martial Art is establishing contact with your forearms to the opponent's forearm to create a connection, in the same way a bridge is used to connect two land mass.

I understand that, but as I tried to make clear in my previous post, this is not the case in every Southern CMA. So it is good to define common terms before speaking about interpretation and method.


Striking into an open line is great because you can hit the opponent using timing, however the opponent can still hit you back because you don't have full control of his bridge arms or body structure to the same degree which controlling a bridge can provide.

By "open" line I'm not referring to just picking shots in the air. The opponent's arms will be dealt with by cutting attacks which disrupt their structure and give us a superior line while limiting their ability to recover and respond effectively. It doesn't require sticking and limb control but is also not just picking shots. It's about finding dominate positioning which itself is control.


Can you elaborate on this, which wck stepping do you use for your tactical footwork etc.?

It follows chasing principles and is dictated by the opponent's behavior in order to find the best angles. Watch WSL's footwork and see how he moves to position himself in relation to the opponent and attack.

[LFJ]

I agree with Keith, "seeking a bridge" means seeking to engage the opponent. what specific means do you utilize to achieve this?

I don't think engaging the opponent is something that has to be sought. If someone attacks you, there you go.

If you are seeking that I'd suggest some name-calling or for the less easily provoked, some harsher insults and taunts, maybe a pass at their woman. ;)

[kung fu fighter]

By "open" line I'm not referring to just picking shots in the air. The opponent's arms will be dealt with by cutting attacks which disrupt their structure and give us a superior line while limiting their ability to recover and respond effectively. It doesn't require sticking and limb control but is also not just picking shots. It's about finding dominate positioning which itself is control.

Ok, so by "open line" you meant you are still using your forearm in contact with the opponent's forearm with your cutting attacks to disrupt their structure and give you a superior line essentially using a forearm to forearm bridge, as opposed to striking into an open space with no prior bridge contact?

If so then we are in complete agreement, I never said bridge control is about sticking and limb control as in chasing hands. In my opinion bridge control is about using the bridge as a lever, conductor or transmitter to disrupt the opponent's center of gravity, distroy his facing, while striking or attacking his centerline. sticking and other tactics are just an ends to a means, which is to attack the opponent's centerline.

[LFJ]

Ok, so by "open line" you meant you are still using your forearm in contact with the opponent's forearm with your cutting attacks to disrupt their structure and give you a superior line essentially using a forearm to forearm bridge, as opposed to striking into an open space with no prior bridge contact?

Forearm contact is not something I'm searching for or deliberately "using". That is not the bridge to me. I'm not seeking that. That happens purely as a virtue of the punching structure and attacking angle so that it is not conscious. It's an intercepting strike, but just a strike with the sole intent of hitting the target. It only results in simultaneous deflection and that is lin siu daai da, a non-thinking result of the applied tactics.

[kung fu fighter]

Forearm contact is not something I'm searching for or deliberately "using". That is not the bridge to me. I'm not seeking that. That happens purely as a virtue of the punching structure and attacking angle so that it is not conscious. It's an intercepting strike, but just a strike with the sole intent of hitting the target. It only results in simultaneous deflection and that is lin siu daai da, a non-thinking result of the applied tactics.

Ok, if it's the way how Phillip Bayer does it, then i am familiar with that approach.

[KPM]

I understand that, but as I tried to make clear in my previous post, this is not the case in every Southern CMA.

Which Southern CMA does not define "Kiu" or "bridge" in this way?


I don't think engaging the opponent is something that has to be sought. If someone attacks you, there you go.

But if someone attacks you and you do not respond appropriately, well, there you go! Its not so much JUST seeking to engage the opponent, but doing it to your own advantage.

Of course. Because our lineages have vastly different ideas on what "is being taught" there.

Ok. So how do you see the Chum Kiu form teaching you to find the openings, spaces or "bridges" that you will use to attack?

[kung fu fighter]

Its not so much JUST seeking to engage the opponent, but doing it to your own advantage.
I agree! although i like Philip Bayer's approach, I also believe it's lacking the sticking skills aspect in their training due to the fact that they place more of an heavy on the other aspects such as cutting attacks. so they don't take full advantage of everything that bridging has to offer. Their approach is very simple and direct.

[KPM]

I agree! although i like Philip Bayer's approach, I also believe it's lacking the sticking skills aspect in their training due to the fact that they place more of an heavy on the other aspects such as cutting attacks. so they don't take full advantage of everything that bridging has to offer. Their approach is very simple and direct.

What you say certainly matches what I've seen shown on video clips. But I'm not sure that what is shown on those clips is a good overall representation of what PB teaches. I don't know enough about his system. So I hesitate to agree with what you state above.

[LFJ]

Which Southern CMA does not define "Kiu" or "bridge" in this way?

Obviously the system of VT that I describe.


Ok. So how do you see the Chum Kiu form teaching you to find the openings, spaces or "bridges" that you will use to attack?

Every action in the form teaches you how to find the line- the quickest route to the target- or clear the line for striking. While at the same time it trains other skills, e.g. coordination of the upper and lower body, synchronicity of action, correct delivery of power, etc. the main idea of the form is 'kiu loi kiu seung gwo, mou kiu ji jou kiu' as I explained its interpretation above. Hence the name 'cham-kiu' as its understood in the system I describe.

If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics. If we differ from the onset of the system then it is difficult to understand each other. That's why I suggested first defining common terms. There's no point in saying who is right or wrong. We share similar forms and terminology, but really train quite different systems. Just like Hinduism and Buddhism have quite different understandings of 'karma' and 'rebirth' although they come from the same region and use the same terminology.

[BPWT..]

Which Southern CMA does not define "Kiu" or "bridge" in this way?

Is it possible that the definition LFJ gives is WSL's interpretation only? I think the definition of Kiu that KPM gives is common to other YM and non-YM Wing Chun, and other southern systems too. Perhaps WSL simply had his own unique take on it?

[tc101]

Obviously the system of VT that I describe.
Every action in the form teaches you how to find the line- the quickest route to the target- or clear the line for striking. While at the same time it trains other skills, e.g. coordination of the upper and lower body, synchronicity of action, correct delivery of power, etc. the main idea of the form is 'kiu loi kiu seung gwo, mou kiu ji jou kiu' as I explained its interpretation above. Hence the name 'cham-kiu' as its understood in the system I describe.


To make certain I am clear on what you are saying you think kiu or bridge means open line did I understand you correctly?



If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics. If we differ from the onset of the system then it is difficult to understand each other. That's why I suggested first defining common terms. There's no point in saying who is right or wrong. We share similar forms and terminology, but really train quite different systems. Just like Hinduism and Buddhism have quite different understandings of 'karma' and 'rebirth' although they come from the same region and use the same terminology.

I think we are actually on the same page although I look at things a bit more broadly.

I learned that wing chun as someone Wayfaring I think previously on this forum put it lives and dies on the centerline. Wing chun is all about the centerline.

I learned that the first form references dominating the centerline and so the tool subset of the system contained in that form are those that you need for that purpose. This is why the centerline does not move in that form since you have it and you control it so why would you change it. This is also what the so called small idea is. Small idea refers to being focused on one thing and that focus is on centerline domination.

The second form references changing or breaking the centerline and is for those situations when you cannot take direct control of the centerline and the tool subset contained in that form are those needed for that purpose. This is why you have in that form an emphasis on shifting and short arm bridges.

You call it clear the line for striking but if all you want to do is strike you do not need to clear lines. Boxing strikes on every line and does not clear but strikes to what is open. We want to control the centerline and by controlling it we can use that line for striking. Boxing in contrast does not seek to control the centerline. I think we want to do more than just have an open line to strike. We want to control the centerline. Controlling the centerline also gives me more than just opportunities to strike.

I think kiu or bridge is not the same as controlling the centerline which consequently gives you an open line to strike. It is related to that since everything in wing chun is related to controlling or seeking to the centerline. Kiu or bridge I think references contact with an opponent and the points of contact with an opponent which can be a forearm or a hand or whatever. When I do not control the centerline I will need to fight for it by changing or breaking the centerline or to put it another way we will need to destroy or sink the old centerline to establish a new centerline. I accomplish this through using body movement and corresponding arm actions but most often to do that I will need some contact or bridge with my opponent to do it since if I have no contact with my opponent it will be practically impossible to change or break the centerline. How much contact can and will vary. It may be momentary it may be longer in duration. That will depend on the situation and your personal abilities and preferences.

My long winded point is that I do not think it is a case if two different systems with the same terminology. I think it is a case of variation in preferences.

[KPM]

Is it possible that the definition LFJ gives is WSL's interpretation only? I think the definition of Kiu that KPM gives is common to other YM and non-YM Wing Chun, and other southern systems too. Perhaps WSL simply had his own unique take on it?

I have some of Gary Lam's DVDs and was reviewing one recently where he uses the term exactly as I have explained it. If I'm remembering right, I think I have David Petersen on DVD also using it this way. So my impression is that either LFJ or his teacher are the ones that have their own interpretation.

[KPM]

Obviously the system of VT that I describe.

Obviously. :rolleyes: And you wonder why conversations with you turn into arguments!? Please name one other non-Wing Chun Southern CMA that defines "Kiu" and "bridge" in the way you have defined it.


Every action in the form teaches you how to find the line- the quickest route to the target- or clear the line for striking.

Any line or Kiu or bridge...as you described it...is going to be the open space between you and the opponent through which you will strike them. Isn't that what you have said? How can a form performed solo without reference to an actual opponent teach you to recognize or "seek" such openings? Those openings don't exist when performing a solo form.


If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics.

I don't think so. I think it stems from a misunderstanding/misuse of a very basic term.

There's no point in saying who is right or wrong. We share similar forms and terminology, but really train quite different systems.

Wing Chun is Wing Chun. There are different expressions of it that differ more widely than others. But if you are doing Ip Man derived Wing Chun there shouldn't be large amounts of difference!


Just like Hinduism and Buddhism have quite different understandings of 'karma' and 'rebirth' although they come from the same region and use the same terminology.

I wouldn't call them "quite different", but then that's a different discussion.

[KPM]

Hey tc101:

You and I are on the same sheet of music here! But I think you may be giving LFJ more credit than he is due.


The second form references changing or breaking the centerline and is for those situations when you cannot take direct control of the centerline and the tool subset contained in that form are those needed for that purpose. This is why you have in that form an emphasis on shifting and short arm bridges.

Exactly! Short arm bridges....contact with the opponent...Kiu! Finding the "bridge" with the opponent is what allows you to take control of the centerline and therefore "cross the bridge" to strike the opponent. You create the openings! You aren't hunting for an opening by moving around the opponent and angling and feinting like a boxer would.

You call it clear the line for striking but if all you want to do is strike you do not need to clear lines.

Right! And if you are looking to "clear lines" rather than looking for an open space to strike through...aren't you then "seeking contact" rather than "seeking an opening"? As you describe further on with your boxing analogy, if "searching for a bridge" meant to look for an opening that you can strike through to hit the opponent, wouldn't that center around footwork and angling and feinting and actually trying to AVOID any contact with the opponent's arms? If a boxer contacts the opponent's arms he typically "shrugs it off", resets, steps back, or something similar in order to look for another open space through which to strike his opponent. He typically doesn't "bridge in" using that contact with the opponent and manipulate his arms to create a space to strike through. So to me, defining "Kiu" or "bridge" as the open line between opponent's that is a clear area through which a strike can land may work for boxers, but I don't see the Chum Kiu form teaching that.

Boxing strikes on every line and does not clear but strikes to what is open. We want to control the centerline and by controlling it we can use that line for striking. Boxing in contrast does not seek to control the centerline. I think we want to do more than just have an open line to strike. We want to control the centerline. Controlling the centerline also gives me more than just opportunities to strike.

Very well stated!

I think kiu or bridge is not the same as controlling the centerline which consequently gives you an open line to strike. It is related to that since everything in wing chun is related to controlling or seeking to the centerline. Kiu or bridge I think references contact with an opponent and the points of contact with an opponent which can be a forearm or a hand or whatever.

Again, I agree. The "Kiu" or "bridge" is a means to control the centerline.

When I do not control the centerline I will need to fight for it by changing or breaking the centerline or to put it another way we will need to destroy or sink the old centerline to establish a new centerline. I accomplish this through using body movement and corresponding arm actions but most often to do that I will need some contact or bridge with my opponent to do it since if I have no contact with my opponent it will be practically impossible to change or break the centerline. How much contact can and will vary. It may be momentary it may be longer in duration. That will depend on the situation and your personal abilities and preferences.

tc101, you have renewed my faith in your understanding of Wing Chun! ;)

My long winded point is that I do not think it is a case if two different systems with the same terminology. I think it is a case of variation in preferences.

Here I will have to disagree with you. I don't think it is a difference in "preferences." I think it is a difference in the understanding of one single concept or term....."Kiu/Bridge." When it gets right down to it, I bet LFJ is doing the same thing as everyone else even though he thinks his Wing Chun is a "quite different system." He is just explaining it differently.

[LFJ]

To make certain I am clear on what you are saying you think kiu or bridge means open line did I understand you correctly?

Yes, but not exactly. If you understand that as just taking shots in the air via any open line like a boxer, as if center line is not a priority, then that's not what I mean. The second part of the saying "if there is no bridge, create one yourself" refers to using footwork, angling, cutting attacks, etc. to clear the way for striking- that is to capture and take control of the center.


I have some of Gary Lam's DVDs and was reviewing one recently where he uses the term exactly as I have explained it. If I'm remembering right, I think I have David Petersen on DVD also using it this way.

Gary uses lots of different terminology other WSLVT teachers don't use. His has also devised his own curriculum which differs as well. As for David, he was an occasional visitor and seminar student who seems to have absorbed ideas from other Wing Chun lineages to fill the gaps in knowledge while back home. He even quotes Leung Ting in one of his DVD's to describe some concept- something you wouldn't hear other WSL students do! If you'd learned fully from WSL, you wouldn't need to quote anyone else.


So my impression is that either LFJ or his teacher are the ones that have their own interpretation.

I've yet to meet and train with Philipp (maybe next time he comes to HK), but several of his practitioners here have expressed the same interpretation, and we know those who spent more time with WSL tend to be closer in thinking to Philipp. So, my impression is that this is the interpretation of VT as taught by WSL, via YM...

[LFJ]

Obviously. :rolleyes: And you wonder why conversations with you turn into arguments!? Please name one other non-Wing Chun Southern CMA that defines "Kiu" and "bridge" in the way you have defined it.

Why? That's irrelevant to the way the term in understood and used in this system of VT. What other styles do is irrelevant. I thought the Buddhism/Hinduism understanding of karma and rebirth analogy made that clear. It doesn't matter to a Buddhist what the Jains think karma means. It has no consequence on their belief and practice.


Any line or Kiu or bridge...as you described it...is going to be the open space between you and the opponent through which you will strike them. Isn't that what you have said? How can a form performed solo without reference to an actual opponent teach you to recognize or "seek" such openings? Those openings don't exist when performing a solo form.

The system is based upon the centerline theory. It's not just any open space. Concepts of facing, chasing, cutting, etc. with centerline reference are things we can train solo in forms. It begins in SNT and is expanded in CK.

How you train making contact with an opponent... without an opponent is something I don't get. :p


If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics.

I don't think so. I think it stems from a misunderstanding/misuse of a very basic term.

Okay, Kevin. :rolleyes:


Wing Chun is Wing Chun. There are different expressions of it that differ more widely than others. But if you are doing Ip Man derived Wing Chun there shouldn't be large amounts of difference!

You would think so, but there are. That's just the fact.


Just like Hinduism and Buddhism have quite different understandings of 'karma' and 'rebirth' although they come from the same region and use the same terminology.

I wouldn't call them "quite different", but then that's a different discussion.

Okay, critically different, as it fundamentally changes everything. I think it's a very good analogy to how our different interpretations of "bridge" fundamentally change our systems.

[LFJ]

And you wonder why conversations with you turn into arguments!?

If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics.

I don't think so. I think it stems from a misunderstanding/misuse of a very basic term.

We can't just present differences in our systems for discussion and simply acknowledge that we differ. We have to be the ones that got it right. Any difference is just a "misunderstanding".

I acknowledge what you do in your system is right for you, within your system. I don't agree with it, but that's fine. We obviously don't train the same thing. Can we not just say that and discuss our differences?

[KPM]

Why? That's irrelevant to the way the term in understood and used in this system of VT. What other styles do is irrelevant.

Why? Are you even following this conversation? This was the previous exchange:

Navin wrote:
The literal translation of Kiu or bridge in Southern Chinese Martial Art is establishing contact with your forearms to the opponent's forearm to create a connection, in the same way a bridge is used to connect two land mass.

To which you replied:
I understand that, but as I tried to make clear in my previous post, this is not the case in every Southern CMA.

To which I asked:
Can you name another non-Wing Chun CMA that does not define Kiu in this way?

The "why" seems pretty straight-forward to me. Navin and I believe that the way we define "Kiu" or "bridge" is standard in southern CMA, giving weight to our way of defining it. You said it wasn't common to all southern CMA to back up the fact that you define it differently. So you were asked to provide an example. Simple as that. Certainly relevant to the conversation.


How you train making contact with an opponent... without an opponent is something I don't get. :p

You train the hand shapes that are used when making contact. You train the turning and angling used when making that contact. When you train a Bong Sao, etc that Bong Sao will be in reference to where the opponent's incoming attack is expected to be, or where you want to deflect it to in order to create an opening. Its like practicing tennis on a half-court against a wall. You can practice hitting the ball, practice serves, practice backhands, etc. All the things you need in a game against an opponent. But how do you practice recognizing an opening in the opponent's defense without an opponent in front of you?


Okay, Kevin. :rolleyes:

Yeah, well, I'm not the one that just took pot-shots at both Gary Lam and David Petersen. ;)


I think it's a very good analogy to how our different interpretations of "bridge" fundamentally change our systems.

So, do you mean in your Wing Chun you don't use a contact with the opponent to control the centerline, create an opening, and launch an attack? Do you mean you don't use center-line theory and the concept of controlling the center-line? Do you mean that when attacking and you meet an obstruction you don't use Wing Chun techniques to clear that obstruction out of the way and continue your attack? Do you mean that you don't use the Chum Kiu form to learn how to maintain or gain centerline with the opponent? Do you mean you don't use the SLT, CK, BG, and MYJ forms? You don't use Chi Sao training? You don't use facing or centerline punching? Those are all fundamentals of Yip Man Wing Chun.

[KPM]

We can't just present differences in our systems for discussion and simply acknowledge that we differ. We have to be the ones that got it right. Any difference is just a "misunderstanding".

I acknowledge what you do in your system is right for you, within your system. I don't agree with it, but that's fine. We obviously don't train the same thing. Can we not just say that and discuss our differences?

Yes. We can discuss our differences. But we pointed out that southern CMA's in general all view the topic in the same way. You said that not all did. But when asked to name an example that doesn't (other than you and yours of course) you couldn't and said it was irrelevant. You implied that your understanding was the way that WSL taught it. I pointed out two WSL students that don't teach it that way. So you took pot-shots at their background and teaching.

You may very well be right! WSL may have understood and taught it this way! But I hope you'll understand that based on past discussions here I am unwilling to take your word for it. If others from the WSL lineage separate from you and your teacher say they learned it this way, then I'm open to it!

But I hope you also recognize that regardless of whether WSL taught this way or not, it is a departure from the way that most WCK and southern CMAists in general understand the concept.

And in the interests of sharing different outlooks, you still didn't answer this:
Ok. So how do you see the Chum Kiu form teaching you to find the openings, spaces or "bridges" that you will use to attack?

[LFJ]

The "why" seems pretty straight-forward to me. Navin and I believe that the way we define "Kiu" or "bridge" is standard in southern CMA, giving weight to our way of defining it. You said it wasn't common to all southern CMA to back up the fact that you define it differently. So you were asked to provide an example. Simple as that. Certainly relevant to the conversation.

Not relevant to VT thinking and training. So you use other arts to validate the one you practice. I don't, and it's irrelevant. Just like other religions in the same region share definitions of karma and Buddhism borrows the familiar term but alters it in a major way. But how many others use it, as I said, has no consequence on their belief and practice. It's entirely irrelevant. VT needs only to be understood internally.


But how do you practice recognizing an opening in the opponent's defense without an opponent in front of you?

Thought I just explained to you. It's about capturing and dominating centerline, not just picking out holes.


Yeah, well, I'm not the one that just took pot-shots at both Gary Lam and David Petersen.

Not pot-shots. Statements of fact.


Those are all fundamentals of Yip Man Wing Chun.

Yet our interpretation and training of them are very different.

[LFJ]

If others from the WSL lineage separate from you and your teacher say they learned it this way, then I'm open to it!

When we had this conversation last time, BPWT even put a quote from Graham in his signature to mock him for expressing the same concept. I have no affiliation with PBVT, yet they said the same thing.


But I hope you also recognize that regardless of whether WSL taught this way or not, it is a departure from the way that most WCK and southern CMAists in general understand the concept.

And I hope you understand no one gives a d@mn and it doesn't matter.


And in the interests of sharing different outlooks, you still didn't answer this:
Ok. So how do you see the Chum Kiu form teaching you to find the openings, spaces or "bridges" that you will use to attack?

I answered. What didn't you get?

[tc101]

Yes, but not exactly. If you understand that as just taking shots in the air via any open line like a boxer, as if center line is not a priority, then that's not what I mean. The second part of the saying "if there is no bridge, create one yourself" refers to using footwork, angling, cutting attacks, etc. to clear the way for striking- that is to capture and take control of the center...

The foremost concern then is controlling the centerline and from that control comes the opportunity to strike is that right?

Do you have the kuit about iron bridge glass head tofu body? Just wondering since that kuit among others appears inconsistent with your view of bridge as an open route.

[tc101]

Hey tc101:

You and I are on the same sheet of music here! But I think you may be giving LFJ more credit than he is due.

tc101, you have renewed my faith in your understanding of Wing Chun! ;)

My long winded point is that I do not think it is a case if two different systems with the same terminology. I think it is a case of variation in preferences.

Here I will have to disagree with you. I don't think it is a difference in "preferences." I think it is a difference in the understanding of one single concept or term....."Kiu/Bridge." When it gets right down to it, I bet LFJ is doing the same thing as everyone else even though he thinks his Wing Chun is a "quite different system." He is just explaining it differently.

Thanks. Do not let our discussions on un/realistic training mislead you into thinking that I do not have a good appreciation of things like the forms, chi sau, kuit, and so forth. I just also appreciate those things will take you only so far and the next step in the journey is realistic training.

I guess what I am getting at is wing chun is first and foremost concerned with dominating the centerline and I think we all agree on that point. How we go about doing that can vary based on our preference. So if your preference is to try to use contact to do it then your idea of bridging and using bridge hands will be different than someone whose preference is to try and do it through quick changing steps angulation and so forth. It may be that both are valid. I do not think they represent different systems but that the wing chun system allows for flexibility. Two boxers can look nothing alike yet the are both using the same art.

[KPM]

I guess what I am getting at is wing chun is first and foremost concerned with dominating the centerline and I think we all agree on that point. How we go about doing that can vary based on our preference. So if your preference is to try to use contact to do it then your idea of bridging and using bridge hands will be different than someone whose preference is to try and do it through quick changing steps angulation and so forth. It may be that both are valid. I do not think they represent different systems but that the wing chun system allows for flexibility. Two boxers can look nothing alike yet the are both using the same art.

Good point. But I still doubt that LFJ is doing things as differently from you or I as he thinks he is. ;)

[KPM]

Do you have the kuit about iron bridge glass head tofu body? Just wondering since that kuit among others appears inconsistent with your view of bridge as an open route.

Ah! I forgot about that one! It has certainly been part of the Wing Chun that I have learned. I've always understood "iron bridge" to refer to the forearm. Hard to see how "bridge" in this context could refer to an open route as you say.

[KPM]

Not relevant to VT thinking and training. So you use other arts to validate the one you practice. I don't, and it's irrelevant.

I think it is relevant to the current discussion. Context is everything. Wing Chun did not develop in a vacuum or on a deserted island. But it doesn't matter at this point.


It's about capturing and dominating centerline, not just picking out holes.

How do you capture and dominate the centerline?


Not pot-shots. Statements of fact.

I think they were rather rude comments. But you did have a point about me. I apologize for suggesting that your understanding of "Kiu" was a mistake or misinterpretation. As you said, there is nothing wrong with having different viewpoints.



Yet our interpretation and training of them are very different.

Yes. It may give our expressions a different "flavor." But I would not call it "fundamentally" different.

[LFJ]

The foremost concern then is controlling the centerline and from that control comes the opportunity to strike is that right?

Basically, yes. It's just that people can have very different methods for doing that- some of which are seen as errors from our point of view.


Do you have the kuit about iron bridge glass head tofu body? Just wondering since that kuit among others appears inconsistent with your view of bridge as an open route.

Certainly anyone can write things to concur with their ideas. I've not seen anything from Yip Man that contradicts my understanding of the system though.

[LFJ]

I think it is relevant to the current discussion. Context is everything. Wing Chun did not develop in a vacuum or on a deserted island. But it doesn't matter at this point.

And Buddhism also sprung up amongst older religions in the region, borrowed their common terminology and redefined them for its own use. Just as Buddhism's redefining of familiar terms was to contrast what other religions were teaching, I see VT's redefining the term to reflect a big shift in method from those other styles surrounding it. It doesn't need the agreement of other styles to validate itself. I fail to see what the problem is or how it is relevant whether other styles agree or not. Do you get this point?

Some say it was Yip Man, by the way, who changed the name "sinking" to "seeking". As well as Siu-lin-tou (little training set) to Siu-nim-tau (little [young] idea).


How do you capture and dominate the centerline?

This is getting a little circular. Read my previous descriptions. I'm not sure what part isn't making sense to you.


I think they were rather rude comments.

It's not rude to say Gary uses his own preferred terminology and restructured his own curriculum. There's nothing wrong with doing that. It's just not the way WSL taught it. As for David, his experience is what it is. Recently he's been up to some things that have caused me to lose more respect for him anyway.


Yes. It may give our expressions a different "flavor." But I would not call it "fundamentally" different.

Perhaps, but if something another lineage does that would be viewed as a big error for us, I would call that a fundamental difference.

[tc101]

Basically, yes. It's just that people can have very different methods for doing that- some of which are seen as errors from our point of view.


Yes ok I can see that. I might suggest that it would I think be helpful to couch things in those terms and might avoid ill will. It is one thing to say doing this or that is an error or mistake (generally) and say doing this or that is an error or mistake IF you are trying to use our method (specific). I think wing chun is flexible and open to many ways of getting the job done much as boxing is.



Certainly anyone can write things to concur with their ideas. I've not seen anything from Yip Man that contradicts my understanding of the system though.

I am sorry so are you saying that is not a kuit from a Yip and that others made it up? We see it across many many different Yip students.

I am not referring to the system but the terminology kiu or bridge. The kuit directly refers to centerline as jung sien. What about short bridge and long bridge (for example in terms of long bridge strength)? Iron bridge? The kuit that says when you can strike then strike? It just seems to me that bridge has a long standing meaning in southern fist and there are many systems that reference. There are many many people who learned from Yip and from WSL who have that same long standing meaning. It also appears PB is alone in his interpretation of the term. Could it perhaps be that not that he misunderstands the term but is looking at the term very narrowly and that it can be viewed more broadly?

[LFJ]

I am sorry so are you saying that is not a kuit from a Yip and that others made it up? We see it across many many different Yip students.

Are you saying this writing is attributed to YM himself? I mean I've not seen any direct quote or anything from YM that states ideas which differ from mine.

What we also see from many YM students is use of other movement terminology which WSL didn't use. There are some terms that YM used from his Fat-saan dialect that WSL said he preferred to keep, while others used their Hong Kong terms which are more widely used there. Since kiu-sau is an established term in Southern CMA, it's not a stretch to imagine people still using it that way in WCK before, after, or in spite of YM.

If this shift in meaning stems from YM, it wouldn't be the first change of terminology or even to the system some people attribute to him- such as changing "sinking" to "seeking", "siu-lin-tou" (小练套) to "siu-nim-tau" (小念头), or simplifying his pole form during HK years.


It also appears PB is alone in his interpretation of the term.

I have no affiliation to PB. I actually named them to show there are others that share this interpretation. I'm apparently not alone in this, as they've expressed the same ideas here.

[KPM]

If this shift in meaning stems from YM, it wouldn't be the first change of terminology or even to the system some people attribute to him- such as changing "sinking" to "seeking", "siu-lin-tou" (小练套) to "siu-nim-tau" (小念头), or simplifying his pole form during HK years.


.

Wait. So now you're trying to say that your understanding of "Kiu" or "bridge" comes from Yip Man himself? And I assure you that I first learned the whole "iron bridge, glass head, tofu body" from Joy Chaudhuri and Augustine Fong, who would have learned it from Ho Kam Ming, who was a close student of Yip Man.

[LFJ]

Wait. So now you're trying to say that your understanding of "Kiu" or "bridge" comes from Yip Man himself?

I said if. It may well be much older. Simply, if WSL insisted on not even changing YM's Fat-saan terminology, like other Hong Kong students did, he's far less likely to change central theories of his method. I see no reason to believe it didn't come from/through YM.

Doesn't matter who you heard what from if you don't even know for sure who wrote it.

[WC1277]

Chum kiu teaches the yin/yang of movement. A balanced rotation of movement that nurtures the "sinking" of the elbow. There is a horizontal rotation, a vertical rotation, a central axis line and footwork that corresponds. This post is not meant to be a 'bible' but a general description of chum kiu movement principles.

In relation to arm movement a very simple but important principle applies. For the horizontal axis the centerline is the zero point. For every horizontal motion you go left or right of that zero point, the next motion must come back to that zero point. The vertical axis is similar but follows more of an ellipse type shape and the zero point is the intersect with the horizontal. So for every vertical motion that goes up or down, the next movement must come back to zero.

Now, the difficult part to explain. I'm only going to explain the 'active' side of the following rotation but do know that there's a passive function too.

For every "active" motion you do your central axis rotation must rotate with the active arm side so that the shoulder is forward on that side. Your footwork, to support this, must turn and slightly brace forward to the opposite side of the "active" arm. So, for instance, if your right arm is "active" your right shoulder side will come forward and your feet will turn to the left and the left foot will move slightly forward simultaneously.

Ok good, everyone got that?

I challenge you to this test of Chum Kiu movement and tell me it doesn't open your eyes:

------

Do poon sau(regular chi sao motion) with a partner

You know how you can do that lop sau where you lop your partners fok underneath your bong? Try this instead.

Just like you were going to lop, instead(just for simplicity) shoot your tan into that space instead. Do it with the principles I outlined above. So that means: treat your tan as "active". Rotate the central axis line and adjust your footwork. Notice how you're kind of in a 'balanced' forward facing stance now?

Now the principle for a horizontal movement is you must return to the zero point, right? From this position you're currently in: Now switch to a lop(although just contact with the forearm is fine such as an elbow down lan sau) from your tan and rotate back into the center while flipping your footwork to support the "new" active arm, your punch.

------

Ask your partner how powerful it felt. How powerful did it feel to you? Effortless force, right? Try it with a different 'balance', not as strong, right? I guarantee there's not a person on this forum that won't have a light bulb go off if they understand these principles. This rotation does not need hand shapes to work either. While there's other "details" that can help, if you are truly "sinking" your elbow, you are following these principles of movement and can apply them any way, gloves included.

That is Chum Kiu movement in a nutshell and I beg of you to try it. You won't be let down.

Here is a list of the 20 hand motions. Try them all out but remember the horizontal and vertical principles in relation. This is applies to both your "block" and "attack".

The 20 hand motions:

Tan
Pak
Lop
Bong
Lan
Biu
Jum
Wu
Huen
Inside Jut
Outside Jut
Gum
Fak
Pow
Gaan
Ding
Haan
Low Bong
Jong
Kau

[KPM]

I said if. It may well be much older. Simply, if WSL insisted on not even changing YM's Fat-saan terminology, like other Hong Kong students did, he's far less likely to change central theories of his method. I see no reason to believe it didn't come from/through YM.

.

Well, I see plenty of reasons to believe it didn't come from/through YM himself, the main thing being that lots of YM students don't teach it that way! Why indeed would WSL reinterpret the meaning of a kuen kuit when he didn't even change some of the Fatsan terminology? Maybe because he didn't? Maybe because one or some of his subsequent students are the ones that changed it? I was willing to go along with you in thinking this may have come from WSL. But now trying to say it could have come from YM himself is just a bit of a stretch. That would be essentially saying that a large number of Yip Man's students "learned it wrong" or "missed this teaching." I don't buy that.

[Vajramusti]

Interesting ideas on compression and release of power. Thanks.

Now about Chum Kiu...as you may know some branches of the Yip Man lineage use the translation Sinking the Bridge (沉橋) while other groups, such as the branch I hail from use different characters that are pronounced the same way in Cantonese but which have the meaning Seeking the Bridge (尋橋). Accordingly, they would view the emphasis of the form somewhat differently. Personally, I enjoy considering these differences as presenting an opportunity to see different facets of the art.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually took me some time to figure out why the confusion. Yip Man didn't distribute lecture notes. So people started using whatever character they think they heard

Cantonese has many tones and a slight difference in tones and the meaning changes. The sounds for sinking and seeking are very close to each other.
but the words are actually different.

[LFJ]

Well, I see plenty of reasons to believe it didn't come from/through YM himself, the main thing being that lots of YM students don't teach it that way!

That's very weak evidence, if you can even call it that. We know various students had varying levels of experience under him, that he didn't expound everything fully to everyone while teaching every class, and that he simplified his teaching in Hong Kong. We also know that there are large differences among what various students of his teach and that probably only WSL, that I'm aware of, didn't change even the terminology YM used.


Why indeed would WSL reinterpret the meaning of a kuen kuit when he didn't even change some of the Fatsan terminology?

Who knows where that writing came from or who wrote it? I'm not aware of WSL ever teaching it, or YM for that matter. You first have to demonstrate that it in fact came from YM if you want to talk about it coming through WSL lineages and being changed by someone down the line, and that new idea then being spread sideways.


That would be essentially saying that a large number of Yip Man's students "learned it wrong" or "missed this teaching." I don't buy that.

If they all learned the same way, with the same experience, and didn't change anything YM taught there wouldn't be such large differences in what they teach. But since there is, this is really shaky reasoning.

[KPM]

That's very weak evidence, if you can even call it that.

Its often the only evidence we have for many things!

Who knows where that writing came from or who wrote it? I'm not aware of WSL ever teaching it, or YM for that matter. You first have to demonstrate that it in fact came from YM if you want to talk about it coming through WSL lineages and being changed by someone down the line, and that new idea then being spread sideways.

The EXACT same thing applies to your interpretation of "Kiu/Bridge"!

[tc101]

That's very weak evidence, if you can even call it that.

Its often the only evidence we have for many things!

Generally

The strength of our convictions should reflect the strength of the evidence.

The other thing is that if something is in fact true then often we should expect to see certain things. When we do not then that is a good indication it is not true.

[LFJ]

Well, I'll tell you the way I see it. Of course some will say it is naive because it is 'narrow thinking'. In the spirit of brotherhood, they want to be more inclusive and talk about different 'expressions' of the same thing. But you know, the truth cannot be many. Yet there are many contradictory interpretations of what YM taught.

We know YM is said to have simplified the system he taught in HK from that in Fat-saan, and some of this can be seen in the forms. We also know that he didn't fully expound fight theory to every student in every class. Most of the forms are largely the same, but a subtle shift in strategy can't be seen recorded in forms and drilling formats.

This focus on taking attack lines is more "simple, direct, and efficient" as we say. From this point of view, "bridging" as others describe and use it is seen as a preoccupation with making arm contact or placing too much importance on it, from whence comes all the literal application of hand techniques, sensitivity, and whatnot that we simply view as errors or at least superfluous actions.

We can see today how people who spent more time with WSL as his regular students share these same ideas. The less regular they were, the more they tend to differ and agree with the more general understanding of WCK that is out there. Since this can be seen happening today, it's not at all difficult to imagine that the same things happened among YM's students. Especially being that YM wasn't as open with his teachings as WSL. There would have been fewer who understood his simplified fight theory. Although it is "simplified" it's not something easily learned and applied in a day. It is just more direct. Students who came to learn the forms and do some chi-sau drilling probably got the more general ideas.

I see no reason for this strategy to be invented by WSL since he always maintained that he taught what YM taught him and even kept YM's Fat-saan dialect for terminology, while others used their own HK terms. It makes sense that he inherited YM's fight strategy as he was well-known for testing what he learned in fights and having consultation with YM afterward.

It also makes sense that it may have come from YM's simplification during his HK years, because it is certainly a more "simple, direct, and efficient" method. That is not necessarily to say it's "better", although of course that is my opinion, but it still comes down to the individual fighter. Others have their interpretations and specific strategies that are correct and better from their point of view too. Plus they have other WCK, mainland lineages, and Southern CMAs to corroborate their understanding. All's fine.

[BPWT..]

But you know, the truth cannot be many. Yet there are many contradictory interpretations of what YM taught.

It's an interesting point. Generally speaking, of course you're right - there is the 'truth' and that's that. But WSL's truth might not be Leung Ting's truth, which might not be TST's truth, and so on. Impossible to say who learned what from YM, and in how much detail.

And I do believe that YM learned from YKS, and also from the people at Dai Duk Lan, and perhaps some of that material was passed on to some and not to others. Yip Man seems to have been a tricky old fox :)

WSL said in an interview (my italics for emphasis):""Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines [hard luck?]. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed."

So just once in a while YM would give out just a few words of explanation in class, and he liked students to demonstrate that they were actually thinking for themselves. And remember, we're talking about YM being a bit stingy with knowledge to paying students - he wasn't teaching for free in Hong Kong.

Of course, interviews like this with WSL are a double-edged sword, as it is rare for someone to lump themselves into a negative category. So WSL (and anyone, really) are not going to say, "... and yeah, I was one of those people that didn't really get much out of YM." :)

Duncan Leung, a private student of Yip Man's, once said something very honest, however. He said that he wished he'd listened more and asked more questions when he was taking tea with YM. But he was young and his main concern was getting out there and scrapping. I think he learned from YM for a few years, starting at the age of 17. This was about the same age that WSL started too, I believe.

I think that most people at that age just want to get some action, rather than a deep discussion. Perhaps as they got older they asked more and got more. Though if YM was as traditional in his teaching method as WSL suggests, perhaps many people got limited info.

So I guess people also have to take into consideration how long a person studied with YM, what the relationship was between the two, and also the age they started learning... and maybe even their educational background (I write that with a gulp forming in my throat, as I know how this is going to sound - the stupid students didn't learn anything because they were dumb :D).

What I mean is, at a young age how many questions do you ask about theory? And maybe a student (young or old) who is perhaps not very well educated doesn't care for getting in-depth information. If your bent is to go out and fight with your friends, maybe you just want the bare bones that will let you do this as soon as possible - after all, you don't need really in-depth knowledge in order to be aggressive and punch another kid on the nose. :D

Perhaps some students were looking to understand the system in as much detail as possible (the problem then is that some of those people maybe know a lot, but can't necessarily do a lot) :D

Actually, WSL also said in the same interview. "Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude. This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional."

Maybe, too, it depends on the period of YM's teaching in Hong Kong. As someone else here suggested, in the later years of his life YM was maybe more open with the system and the teaching than when compared to his earlier years in Hong Kong.

So how much of my Wing Tsun, or your Ving Tsun, or their Wing Chun has Yip Man's knowledge?

I have no idea. :D :D :D (actually, my head is often spinning from some of these threads)

But I think that people like Sifu Sergio have the right idea. The best way to understand the Wing Chun system is to look at all of the people that learned from Yip Man, and also look at the various other Wing Chun lineages that Yip Man had contact with.

[KPM]

I see no reason for this strategy to be invented by WSL since he always maintained that he taught what YM taught him and even kept YM's Fat-saan dialect for terminology, while others used their own HK terms. It makes sense that he inherited YM's fight strategy as he was well-known for testing what he learned in fights and having consultation with YM afterward.

.

Your words:
You first have to demonstrate that it in fact came from YM if you want to talk about it coming through WSL lineages......

You haven't done that.

[LFJ]

Of course, interviews like this with WSL are a double-edged sword, as it is rare for someone to lump themselves into a negative category. So WSL (and anyone, really) are not going to say, "... and yeah, I was one of those people that didn't really get much out of YM." :)

The fact that he can say things like this would suggest that he was regularly attending, paying attention, and asking questions, and that there were others who didn't know what was going on and figured they got all the points. This is a statement of observation.


Your words:
You first have to demonstrate that it in fact came from YM if you want to talk about it coming through WSL lineages......

You haven't done that.

I think the type and standard of evidence to prove an abstract fighting theory came from a particular person from two generations ago that are both no longer living is going to be much different than verifying the author of a piece of writing.

[KPM]

I think the type and standard of evidence to prove an abstract fighting theory came from a particular person from two generations ago that are both no longer living is going to be much different than verifying the author of a piece of writing.

What the heck are you talking about? Who ever said anything a piece of writing? We were talking about a Kuen Kuit, which were often passed on verbally. Do they not express an "abstract fighting theory"? You're pretty good at using double standards! ;)

[tc101]

But you know, the truth cannot be many. Yet there are many contradictory interpretations of what YM taught.


You know brother this is the source of many of wing chun problems and it stems from this way of thinking. There is only one right way. Of course that right way is my way. Then here are the stories I believe and my arguments based on those stories to support my right way.

I think this is complete and utter nonsense. There are many many right ways. They often are contradictory. They can come from the same coach or instructor. You see the exact same thing in boxing. The difference in boxing is that the argument takes place in the ring not in words. The ring shows us this is absolutely true. There is no one best way that works in the ring.

Wing chun or any true martial art for that matter is not a dogma. You are not bound to do something a certain way for any reason other than you find through your training that it works best for you. Martial arts have to be very flexible in the tools and tactics and strategy because each person training has a different mix and fighting requires us to be highly adaptive. The system has to be adapted to the individual not the individual molded to fit into the system. The system is just a guide or a toolbox. Even WSL said do not be a slave to the system. How we use it is up to us. Two boxers from the same trainer can look and move in very very very different ways and both be very good.

The people who are getting in the ring and mixing it up can't help but see this. You get in and get soundly beaten by guys who do things in ways contradictory to your understanding. You see guys at a very high level doing things very different from you and it works very well for them. It broadens your view.

[LFJ]

What the heck are you talking about? Who ever said anything a piece of writing? We were talking about a Kuen Kuit, which were often passed on verbally.

Sure. Anyone can say they have a historical poem describing their thoughts on their system and not have to prove its origin because it was always a "verbal transmission".

Martial arts are at times very political, especially within the Chinese culture. But in many ancient TCMA systems throughout the country there are so-called poems that contain detail about the particular form or system. They've been put to writing for centuries and can be traced- even the so-called 'secret transmissions'.

Especially if a poem were made in recent generations there'd be little reason to not commit it to writing or at least be able to confirm its origin. So if you can't confirm its origin, take it with a huge grain of salt when someone tries to tell you they know who its from.

Tracing shifts in strategy and changes in movement patterns over a person's teaching career, on the other hand, is something a little more observational.


Do they not express an "abstract fighting theory"?

Some WCK lineages certainly take things much more literally, looking at the forms as containing various literal techniques and application sequences. That's not abstract from my point of view, nor is building a physical bridge with your opponent's arms, as opposed to taking attack lines.

[LFJ]

You know brother this is the source of many of wing chun problems and it stems from this way of thinking. There is only one right way. Of course that right way is my way. Then here are the stories I believe and my arguments based on those stories to support my right way.

I do believe I made a point to say the shift in strategy/tactics is not to say it's necessarily better. It always comes down to the individual fighter. Here in this thread I've expressed the differences in understanding of the particular system that has come to me, and where I believe it comes from and why I believe so.

Honestly though, without meaning disrespect to the man, it wouldn't hurt me to not be able to say Yip Man is in my lineage tree- like it would people with more political stake in the matter. He was a fallible human being like anyone else. It's not the person the teaching came from that is so important, but as WSL reminded us frequently, it's "whether or not it works".

So you can trust me when I say I don't care to claim I have the one right way and my right way comes from the top man. I simply have a different approach and I'm expressing my thoughts on where its origins may lie. Because others differ doesn't mean they are worse. Others can even say they have a more detailed, in-depth method and that's what makes them effective. They can even say they can trace it far back into other styles. Great. For me, it's the simplification and I'm comfortable with others saying I "lack" certain things they have, because from my point of view those things are superfluous.

[KPM]

Sure. Anyone can say they have a historical poem describing their thoughts on their system and not have to prove its origin because it was always a "verbal transmission".

.

Now hold on. You presented an interpretation of "Kiu/bridge" that differed from the mainstream. We pointed out several useages of "Kiu" where your interpretation doesn't work, one of them being this Kuen Kuit. I proposed that Yip Man taught this Kuen Kuit because many of his students use it. You proposed that Yip Man also taught your interpretation of "Kiu" because WSL lineage people use it. You think I should be able to provide written evidence when you don't? And you don't see that as a double standard? :rolleyes:

[LFJ]

You proposed that Yip Man also taught your interpretation of "Kiu" because WSL lineage people use it.

Not entirely. I invite you to reread my posts to find the actual reasons for what I think.


You think I should be able to provide written evidence when you don't? And you don't see that as a double standard?

You're talking about a poem. A formulation of words. I'm talking about the simplification of a system into an abstract fighting strategy. And as I said;

Tracing shifts in strategy and changes in movement patterns over a person's teaching career, on the other hand, is something a little more observational.

[tc101]

You're talking about a poem. A formulation of words. I'm talking about the simplification of a system into an abstract fighting strategy. And as I said;

Tracing shifts in strategy and changes in movement patterns over a person's teaching career, on the other hand, is something a little more observational.

I think wing chun comes to us with a base strategy which is controlling and dominating the centerline. The system teaches us the tools to do that.

The only shift I see in what you are describing is a shift to less or no contact in doing that. I think this was also always a part of the wing chun approach it just seems PB has shifted ENTIRELY to that view. I think the classical way involves a whole range from much contact to little contact in dominating the centerline. I do not think WSL was that extreme since his other long time students do not embrace PBs view.

I am not saying PB is wrong. For me it it is like saying a certain trainer thinks and teaches boxing should be all stick and move. Maybe that will work well for some but I think boxing offers a greater range of expression. Same with what Bayer teaches.

The other thing is I think it is only honest to recognize that kiu has in the past both in Chinese martial art and in mainstream wing chun referred to a certain form of contact because that is simply the truth. I think you should instead say that PB has redefined the term to embrace his own way doing things. Again I see nothing wrong with that.

[LFJ]

@tc101

It seems I need to reiterate that I am not a student of PB or anyone under him.

You say other long time students of WSL don't share PB's view. They sure do. It is clear the longer a regular student spent with WSL the closer they are to PB's method. The less time, the further. Go visit a bunch of them and you'll see instantly how clear it is. It is not just PB's own way or his redefining of terms.

Also, in fighting with VT there is bound to be a clash of limbs due to our punching structure. This is deliberate. It is impractical to think of dominating centerline with no contact, picking shots in the air like a boxer. That is not what I'm saying. But rather than making contact to utilize "sensitivity" and gain control, we use intersecting attack lines to cut the opponent off, make it difficult for them to recover, and clear the line while striking. That to us is 'lin siu daai da'.

The concept of kiu here is basically gok-dou (angle), how we take the line to strike, like crossing a 'bridge'- a path to the other side. From the opponent's side this is dominating them over their sei-gok (dead angles), created by errors they make themselves (kiu loi kiu seung gwo - when a bridge appears, cross it) or by our force (mou kiu ji jou kiu- if there is no bridge, create it yourself). I don't know how much these "terms" are necessarily translated into English. But that is the basis of this strategy that is used- and not only by PB. It is simply that his students are most widespread around the world and there are more videos of him and his students.

[tc101]

@tc101

It seems I need to reiterate that I am not a student of PB or anyone under him.

You say other long time students of WSL don't share PB's view. They sure do. It is clear the longer a regular student spent with WSL the closer they are to PB's method. The less time, the further. Go visit a bunch of them and you'll see instantly how clear it is. It is not just PB's own way or his redefining of terms.


I think Lam spent something like almost 20 years with WSL as a full time student and assistant instructor for him. There are others like the practical wing chun guy whose name I can't remember right now. Barry and Nino and others spent a good deal of time with him. I think you can see WSLs influence in all of them. I think they all like PB took those things that personally resonated with them and built what they do around that.



Also, in fighting with VT there is bound to be a clash of limbs due to our punching structure. This is deliberate. It is impractical to think of dominating centerline with no contact, picking shots in the air like a boxer. That is not what I'm saying. But rather than making contact to utilize "sensitivity" and gain control, we use intersecting attack lines to cut the opponent off, make it difficult for them to recover, and clear the line while striking. That to us is 'lin siu daai da'.


As I told Kev that happens only because you are facing other wing chun men who are operating only on the centerline? This gives you a false sense of things. When you spar or fight with most non wing chun people the intersecting attack lines will not be there and attacks will come from all sorts of angles.



The concept of kiu here is basically gok-dou (angle), how we take the line to strike, like crossing a 'bridge'- a path to the other side. From the opponent's side this is dominating them over their sei-gok (dead angles), created by errors they make themselves (kiu loi kiu seung gwo - when a bridge appears, cross it) or by our force (mou kiu ji jou kiu- if there is no bridge, create it yourself). I don't know how much these "terms" are necessarily translated into English. But that is the basis of this strategy that is used- and not only by PB. It is simply that his students are most widespread around the world and there are more videos of him and his students.

I do understand how you and PB define the term kiu. That is also the classical definition too just they add that this TYPICALLY stems from contact.

I think that many in wing chun over complicate and confuse things with their terminology. If you are talking about angle say angle, if you are talking about posture say posture, if you are talking about getting position say position, if you are talking about the flank say the flank and so on.

What you describe above is not unique to WSL but basic control the centerline.

[LFJ]

I think Lam spent something like almost 20 years with WSL as a full time student and assistant instructor for him. There are others like the practical wing chun guy whose name I can't remember right now.

While each individual will have their own flavor because they are individuals, these guys quite openly modified the system. Wan Kam Leung's is totally different. That's why he gave it a new name. Other long time regular students of WSL who didn't openly modify the system share PB's thinking. Chan Kim Man is an example.


As I told Kev that happens only because you are facing other wing chun men who are operating only on the centerline? This gives you a false sense of things. When you spar or fight with most non wing chun people the intersecting attack lines will not be there and attacks will come from all sorts of angles.

What you are doing is making a ridiculous generalization of all people in history who have trained this method, saying they've never faced other styles or they would know that it only works against someone doing the same thing. It's nonsensical.

The system was not developed only to face itself and is able to function against other styles. As I've described before, the intersecting line merely happens by virtue of our punching structure. If the line is open we fill it and hit just the same. No matter what angle an opponent presents, we aim to take a superior, more direct one. Range and timing become an issue when facing other styles, but the footwork and angling still function to produce the same results. It just takes practice to become comfortable with it against other styles.

Many who understand and train this method regularly spar with folks of other styles. A recently discussed example here is Sean's guys who have been exchanging with an MMA group. Sparring with this method is indeed done against other styles. So I don't think you know exactly what you're talking about here and your assumptions of what might happen are just that, unless you are out there testing the method against other styles to gather this information. There's nothing quite like speaking from experience, you know.


I think that many in wing chun over complicate and confuse things with their terminology. If you are talking about angle say angle

That's exactly what I've been saying. "Terminology" is usually just how you say it in Chinese. Nothing special or overly complicated.


What you describe above is not unique to WSL but basic control the centerline.

Not so sure about that. Perhaps in writing it sounds similar because we can only understand each other based on our own previous experience, so we project that onto whatever we're trying to imagine the other person is saying. But when I look at other lineages in action I don't see our method being used at all.

[kung fu fighter]

@tc101

Also, in fighting with VT there is bound to be a clash of limbs due to our punching structure. This is deliberate. It is impractical to think of dominating centerline with no contact, picking shots in the air like a boxer. That is not what I'm saying. But rather than making contact to utilize "sensitivity" and gain control, we use intersecting attack lines to cut the opponent off, make it difficult for them to recover, and clear the line while striking. That to us is 'lin siu daai da'.

The concept of kiu here is basically gok-dou (angle), how we take the line to strike, like crossing a 'bridge'- a path to the other side. From the opponent's side this is dominating them over their sei-gok (dead angles), created by errors they make themselves (kiu loi kiu seung gwo - when a bridge appears, cross it) or by our force (mou kiu ji jou kiu- if there is no bridge, create it yourself). I don't know how much these "terms" are necessarily translated into English. But that is the basis of this strategy that is used- and not only by PB. It is simply that his students are most widespread around the world and there are more videos of him and his students.

The cut punch is applied in a similar way as a man sao to feel which way the opponent's energy is going, except a man sao can cover a longer range due to the fact that you only have to make contact with the opponent's limbs (bridge) and not his head/torso.
The "intersecting attack lines to cut the opponent off with a cut punch" only works when you have already closed the distance and you are striking the opponent while turning him to destroy his facing at close range, it does not work to initiate bridging the gap with an attack from non contact range into contact range. It relies on the opponent bridging the gap for you, then intersecting him halfway upon his commitment. But if he is probing with jabs, use this tactic will throw your timing off.


Which WSL student did you learn from?

[LFJ]

The "intersecting attack lines to cut the opponent off with a cut punch" only works when you have already closed the distance and you are striking the opponent while turning him to destroy his facing at close range, it does not work to initiate bridging the gap with an attack from non contact range into contact range. It relies on the opponent bridging the gap for you, then intersecting him halfway upon his commitment.

We don't want to launch attacks from out of range for this reason. You find it a disadvantage?


But if he is probing with jabs, use this tactic will throw your timing off.

Why? The intersecting of lines happens purely by virtue of the punching structure and angle. It is attacking, not hand-chasing. It's not that we are aiming to jump out at arms when we see them coming.


Which WSL student did you learn from?

I've gotten around in HK. That's why I can notice the differences between what the various WSL students teach.