"Sinking" the Bridge

[LFJ]

I don't think Wing Chun would diverge widely from other Southern CMA in its use of basic terms.

Even the various lineages of Wing Chun can certainly diverge widely on the interpretation of basically the same actions in the forms. It's not so farfetched as it may seem to you. I made the analogy before where Buddhism uses the same basic term "karma" that is found as a central teaching in other religions from the region but gives it a very different meaning. So it's not impossible.

You can also look at Wing Chun from a Northern CMA interpretation of the actions contained in the forms and it will become something different entirely. But the case could be made. This doesn't change what Wing Chun is internally though- that is, the way it is understood and trained by its practitioners. So it is irrelevant.

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.

Of course. Because our lineages have vastly different ideas on what "is being taught" there.

But how the heck do you "sink" an open space between you and the opponent?

If you are unable to cross a river, what must you do? Search for the bridge. If the water is the opponent's defense, the bridge is a opening for you to get over it. Metaphorically, that is the open path you take to get to the other side. It's a metaphorical "bridge" by function. You metaphorically "sink" the opponent's bridge when you cut off their path. The bridge collapses into water, i.e. what was an open attacking line becomes an obstruction.

Your understanding shows the problem with trying to take "bridge" literally as a physical structure one should create with their opponent. A bridge is an open path that facilitates crossing to the other side where otherwise impossible, troublesome or dangerous. When an opponent throws up a defense, that is an obstruction. You have to work around it and cannot cross directly. So it doesn't really function as a bridge. You wouldn't want to sink the bridge you want to cross. There's no reason to call it that.



See above. The water is the defense keeping you from crossing. The bridge is the open path you take to cross. If you find a bridge, cross it. If there isn't one, create it. If the opponent finds a bridge to your side of the river, collapse it into the water. Solid metaphor. Take it literally and you run into all types of funny problems.

Anyway, I think we've had enough of this before. We can simply agree that our systems are very different and leave it at that.

[kung fu fighter]

You first have to define "the bridge". That can make "searching" for it, or not, mean something completely different.

The literal translation of Kiu or bridge in Southern Chinese Martial Art is establishing contact with your forearms to the opponent's forearm to create a connection, in the same way a bridge is used to connect two land mass.

I agree with Keith, "seeking a bridge" means seeking to engage the opponent. what specific means do you utilize to achieve this?

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.

Striking into an open line is great because you can possibly hit the opponent using timing, however the opponent can still hit you back because you don't have full control of his bridge arms or body structure to the same degree which controlling a bridge can provide. For example if you strike into an open line with a boxer who's defense is to use his footwork to circle you, you could end up striking into a thin air or empty space thus hitting nothing, and leaving yourself completely exposed and wide open to his heavy counter cross or hook, not to mention kicks and takedowns if he is an MMA or muai thai fighter.

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.

Can you elaborate on this, which wck stepping do you use for your tactical footwork etc.?

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.

Some good points made! and this was what I was taught as well. however a bridge has to be established in order to apply this, where in the system is one taught tactics of how to create a bridge safely?

[LFJ]

The literal translation of Kiu or bridge in Southern Chinese Martial Art is establishing contact with your forearms to the opponent's forearm to create a connection, in the same way a bridge is used to connect two land mass.

I understand that, but as I tried to make clear in my previous post, this is not the case in every Southern CMA. So it is good to define common terms before speaking about interpretation and method.

Striking into an open line is great because you can hit the opponent using timing, however the opponent can still hit you back because you don't have full control of his bridge arms or body structure to the same degree which controlling a bridge can provide.

By "open" line I'm not referring to just picking shots in the air. The opponent's arms will be dealt with by cutting attacks which disrupt their structure and give us a superior line while limiting their ability to recover and respond effectively. It doesn't require sticking and limb control but is also not just picking shots. It's about finding dominate positioning which itself is control.

Can you elaborate on this, which wck stepping do you use for your tactical footwork etc.?

It follows chasing principles and is dictated by the opponent's behavior in order to find the best angles. Watch WSL's footwork and see how he moves to position himself in relation to the opponent and attack.

[LFJ]

I agree with Keith, "seeking a bridge" means seeking to engage the opponent. what specific means do you utilize to achieve this?

I don't think engaging the opponent is something that has to be sought. If someone attacks you, there you go.

If you are seeking that I'd suggest some name-calling or for the less easily provoked, some harsher insults and taunts, maybe a pass at their woman.

[kung fu fighter]

By "open" line I'm not referring to just picking shots in the air. The opponent's arms will be dealt with by cutting attacks which disrupt their structure and give us a superior line while limiting their ability to recover and respond effectively. It doesn't require sticking and limb control but is also not just picking shots. It's about finding dominate positioning which itself is control.

Ok, so by "open line" you meant you are still using your forearm in contact with the opponent's forearm with your cutting attacks to disrupt their structure and give you a superior line essentially using a forearm to forearm bridge, as opposed to striking into an open space with no prior bridge contact?

If so then we are in complete agreement, I never said bridge control is about sticking and limb control as in chasing hands. In my opinion bridge control is about using the bridge as a lever, conductor or transmitter to disrupt the opponent's center of gravity, distroy his facing, while striking or attacking his centerline. sticking and other tactics are just an ends to a means, which is to attack the opponent's centerline.

[LFJ]

Ok, so by "open line" you meant you are still using your forearm in contact with the opponent's forearm with your cutting attacks to disrupt their structure and give you a superior line essentially using a forearm to forearm bridge, as opposed to striking into an open space with no prior bridge contact?

Forearm contact is not something I'm searching for or deliberately "using". That is not the bridge to me. I'm not seeking that. That happens purely as a virtue of the punching structure and attacking angle so that it is not conscious. It's an intercepting strike, but just a strike with the sole intent of hitting the target. It only results in simultaneous deflection and that is lin siu daai da, a non-thinking result of the applied tactics.

[kung fu fighter]

Forearm contact is not something I'm searching for or deliberately "using". That is not the bridge to me. I'm not seeking that. That happens purely as a virtue of the punching structure and attacking angle so that it is not conscious. It's an intercepting strike, but just a strike with the sole intent of hitting the target. It only results in simultaneous deflection and that is lin siu daai da, a non-thinking result of the applied tactics.

Ok, if it's the way how Phillip Bayer does it, then i am familiar with that approach.

[KPM]

I understand that, but as I tried to make clear in my previous post, this is not the case in every Southern CMA.

Which Southern CMA does not define "Kiu" or "bridge" in this way?


I don't think engaging the opponent is something that has to be sought. If someone attacks you, there you go.

But if someone attacks you and you do not respond appropriately, well, there you go! Its not so much JUST seeking to engage the opponent, but doing it to your own advantage.

Of course. Because our lineages have vastly different ideas on what "is being taught" there.

Ok. So how do you see the Chum Kiu form teaching you to find the openings, spaces or "bridges" that you will use to attack?

[kung fu fighter]

Its not so much JUST seeking to engage the opponent, but doing it to your own advantage.

I agree! although i like Philip Bayer's approach, I also believe it's lacking the sticking skills aspect in their training due to the fact that they place more of an heavy on the other aspects such as cutting attacks. so they don't take full advantage of everything that bridging has to offer. Their approach is very simple and direct.

[KPM]

I agree! although i like Philip Bayer's approach, I also believe it's lacking the sticking skills aspect in their training due to the fact that they place more of an heavy on the other aspects such as cutting attacks. so they don't take full advantage of everything that bridging has to offer. Their approach is very simple and direct.

What you say certainly matches what I've seen shown on video clips. But I'm not sure that what is shown on those clips is a good overall representation of what PB teaches. I don't know enough about his system. So I hesitate to agree with what you state above.

[LFJ]

Which Southern CMA does not define "Kiu" or "bridge" in this way?

Obviously the system of VT that I describe.

Ok. So how do you see the Chum Kiu form teaching you to find the openings, spaces or "bridges" that you will use to attack?

Every action in the form teaches you how to find the line- the quickest route to the target- or clear the line for striking. While at the same time it trains other skills, e.g. coordination of the upper and lower body, synchronicity of action, correct delivery of power, etc. the main idea of the form is 'kiu loi kiu seung gwo, mou kiu ji jou kiu' as I explained its interpretation above. Hence the name 'cham-kiu' as its understood in the system I describe.

If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics. If we differ from the onset of the system then it is difficult to understand each other. That's why I suggested first defining common terms. There's no point in saying who is right or wrong. We share similar forms and terminology, but really train quite different systems. Just like Hinduism and Buddhism have quite different understandings of 'karma' and 'rebirth' although they come from the same region and use the same terminology.

[BPWT..]

Which Southern CMA does not define "Kiu" or "bridge" in this way?

Is it possible that the definition LFJ gives is WSL's interpretation only? I think the definition of Kiu that KPM gives is common to other YM and non-YM Wing Chun, and other southern systems too. Perhaps WSL simply had his own unique take on it?

[tc101]

Obviously the system of VT that I describe.
Every action in the form teaches you how to find the line- the quickest route to the target- or clear the line for striking. While at the same time it trains other skills, e.g. coordination of the upper and lower body, synchronicity of action, correct delivery of power, etc. the main idea of the form is 'kiu loi kiu seung gwo, mou kiu ji jou kiu' as I explained its interpretation above. Hence the name 'cham-kiu' as its understood in the system I describe.

To make certain I am clear on what you are saying you think kiu or bridge means open line did I understand you correctly?

If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics. If we differ from the onset of the system then it is difficult to understand each other. That's why I suggested first defining common terms. There's no point in saying who is right or wrong. We share similar forms and terminology, but really train quite different systems. Just like Hinduism and Buddhism have quite different understandings of 'karma' and 'rebirth' although they come from the same region and use the same terminology.

I think we are actually on the same page although I look at things a bit more broadly.

I learned that wing chun as someone Wayfaring I think previously on this forum put it lives and dies on the centerline. Wing chun is all about the centerline.

I learned that the first form references dominating the centerline and so the tool subset of the system contained in that form are those that you need for that purpose. This is why the centerline does not move in that form since you have it and you control it so why would you change it. This is also what the so called small idea is. Small idea refers to being focused on one thing and that focus is on centerline domination.

The second form references changing or breaking the centerline and is for those situations when you cannot take direct control of the centerline and the tool subset contained in that form are those needed for that purpose. This is why you have in that form an emphasis on shifting and short arm bridges.

You call it clear the line for striking but if all you want to do is strike you do not need to clear lines. Boxing strikes on every line and does not clear but strikes to what is open. We want to control the centerline and by controlling it we can use that line for striking. Boxing in contrast does not seek to control the centerline. I think we want to do more than just have an open line to strike. We want to control the centerline. Controlling the centerline also gives me more than just opportunities to strike.

I think kiu or bridge is not the same as controlling the centerline which consequently gives you an open line to strike. It is related to that since everything in wing chun is related to controlling or seeking to the centerline. Kiu or bridge I think references contact with an opponent and the points of contact with an opponent which can be a forearm or a hand or whatever. When I do not control the centerline I will need to fight for it by changing or breaking the centerline or to put it another way we will need to destroy or sink the old centerline to establish a new centerline. I accomplish this through using body movement and corresponding arm actions but most often to do that I will need some contact or bridge with my opponent to do it since if I have no contact with my opponent it will be practically impossible to change or break the centerline. How much contact can and will vary. It may be momentary it may be longer in duration. That will depend on the situation and your personal abilities and preferences.

My long winded point is that I do not think it is a case if two different systems with the same terminology. I think it is a case of variation in preferences.

[KPM]

Is it possible that the definition LFJ gives is WSL's interpretation only? I think the definition of Kiu that KPM gives is common to other YM and non-YM Wing Chun, and other southern systems too. Perhaps WSL simply had his own unique take on it?

I have some of Gary Lam's DVDs and was reviewing one recently where he uses the term exactly as I have explained it. If I'm remembering right, I think I have David Petersen on DVD also using it this way. So my impression is that either LFJ or his teacher are the ones that have their own interpretation.

[KPM]

Obviously the system of VT that I describe.

Obviously. And you wonder why conversations with you turn into arguments!? Please name one other non-Wing Chun Southern CMA that defines "Kiu" and "bridge" in the way you have defined it.


Every action in the form teaches you how to find the line- the quickest route to the target- or clear the line for striking.

Any line or Kiu or bridge...as you described it...is going to be the open space between you and the opponent through which you will strike them. Isn't that what you have said? How can a form performed solo without reference to an actual opponent teach you to recognize or "seek" such openings? Those openings don't exist when performing a solo form.


If you interpret the actions differently it stems from having a different interpretation of SNT and understanding of basic tactics.

I don't think so. I think it stems from a misunderstanding/misuse of a very basic term.

There's no point in saying who is right or wrong. We share similar forms and terminology, but really train quite different systems.

Wing Chun is Wing Chun. There are different expressions of it that differ more widely than others. But if you are doing Ip Man derived Wing Chun there shouldn't be large amounts of difference!


Just like Hinduism and Buddhism have quite different understandings of 'karma' and 'rebirth' although they come from the same region and use the same terminology.

I wouldn't call them "quite different", but then that's a different discussion.