WSL Ving Tsun - Sifu Cliff Au Yeung - Blindfold Gor Sau Training

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlennR

Two things ive noticed.

---

I could list more that you haven't noticed. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

All science and no real fighting! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham H

lolololololololololololololololol

fantastic! :D

---

So let me get this right, if during a fight two arms collide, the opponents arm position is totally irrelevant to you guys?

You dont have to take it into account?

It "doesnt exist"???

And please......... before you say sticking.... i havent said sticking once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LFJ

@BPWT;

Imagine you want to cross a river. Ideally you want to just go straight over the bridge. But you're just walking along the river bank where you can't cross. So you must search for the bridge, i.e. find the pathway to the other side.

The open line is the bridge. Crossing it is hitting the opponent. What you are calling the bridge is the obstacle. You can't cross there because something is in the way. You have to redirect it or somehow deal with it. If that's the case, how can it be a bridge to the other side? You can't cross it. The open line is the figurative bridge you must search for. You're looking to build a physical bridge that can't even be crossed.

---

Hard to believe anyone disagrees with this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guy b.

Hard to believe anyone disagrees with this

---

Yep but most of the wing chun world thinks that the "bridge" means the arm and chum kiu means to look for it. :D

It's the same rubbish as when they translate siu lim tau to mean the small idea and yet they fill the whole form up with fighting applications. What's small about that? It should be called "full lim tau" lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LFJ

I think your interpretation of Cham-kiu breaks down before you can even build it. I don't understand how you don't see the logic.

---

What I am trying to convey is that to use figurative/analogy based descriptions is limited. Of course you argue all day long about how this works or doesn't work in reference to an actual/real bridge we would walk across. It is faulty logic. An analogy is used to give a basic mental picture. :rolleyes:

In many MAs, and in various WC lineages, bridging is clearly used to describe making contact, usually with the limbs. If you understood better what Kiu was, it would make more sense. Like I said, this word is used in other Chinese arts too - and not to mean the attacking line.

Look, it is a given that in WC/VT/WT the aim is to strike the opponent. In SNT there are many things to learn, but if we look at recycling the arms, elbow position, facing, etc, we can see them all pointing to the importance of striking the opponent and being in a position to do this.

But in Chum Kiu, the form is about bridging (connecting) and, naturally, what will come from that - which of course is striking. Given that we all know the aim is to strike your opponent (even a complete novice will understand this before they even start their first lesson in the art), this form focuses on the bridge work/connections - because they will inevitably happen.

Why do you think there is so much bong in Chum Kiu? You say that you don't seek a bridge in a fight, you seek to hit. Sure. But like I said, can you actually fight like this? Do you never intercept or have your strikes intercepted? Of course not.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the Biu Tze form is only about emergency techniques/ideas, though there are certainly some in there. If I use your logic, why would that be so. You don't want to find yourself out of position, so why train from it? Because it can happen, so you prepare for it.

Chum Kiu is the same - you will connect/bridge in a fight, even though you'd like to just continually and cleanly strike someone - sadly, this isn't how things actually happen. Hence what is inside the CK form.

The reason I referenced Kevin's video with the Yat Fook Yee moment is to highlight the point that this (Yat Fook Yee) is a bridging concept. A connecting concept. Like I said, PB pinned the arms and punched into the open gap. The punch was the strike, the Yat Fook Yee was the bridge.

Again, I know you will say this is not so. Okay. So we disagree. But if you think about the word Kiu and what it means in relation to the arm, then you will see why the second form is called Chum Kiu, and not Chum Da.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham H

Yep but most of the wing chun world thinks that the "bridge" means the arm and chum kiu means to look for it. :D

---

Just so I understand, you are taking the word Kiu (in context) to mean bridge, and bridge alone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPWT

In many MAs, and in various WC lineages, bridging is clearly used to describe making contact, usually with the limbs. If you understood better what Kiu was, it would make more sense. Like I said, this word is used in other Chinese arts too - and not to mean the attacking line.

---

The meaning of the term 'karma' in Hinduism or Jainism is different and irrelevant to its meaning in Buddhism.

Quote:

---

Chum Kiu is the same - you will connect/bridge in a fight, even though you'd like to just continually and cleanly strike someone - sadly, this isn't how things actually happen. Hence what is inside the CK form.

---

When someone punches at you do you seek to connect with their arms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LFJ

The meaning of the term 'karma' in Hinduism or Jainism is different and irrelevant to its meaning in Buddhism.

---

Great :rolleyes: But the term Kiu, across different Chinese MA systems has some common traits. The common trait is in reference to the arm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LFJ

When someone punches at you do you seek to connect with their arms?

---

Are you reading what I am writing? Read my previous post. You are asking questions I have already answered (many times, in fact).

Tell me, why is Chum Kiu not called Chum Da?

Then tell me why other southern systems use the term Kiu in relation to the arm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPWT

Just so I understand, you are taking the word Kiu (in context) to mean bridge, and bridge alone?

---

Listen dude, I don't take the literal westernized translations as anything.

Siu Lim Tau means small or young idea but many people fill the form up with rubbish so the translation means nothing. Kiu does mean bridge but bridge can have many translations. Some other Kung Fu systems use the term bridge to mean the forearm but Ving Tsun does not. Muk Yan Jong means wooden steak in the ground but most people think it means wooden dummy or man. Bil Jee can be translated as pointing or shooting fingers so people thing it is to do with finger jabs and some think it means to push chi to the finger tips. The form has nothing to do with this so Bil Jee can mean many things. Chi Sau can be translated as sticky arms but the drill has nothing to do with sticking.

Stop hanging on words! You are wrong.

BTW you are making an idiot of yourself by putting my translation in your profile. To you it may come across as a pizz take but in fact it is the correct translation for Chum Kiu. Yours is Leung Ting nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPWT

Great :rolleyes: But the term Kiu, across different Chinese MA systems has some common traits. The common trait is in reference to the arm.

---

Great. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Are you reading what I am writing? Read my previous post. You are asking questions I have already answered (many times, in fact).

---

You keep talking about when someone inevitably contacts your arm when you punch. I'm asking the opposite. Is that what you seek to do when someone punches at you? You seek to build your physical 'bridge' through arm contact?

Quote:

---

Tell me, why is Chum Kiu not called Chum Da?

---

Because 'seeking the strike' is asking to get hit.

Quote:

---

Then tell me why other southern systems use the term Kiu in relation to the arm.

---

I don't care. I don't train other southern systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham H

Listen dude, I don't take the literal westernized translations as anything. Stop hanging on words! You are wrong.

---

Your level of arrogance is simply astounding, Graham. :( How can you say I am wrong, and hanging on words, when you freely admit that you take the translations 'as anything'?

Backwards logic. If you don't trust in translations and meanings of words, how could you possibly know that a translation is wrong? You invalidate your own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham H

Siu Lim Tau means...

---

How can you know or trust what it means? You just said you don't take the translations as anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham H

BTW you are making an idiot of yourself by putting my translation in your profile. To you it may come across as a pizz take but in fact it is the correct translation for Chum Kiu. Yours is Leung Ting nonsense.

---

You mean the translation you don't stand by? :rolleyes: How can it be a correct translation when you don't go by them? My translation from Leung Ting is nonsense, you say - so you speak Cantonese better than Leung Ting? Amazing arrogance from you.

Even within your own lineage via WSL there are people (David Peterson) who speak the language and who write about the meanings - and guess what... it doesn't tally with your own.

Yet still, you insist that your translation (which you don't take as anything) is the correct translation.

Hopeless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPWT

Your level of arrogance is simply astounding, Graham. :( How can you say I am wrong, and hanging on words, when you freely admit that you take the translations 'as anything'?

Backwards logic. If you don't trust in translations and meanings of words, how could you possibly know that a translation is wrong? You invalidate your own words.





How can you know or trust what it means? You just said you don't take the translations as anything.




You mean the translation you don't stand by? :rolleyes: How can it be a correct translation when you don't go by them? My translation from Leung Ting is nonsense, you say - so you speak Cantonese better than Leung Ting? Amazing arrogance from you.

Even within your own lineage via WSL there are people (David Peterson) who speak the language and who write about the meanings - and guess what... it doesn't tally with your own.

Yet still, you insist that your translation (which you don't take as anything) is the correct translation.

Hopeless.

---

Yes I'm arrogant and you're a c**t!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham H

Yes I'm arrogant and you're a c**t!

---

Youve avoided this........

Quote:

---

So let me get this right, if during a fight two arms collide, the opponents arm position is totally irrelevant to you guys?

You dont have to take it into account?

It "doesnt exist"???

And please......... before you say sticking.... i havent said sticking once.

---

Like you avoid those pesky opponents arms...............