WSL Ving Tsun - Sifu Cliff Au Yeung - Blindfold Gor Sau Training

[BPWT]

Well, first of all, kiu is not a verb. We don't do what you call 'bridging'.

You don't intercept an attacking limb?

But what else do you understand the word Kiu to mean? Nothing to do with it being a verb or not. Definition, as used in Chinese MAs.

The bridge is figurative. Trying to actually build a physical bridge between yourself and your opponent by connecting arms is creating obstacles for yourself- not a very smart fighting strategy...

When did I say you try to create it?

I already said that it's great if you can land a clean strike without making contact with the other guy's limbs... yet in reality, how many times can that be done in a fight? At some point either he will intercept/link/bridge/connect with your attacking limb, or you with one of his.

Hence, what we find inside LLHS - LSJC.

Look at this way. I don't want to create an obstacle. But eventually one will be there - and if one gets in my way, how can I use that to my advantage?

E.g. What do you see PB doing once he's used bong sau - or once he's used a lap sau, etc etc? Did the obstacle stop him - or did he use it?

[Grumblegeezer]

Well, first of all, kiu is not a verb. We don't do what you call 'bridging'.

The bridge is figurative. Trying to actually build a physical bridge between yourself and your opponent by connecting arms is creating obstacles for yourself- not a very smart fighting strategy...

I don't see the problem here. Bridging may not be a verb in Cantonese, but the term "Bridging" has been widely used and is a perfectly valid English expression for the act of crossing the gap and contacting your opponent.

Secondly, I don't see the bridge as purely figurative, as in an imaginary "attacking line". Boxers and any long bridge fighter looks for "attacking lines" as well, but don't use bridges the way WC/VT/WT does. No, from my perspective the bridge is the physical connection between two bodies.

Now that said, I agree that the ideal bridge is the connection between your fist (or foot, etc.) and it's intended target. No arm contact is required! However, often your opponent is not so obliging, and your attack is intercepted. Then you have a bridge between arms, (or legs, etc.). That's where the kind of skills trained in chi-sau come into play and you find a way to cross the bridge.

So from my perspective, the ideal bridge is something like "My fist to your nose". When seeking the bridge, of course I look for a direct line. But if that route is suddenly blocked, I should use chi-sau skills not to stick, but to flow past the obstruction and complete the bridge. Fist to nose. Seems simple enough.

[LFJ]

You don't intercept an attacking limb?

Not in the sense of catching it to control the opponent's energy based on sensory information gathered through contact. No. I don't 'bridge' as other lineages do.

I intersect their line with another line that leads to the target while diverting the course of theirs. My objective is not to 'bridge', but to hit them. The intersection is just a defensive advantage of the punching structure. If it becomes more than that, then it is chasing arms. It should happen as a matter of course.

But what else do you understand the word Kiu to mean? Nothing to do with it being a verb or not. Definition, as used in Chinese MAs.

I think one meaning is sufficient.

[LFJ]

However, often your opponent is not so obliging, and your attack is intercepted. Then you have a bridge between arms, (or legs, etc.). That's where the kind of skills trained in chi-sau come into play and you find a way to cross the bridge.

There's a problem with calling this a bridge. A bridge is meant to facilitate your crossing of a river, not impede you. If you have to find some way around it, then it's not a bridge. It's an obstacle.

You see? The bridge is the pathway to the target. Landing a punch is having crossed the bridge.

If you call your fist on their nose a 'bridge', what do you call crossing the bridge? Punching through their skull?

[LFJ]

The real problem with calling contact between arms a 'bridge' is that people tend to think once contact is made they should maintain it to then figure out how to cross there, not realizing it's not a bridge, but an obstacle. You can't cross there. You have to feel the opponent's energy, conform and redirect, which is all playing with the obstacle rather than seeking a real bridge, i.e. finding the open attacking line, often achieved by recycling the hand that was met with the obstacle and overcoming it with another line.

It's like you ran into a dead end but stubbornly try to build a new path there where there isn't one. It's not as effective or efficient as changing your course to find the real 'bridge', which is the path to the target. It reminds me of the idiots in the subway that mess around trying to get through the one turnstile that doesn't work and end up trying to climb over or under it, rather than moving to the one next to it that obviously works.

[WC1277]

When force is voluntarily applied against anything delivered from you to a target regardless of system, there is a compression on your own body in return. Right, we've discussed this topic before. Newtons three laws of motions. The one above is the third law. The second law is the ol' F=ma or force equals mass times acceleration. The first law is essentially that an object is either at rest or in motion within an inertial reference frame unless acted upon by a force. This law is first for a reason. For instance, once a baseball is thrown at whatever speed, it cannot speed up or change direction UNLESS an external force acts upon it such as a mini rocket that kicks in halfway for speed or wind sheer for direction(3rd law). Once the baseball is thrown, that's it. This baseball also, will only go as fast as the second law distinguishes, f=ma, period(see 1st law). And lastly, this baseball will absorb as much force as it gives(3rd law) when it finally hits something or when it potentially accelerates(see 1st law).

The human body is no exception to these rules. When you throw a punch and contract your muscle, however much(2nd law), once the motion starts you can't increase that force(1st law) by contracting more after it started unless there's rebounding resistance such as contact (3rd law). Here's the kicker. Bio mechanically, you have to shut the muscle off momentarily before you can reapply force to that rebound. When you pull a muscle in your back or where ever, your body involuntarily violated this bio mechanical principle. ....Or...you can use your body to drive into the rebound while the arm muscle is in the process of trying to re-contract.

So what's all if this have to do with WC? For starters, if someone truly does a correct infamous one inch punch, they are following these laws(newton and biomechanics) and shutting their arm muscle down momentarily upon contact and reapplying force immediately into the rebound with their body. Interesting, huh?

So what's this have to do with bridging? If you notice, when a WC practitioner actually applies the "inch power" and moves someone powerfully, contact is already made and a compression has already happened. The force applied is into the rebound.

-----

If you understood what I wrote above, and I hope you did. WC's core function relies upon a compression of the body. There is a reason the one inch punch works the way it does. Every lineage does this compression in one way or another, even WSL/VT. So it's not that no one has 'the secret' but many don't understand how to convey it into their training. The biggest misconception IMO is that people think this function needs to somehow be "setup" like a jab to a cross in boxing. It's not there or developed for that purpose and every lineage I've seen that try to set this function up create bad habits IMO

-------

btw Chum kiu means "sinking" the bridge and is directly related to the function above. You 'hammer the nail'. One reason, "turning" and the balance of that turn matters.

[BPWT]

There's a problem with calling this a bridge. A bridge is meant to facilitate your crossing of a river, not impede you.

Using the words bridge, and bridging, and using the reference of a real bridge to, say, cross a river, works to illustrate a point - but only up to a point. Eventually the reference breaks down. Like talking about forward, flexible force and likening it to a rattan cane. It serves a purpose but of course someone can take it too far and say "what I pressure it so hard the rattan cane snaps."

At some point you have to see that using a figurative expression or analogy will break down.

Grumblegeezer is correct, IMO. It is about physical connection - and in most scenarios against an attacker, at some point this will be connection between limbs. Describing this as bridging is common in Wing Chun, and in other arts too. Interestingly, so to is its connection to the word Kiu... other arts work around the idea of using Kiu, and one of its meaning...

About which you said:

I think one meaning is sufficient.

Okay, that's a shame. But this Kiu has a relevant meaning.

I think a practitioner needs to understand how they transition from Chi Sau to Lat Sau, where Guo Sau plays its part, etc, and understanding bridging plays a part in this.

In Kevin's clip, at one point PB pins K's arms and is free to punch over them. This is Yat Fook Yee - which is a bridging concept. The attacking line is available because of Yat Fook Yee, but the attacking line is not the bridge itself. Had Kevin's recycled his arms, PB would have adjusted.

Like I said, we disagree over the terms, and also the physical use, it seems. But regarding PB, despite the protestations of the PB guys, I see him doing many things that relate to what I have been writing about - he bridges, redirects and strikes based on that redirection.

People can argue with this until they are blue in the face, but it is as clear as day - and just from watching the video clips.

[GlennR]

Yep, I and I'm sure Glenn appreciate PB is good, without benefit of contact (it's on my bucket list) your opinion is sought.

I'd say there is quite a bit of control going on - not a bad thing just appears the centre is being manipulated effectively.

Again your opinion is sought...

Dave

Yes he is good Dave, too many hands on people all say this, and you can see how he moves that he'd be a handful.

Moving onto the arm in the way thing......

[GlennR]

Of course with the idea that if we move to a position whereby the next attack means the opponent crosses himself we can capitalize on that mistake. Other mistakes include a poor wu sau, low hands, no LSJC, overshooting, poor timing, no real force.

.......but nothing to do with expoitling any weaknesses discovered from any prolonged arm contact.

Two things ive noticed.

He doesnt always move, he deals with the "obstacle" in front of him

and

How long is prolonged? There is moments when i do see him maintaining contact longer than say a boxer would.

Having said that, nothing wrong with it in my book

[GlennR]

This is such a double-standard. You don't want to say DP is wrong, you just say what he does is different, and that PB and have PD have "very, very different end results."

Yet... if someone outside of your lineage, say someone from Augustine Fong's lineage, does something different to you, you don't just call it different, you call it: wrong, clueless, misinterpreted, BS, etc etc.

He does make a point here my fine non-bias PBWSLVT friends

[GlennR]

The real problem with calling contact between arms a 'bridge' is that people tend to think once contact is made they should maintain it to then figure out how to cross there, not realizing it's not a bridge, but an obstacle. You can't cross there. You have to feel the opponent's energy, conform and redirect, which is all playing with the obstacle rather than seeking a real bridge, i.e. finding the open attacking line, often achieved by recycling the hand that was met with the obstacle and overcoming it with another line.

How about calling it a "point of reference" then.

[LFJ]

Reference to what?

[LFJ]

Using the words bridge, and bridging, and using the reference of a real bridge to, say, cross a river, works to illustrate a point - but only up to a point. Eventually the reference breaks down.

I think your interpretation of Cham-kiu breaks down before you can even build it. I don't understand how you don't see the logic.

You make a physical connection with an opponent and call it a bridge, but you can't cross it. You have to get it out of the way or get around it somehow.

Does that sound like a bridge or an obstacle to you? (Sounds like a broken record to me.)

A bridge is the path that allows you to cross a river. In fighting that is an open attacking line. An obstacle is something impeding you. In fighting that is a physical obstruction. So you must 'seek the bridge' (the open line) to the other side.

If you call physical connection the bridge then that's what you're seeking? You're seeking the obstacle. How foolish. You're dead against someone seeking the path to your nose.

The attacking line is available because of Yat Fook Yee, but the attacking line is not the bridge itself. Had Kevin's recycled his arms, PB would have adjusted.

PB dealt with an obstacle and found the bridge- the pathway to the target. If Kevin recycled his arms and presented another obstacle, PB would need to 'seek the bridge' once again.

You know what I see from PB that is different from many lineages? Lots of striking. While others are fooling around with contact and feeling and getting off a couple slick shots, PB's punching his target multiple times. He's finding allll kindzz of bridgizz while the foolish are feeling each other.

If the name of the game is to knock your opponent out, it's obvious which method will sooner do that.

[GlennR]

Reference to what?

If you create contact with a limb, use it as a point of reference to what your next move will be

[Graham H]

If you create contact with a limb, use it as a point of reference to what your next move will be

lolololololololololololololololol

fantastic!