Bridging

[Oso]

why is the clinch range not still chin na?

underhooks and overhooks are shoulder chin na

the thai style double hand on the head clinch is neck chin na

a high crotch is hip chin na

a bear hug is rib chin na

mmm, ribs....

[ninjaboy]

"mmmm.....ribs"

lol

[Oso]

lol, i wanted ribs for sure tonight...might have to do them myself tomorrow...been working on a new bbq recipe

[Redfish]

Jake

Where I tend to agree with your assessment here is that even though I quite believe in CMA/Mantis 'techniques' I feel that once that first bridge or counter is made and you go inside, then you're in the 'clinch' - so basically that first part is over in a split second (whether we think it 'works' or not) and what follows is the 'main part' so you're right to place importance on it.

Does that make sense?

Our teacher and Shigong both say that if you want to use 'kung fu' to beat someone you have to be good enough to all but end it in three moves or 7-8 ish seconds. Basically , going in, bridge, finish.

I think that structure is similar to MMA too which might use the shoot to bridge and the ground to finish. CMA on the street might use the jab to go in and a low kick to finish.

Of course, this is abstract and you can't assume everyone in a fight is an expert. On the other hand, if we were using scientific method to analyse then I guess we would assume everyone is in shape and an expert to be able to look only at the style.

This is where I sigh when reading CMA vs MMA threads which seem to use the model of a full time pro MMA fighter vs a thirteen year old who's been to 6 Karate lessons

So back to my points:

Bridging is in all the styles for sure.
As a CMA believer I still feel that close range is as important as Jake posted.

And I also think that CMA has techniques for this, which someone else just posted too.

[RandyBrown]

Oso - I believe I stated clearly that this was "our definition" of 'Bridging'. Which was in line with Earth Dragon's. No need to argue semantics as I was answering his post not starting a war of words. Every style, system, school, lineage has their own terms for things that are unique to them. I apologize if this was unclear.

Jake - excellent comments as usual and thanks for your input!

Tainan Mantis - you are 100% correct - These tactics I spoke of are not CMA in nature. We took a few of our bridging strategies from CMA but most are not discussed, taught, or shown in CMA and were taken from other styles and systems to improve our Mantis. We are strong proponents of the idea Jake mentions - bring your systems into the present or they will be outdated and lack usefulness in modern hand-to-hand combat.

If something will improve your skill would you not want to adopt it? Most CMA styles are hybrids after all and were constantly being refined for usefulness up till the age of ballistic combat taking precedence. There was a great article in Classical Fighting Arts titled - "The moon always shines brighter on the other side of the world." The article went on to say that the Chinese were trying to scoff up and translate manuals, learn training techniques, etc. of Western Boxing when they first encountered it. Why stop the ball rolling?

Redfish - you raise some interesting points and you are correct, the average altercation on the street will not require such high degrees of skill. I however counter you with the following food for thought - would you rather train for the lowest possible skill level and need more, or train for the highest possible skill level and need only 30% of what you have?

Randy Brown

[MightyB]

Years ago, I was introduced to the idea of using skilled footwork to get into hand to hand range. The idea wasn't to simply walk in straight- it was a circling approach we called Ja Bo (sp?). My Sigung had us practice this every day in class- we nicknamed it walking the circle- the ideal range we'd go for was a distance of approximately two but no more than three hand lengths from our opponent.

The main component of "linking" IMO is tu sau "intercepting hand". Used correctly and in conjunction with other techniques- you can move from outside to inside or vice versa, set up throws and locks, overcome a defensive move, or tangle you're opponents arms. You can also use it to step out of a clinch if you initiate it before the clinch is fully locked in.

[mantis108]

I believe the following clip is the range and idea of bridging.

http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=DVFUgdfFGRg

The blindfolded person is a Wing Chun practitioner. You will notice the Bang Shou that is distinctive to the Wing Chun style. His opponent is a mantis stylist whom I believe has been training HK 7 Star and a bit of TCPM. He is basically using moves from the Zhan Nian drill. Most of the time he is sticking to the outside and upper gates. Since this is practice only, you will notice that it is quite one dimensional albeit free flowing. This type of practice is great to hone a certain skill and sharpen an aspect of hand to hand combat but is not the be all end all training.

Mantis108

[Oso]

RB: i wasn't argueing semantics...pointing out that we didn't need to argue semantics being that most all chinese names for moves/techniques are very colloquial in nature and that 'bridging' is an american colloquialism for the idea and fits both definitions.

[Three Harmonies]

I wonder if those guys ever heard of "hooks" or "body shots?"

[Tainan Mantis]

Masters Adopting Foreign Methods

While I trained with my shifu in Taiwan I noticed that he not only continually spent time searching out new techniques from masters of CMA, but other non CMA styles eg. such as Judo and boxing.

He would talk to us about the differences and similarities, something that my shifu Art D also did. Differences and similarities was they key point.

I think that is great!
(Jake made a good point on learning from other styles)
Mostly what they did was use this new knowledge in order to look at their mantis through a different mirror, such as how others deal with neck grabs and locks...and we all learned from this.

Mantis Concepts

On the other hand, if bridging is some sort of contact activity where does it fit within all the exisiting concepts of Mantis, such as contact and clinging of the arms as well as pasting and leaning of the body?

Mantis has a lot of different keywords and concepts, can't any of them be used to describe what you are trying to accomplish in bridging?

Kevin

[sanjuro_ronin]

Masters Adopting Foreign Methods
While I trained with my shifu in Taiwan I noticed that he not only continually spent time searching out new techniques from masters of CMA, but other non CMA styles eg. such as Judo and boxing.

He would talk to us about the differences and similarities, something that my shifu Art D also did. Differences and similarities was they key point.

I think that is great!
(Jake made a good point on learning from other styles)
Mostly what they did was use this new knowledge in order to look at their mantis through a different mirror, such as how others deal with neck grabs and locks...and we all learned from this.

It seems that many older masters are more open to learning than many newer ones.
Its so vital to familiarize ourselves with the tools of other MA, other MA that we may someday meet in combat.

[MightyB]

There's some guy asking questions about forms apps that got me thinking about this thread...

When you really think about it- all the movements, apps, and such from the forms are in response to somebody attacking you. I can't think of one that is a lead--- I'm thinking of bridging in the sense of originating an attack- but, when you get right down to it, Mantis, and I'm assuming most Shaolin originated arts, are defensive. Maybe this has something to do with Buddhist roots-

When somebody attacks- the act of attacking creates a bridge for the Mantis guy's defense. In theory- a fight between two Mantis masters should really be two guys standing in their fighting stances staring at each other.

[TaichiMantis]

There's some guy asking questions about forms apps that got me thinking about this thread...

When you really think about it- all the movements, apps, and such from the forms are in response to somebody attacking you. I can't think of one that is a lead--- I'm thinking of bridging in the sense of originating an attack- but, when you get right down to it, Mantis, and I'm assuming most Shaolin originated arts, are defensive. Maybe this has something to do with Buddhist roots-

When somebody attacks- the act of attacking creates a bridge for the Mantis guy's defense. In theory- a fight between two Mantis masters should really be two guys standing in their fighting stances staring at each other.

huh? not the mantis I learn.

[RandyBrown]

Kevin and others,


I think your teacher was in line with what I have also been doing for the past 30 years though he has been doing it much longer. Having to use my art on a regular basis, forced me to have to contend with a number of issues that were not addressed in CMA - mainly boxers, Thai Boxers and Wrestlers. I looked at a number of systems and saw how they addressed all aspects of martial arts. I then looked for the concept in my art. In most cases I was able to find the same tactic or one superior in Mantis. Having said that, there were some areas of fighting that CMA and mantis had failed to evolve. In those cases I found methods of adding to my art so that it was consistent with the rest of the system and did not conflict with techniques or principles of Mantis.


Not right or wrong, but some look at the art as a relic to be preserved and some as a living thing to me maintained. I would like to think that I am in line with Wong Long’s original idea of evolution for the sake of making it more effective.


Now that takes us back to Bridging, I found the only principle in mantis was to “contact, cling”. To reach out (seek a bridge) and touch the enemies arms to gain reference and know or feel when to move in. I found this to be a good tactic but wrestlers and boxers in most cases will not let you establish arm contact, nor will they maintain it. So how do they bridge? At a basic level through fakes and feints. Later they use other tactics mentioned in my first post. To not add or at least gain understanding of these methods will make you vulnerable to a growing population of reality based martial artist.



Tony Puyot

[sanjuro_ronin]

Kevin and others,


I think your teacher was in line with what I have also been doing for the past 30 years though he has been doing it much longer. Having to use my art on a regular basis, forced me to have to contend with a number off issues that were not addressed in CMA, mainly boxers, Thai Boxers and wresters. I looked at a number of systems and saw how they addressed all aspects of martial art. I then looked for the concept in my art. In most cases I was able to find the same tactic or one superior in Mantis. Having said that, there were some areas of fighting that CMA and mantis had failed to evolve in. In those cases I found methods of adding to my art so that it was consistent with the rest of the system and did not conflict with techniques or principles of Mantis.


Not right or wrong but some look at the art as a relic to be preserved and some as a living thing to me maintained. I would like to think that I am in line with Wong Long’s original idea of evolution for the sake of making it more effective.


Now that takes us back to Bridging, I found the only principles in mantis was to “contact, cling”. To reach out (seek a bridge) and touch the enemies arms to gain reference and know or feel when to move in. I found this to be a good tactic but wrestlers and boxers in most cases will not let you establish arm contact nor will they maintain it. So how do they bridge, at a basic level through fakes and faints. Later they use other tactics mentioned in my first post. To not add or at least gain understudying of these methods will make you vulnerable to a growing population of reality based martial artist.



Tony Puyot

Excellent post.