"Sinking" the Bridge

[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/...cle_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/view...9d173fc60f27ac

"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?