"Sinking" the Bridge

[KPM]

Hey tc101:

You and I are on the same sheet of music here! But I think you may be giving LFJ more credit than he is due.


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.

Exactly! Short arm bridges....contact with the opponent...Kiu! Finding the "bridge" with the opponent is what allows you to take control of the centerline and therefore "cross the bridge" to strike the opponent. You create the openings! You aren't hunting for an opening by moving around the opponent and angling and feinting like a boxer would.

You call it clear the line for striking but if all you want to do is strike you do not need to clear lines.

Right! And if you are looking to "clear lines" rather than looking for an open space to strike through...aren't you then "seeking contact" rather than "seeking an opening"? As you describe further on with your boxing analogy, if "searching for a bridge" meant to look for an opening that you can strike through to hit the opponent, wouldn't that center around footwork and angling and feinting and actually trying to AVOID any contact with the opponent's arms? If a boxer contacts the opponent's arms he typically "shrugs it off", resets, steps back, or something similar in order to look for another open space through which to strike his opponent. He typically doesn't "bridge in" using that contact with the opponent and manipulate his arms to create a space to strike through. So to me, defining "Kiu" or "bridge" as the open line between opponent's that is a clear area through which a strike can land may work for boxers, but I don't see the Chum Kiu form teaching that.

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.

Very well stated!

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.

Again, I agree. The "Kiu" or "bridge" is a means to control the centerline.

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.

tc101, you have renewed my faith in your understanding of Wing Chun!

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.

Here I will have to disagree with you. I don't think it is a difference in "preferences." I think it is a difference in the understanding of one single concept or term....."Kiu/Bridge." When it gets right down to it, I bet LFJ is doing the same thing as everyone else even though he thinks his Wing Chun is a "quite different system." He is just explaining it differently.

[LFJ]

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

Yes, but not exactly. If you understand that as just taking shots in the air via any open line like a boxer, as if center line is not a priority, then that's not what I mean. The second part of the saying "if there is no bridge, create one yourself" refers to using footwork, angling, cutting attacks, etc. to clear the way for striking- that is to capture and take control of the center.

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.

Gary uses lots of different terminology other WSLVT teachers don't use. His has also devised his own curriculum which differs as well. As for David, he was an occasional visitor and seminar student who seems to have absorbed ideas from other Wing Chun lineages to fill the gaps in knowledge while back home. He even quotes Leung Ting in one of his DVD's to describe some concept- something you wouldn't hear other WSL students do! If you'd learned fully from WSL, you wouldn't need to quote anyone else.

So my impression is that either LFJ or his teacher are the ones that have their own interpretation.

I've yet to meet and train with Philipp (maybe next time he comes to HK), but several of his practitioners here have expressed the same interpretation, and we know those who spent more time with WSL tend to be closer in thinking to Philipp. So, my impression is that this is the interpretation of VT as taught by WSL, via YM...

[LFJ]

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.

Why? That's irrelevant to the way the term in understood and used in this system of VT. What other styles do is irrelevant. I thought the Buddhism/Hinduism understanding of karma and rebirth analogy made that clear. It doesn't matter to a Buddhist what the Jains think karma means. It has no consequence on their belief and practice.

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.

The system is based upon the centerline theory. It's not just any open space. Concepts of facing, chasing, cutting, etc. with centerline reference are things we can train solo in forms. It begins in SNT and is expanded in CK.

How you train making contact with an opponent... without an opponent is something I don't get.

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.

Okay, Kevin.

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!

You would think so, but there are. That's just the fact.

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.

Okay, critically different, as it fundamentally changes everything. I think it's a very good analogy to how our different interpretations of "bridge" fundamentally change our systems.

[LFJ]

And you wonder why conversations with you turn into arguments!?

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.

We can't just present differences in our systems for discussion and simply acknowledge that we differ. We have to be the ones that got it right. Any difference is just a "misunderstanding".

I acknowledge what you do in your system is right for you, within your system. I don't agree with it, but that's fine. We obviously don't train the same thing. Can we not just say that and discuss our differences?

[KPM]

Why? That's irrelevant to the way the term in understood and used in this system of VT. What other styles do is irrelevant.

Why? Are you even following this conversation? This was the previous exchange:

Navin wrote:
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.

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

To which I asked:
Can you name another non-Wing Chun CMA that does not define Kiu in this way?

The "why" seems pretty straight-forward to me. Navin and I believe that the way we define "Kiu" or "bridge" is standard in southern CMA, giving weight to our way of defining it. You said it wasn't common to all southern CMA to back up the fact that you define it differently. So you were asked to provide an example. Simple as that. Certainly relevant to the conversation.


How you train making contact with an opponent... without an opponent is something I don't get.

You train the hand shapes that are used when making contact. You train the turning and angling used when making that contact. When you train a Bong Sao, etc that Bong Sao will be in reference to where the opponent's incoming attack is expected to be, or where you want to deflect it to in order to create an opening. Its like practicing tennis on a half-court against a wall. You can practice hitting the ball, practice serves, practice backhands, etc. All the things you need in a game against an opponent. But how do you practice recognizing an opening in the opponent's defense without an opponent in front of you?


Okay, Kevin.

Yeah, well, I'm not the one that just took pot-shots at both Gary Lam and David Petersen.


I think it's a very good analogy to how our different interpretations of "bridge" fundamentally change our systems.

So, do you mean in your Wing Chun you don't use a contact with the opponent to control the centerline, create an opening, and launch an attack? Do you mean you don't use center-line theory and the concept of controlling the center-line? Do you mean that when attacking and you meet an obstruction you don't use Wing Chun techniques to clear that obstruction out of the way and continue your attack? Do you mean that you don't use the Chum Kiu form to learn how to maintain or gain centerline with the opponent? Do you mean you don't use the SLT, CK, BG, and MYJ forms? You don't use Chi Sao training? You don't use facing or centerline punching? Those are all fundamentals of Yip Man Wing Chun.

[KPM]

We can't just present differences in our systems for discussion and simply acknowledge that we differ. We have to be the ones that got it right. Any difference is just a "misunderstanding".

I acknowledge what you do in your system is right for you, within your system. I don't agree with it, but that's fine. We obviously don't train the same thing. Can we not just say that and discuss our differences?

Yes. We can discuss our differences. But we pointed out that southern CMA's in general all view the topic in the same way. You said that not all did. But when asked to name an example that doesn't (other than you and yours of course) you couldn't and said it was irrelevant. You implied that your understanding was the way that WSL taught it. I pointed out two WSL students that don't teach it that way. So you took pot-shots at their background and teaching.

You may very well be right! WSL may have understood and taught it this way! But I hope you'll understand that based on past discussions here I am unwilling to take your word for it. If others from the WSL lineage separate from you and your teacher say they learned it this way, then I'm open to it!

But I hope you also recognize that regardless of whether WSL taught this way or not, it is a departure from the way that most WCK and southern CMAists in general understand the concept.

And in the interests of sharing different outlooks, you still didn't answer this:
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?

[LFJ]

The "why" seems pretty straight-forward to me. Navin and I believe that the way we define "Kiu" or "bridge" is standard in southern CMA, giving weight to our way of defining it. You said it wasn't common to all southern CMA to back up the fact that you define it differently. So you were asked to provide an example. Simple as that. Certainly relevant to the conversation.

Not relevant to VT thinking and training. So you use other arts to validate the one you practice. I don't, and it's irrelevant. Just like other religions in the same region share definitions of karma and Buddhism borrows the familiar term but alters it in a major way. But how many others use it, as I said, has no consequence on their belief and practice. It's entirely irrelevant. VT needs only to be understood internally.

But how do you practice recognizing an opening in the opponent's defense without an opponent in front of you?

Thought I just explained to you. It's about capturing and dominating centerline, not just picking out holes.

Yeah, well, I'm not the one that just took pot-shots at both Gary Lam and David Petersen.

Not pot-shots. Statements of fact.

Those are all fundamentals of Yip Man Wing Chun.

Yet our interpretation and training of them are very different.

[LFJ]

If others from the WSL lineage separate from you and your teacher say they learned it this way, then I'm open to it!

When we had this conversation last time, BPWT even put a quote from Graham in his signature to mock him for expressing the same concept. I have no affiliation with PBVT, yet they said the same thing.

But I hope you also recognize that regardless of whether WSL taught this way or not, it is a departure from the way that most WCK and southern CMAists in general understand the concept.

And I hope you understand no one gives a d@mn and it doesn't matter.

And in the interests of sharing different outlooks, you still didn't answer this:
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?

I answered. What didn't you get?

[tc101]

Yes, but not exactly. If you understand that as just taking shots in the air via any open line like a boxer, as if center line is not a priority, then that's not what I mean. The second part of the saying "if there is no bridge, create one yourself" refers to using footwork, angling, cutting attacks, etc. to clear the way for striking- that is to capture and take control of the center...

The foremost concern then is controlling the centerline and from that control comes the opportunity to strike is that right?

Do you have the kuit about iron bridge glass head tofu body? Just wondering since that kuit among others appears inconsistent with your view of bridge as an open route.

[tc101]

Hey tc101:

You and I are on the same sheet of music here! But I think you may be giving LFJ more credit than he is due.

tc101, you have renewed my faith in your understanding of Wing Chun!

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.

Here I will have to disagree with you. I don't think it is a difference in "preferences." I think it is a difference in the understanding of one single concept or term....."Kiu/Bridge." When it gets right down to it, I bet LFJ is doing the same thing as everyone else even though he thinks his Wing Chun is a "quite different system." He is just explaining it differently.

Thanks. Do not let our discussions on un/realistic training mislead you into thinking that I do not have a good appreciation of things like the forms, chi sau, kuit, and so forth. I just also appreciate those things will take you only so far and the next step in the journey is realistic training.

I guess what I am getting at is wing chun is first and foremost concerned with dominating the centerline and I think we all agree on that point. How we go about doing that can vary based on our preference. So if your preference is to try to use contact to do it then your idea of bridging and using bridge hands will be different than someone whose preference is to try and do it through quick changing steps angulation and so forth. It may be that both are valid. I do not think they represent different systems but that the wing chun system allows for flexibility. Two boxers can look nothing alike yet the are both using the same art.

[KPM]

I guess what I am getting at is wing chun is first and foremost concerned with dominating the centerline and I think we all agree on that point. How we go about doing that can vary based on our preference. So if your preference is to try to use contact to do it then your idea of bridging and using bridge hands will be different than someone whose preference is to try and do it through quick changing steps angulation and so forth. It may be that both are valid. I do not think they represent different systems but that the wing chun system allows for flexibility. Two boxers can look nothing alike yet the are both using the same art.

Good point. But I still doubt that LFJ is doing things as differently from you or I as he thinks he is.

[KPM]

Do you have the kuit about iron bridge glass head tofu body? Just wondering since that kuit among others appears inconsistent with your view of bridge as an open route.

Ah! I forgot about that one! It has certainly been part of the Wing Chun that I have learned. I've always understood "iron bridge" to refer to the forearm. Hard to see how "bridge" in this context could refer to an open route as you say.

[KPM]

Not relevant to VT thinking and training. So you use other arts to validate the one you practice. I don't, and it's irrelevant.

I think it is relevant to the current discussion. Context is everything. Wing Chun did not develop in a vacuum or on a deserted island. But it doesn't matter at this point.


It's about capturing and dominating centerline, not just picking out holes.

How do you capture and dominate the centerline?


Not pot-shots. Statements of fact.

I think they were rather rude comments. But you did have a point about me. I apologize for suggesting that your understanding of "Kiu" was a mistake or misinterpretation. As you said, there is nothing wrong with having different viewpoints.



Yet our interpretation and training of them are very different.

Yes. It may give our expressions a different "flavor." But I would not call it "fundamentally" different.

[LFJ]

The foremost concern then is controlling the centerline and from that control comes the opportunity to strike is that right?

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.

Do you have the kuit about iron bridge glass head tofu body? Just wondering since that kuit among others appears inconsistent with your view of bridge as an open route.

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.

[LFJ]

I think it is relevant to the current discussion. Context is everything. Wing Chun did not develop in a vacuum or on a deserted island. But it doesn't matter at this point.

And Buddhism also sprung up amongst older religions in the region, borrowed their common terminology and redefined them for its own use. Just as Buddhism's redefining of familiar terms was to contrast what other religions were teaching, I see VT's redefining the term to reflect a big shift in method from those other styles surrounding it. It doesn't need the agreement of other styles to validate itself. I fail to see what the problem is or how it is relevant whether other styles agree or not. Do you get this point?

Some say it was Yip Man, by the way, who changed the name "sinking" to "seeking". As well as Siu-lin-tou (little training set) to Siu-nim-tau (little [young] idea).

How do you capture and dominate the centerline?

This is getting a little circular. Read my previous descriptions. I'm not sure what part isn't making sense to you.

I think they were rather rude comments.

It's not rude to say Gary uses his own preferred terminology and restructured his own curriculum. There's nothing wrong with doing that. It's just not the way WSL taught it. As for David, his experience is what it is. Recently he's been up to some things that have caused me to lose more respect for him anyway.

Yes. It may give our expressions a different "flavor." But I would not call it "fundamentally" different.

Perhaps, but if something another lineage does that would be viewed as a big error for us, I would call that a fundamental difference.