"Sinking" the Bridge

[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 ).

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.

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)

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. (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!