"Sinking" the Bridge

[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?

[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.