# What percentage of lesson time do you spend on chi Sao?



## SaulGoodman (Mar 5, 2016)

Hi guys, just curious as to how much lesson time is usually spent on chi Sao? From what I have learnt over the years it can vary from the lions share of the lesson to very little.


----------



## geezer (Mar 5, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> Hi guys, just curious as to how much lesson time is usually spent on chi Sao? From what I have learnt over the years it can vary from the lions share of the lesson to very little.



In our classes  ...it can vary from the lions share of the lesson to very little. 


...but in truth, we emphasize it a lot, especially at the more advanced levels.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 5, 2016)

Interesting Geezer, I'm the same. I go through phases, sometimes more emphasis on chi Sao, sometimes glove work or clinch etc


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 5, 2016)

Do you two also practice Chi Sao concepts during free sparring?  By free sparring I mean sparring as if you were sparring against a non-wing chun person and not a "Chi Sao" sparring competition.  Not sure that makes question clearer.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 6, 2016)

Trying to "do chi Sao" during sparring will get you hit. When we start talking about what is and isn't sparring, it's a huge can of worms! Sometimes our sparring is goal based, other times we just glove up and see what happens. Chi Sao is where you practice "chi Sao concepts", when we spar (I'm talking about me) im looking to strike/kick/clinch etc. trying to actively "stick" to my partners arms while in the mix is not a good strategy imo. 
So where does chi Sao fit into all this? Ultimately the movements/reactions that I've repeatedly loaded into my neural pathways during years of chi Sao practice will hopefully kick in as and when they are appropriate based on my opponents reactions. 
In short I'm looking to use the side effects/attributes gained from chi Sao in sparring/fighting. I've had a few scrapes in the street and let me tell you, pukes trying to rip your head off don't  play chi Sao with you. 
Where I've found chi Sao helped was at the pushing/posturing stage of a fight when the bad guy tried to push my arms / fence out of the way to get into my space (I always teach keeping a "fence" in front of you, which is a modified wu Sao/man sao) this often lead to stimuli that caused an automatic reaction which came from chi Sao training. Once the fight goes "live" however sticking/jamming/trapping becomes low percentage as short bridge to clinch (which is the confrontation range in talking about) gets eaten up in a nano second.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 6, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> Trying to "do chi Sao" during sparring will get you hit. When we start talking about what is and isn't sparring, it's a huge can of worms! Sometimes our sparring is goal based, other times we just glove up and see what happens. Chi Sao is where you practice "chi Sao concepts", when we spar (I'm talking about me) im looking to strike/kick/clinch etc. trying to actively "stick" to my partners arms while in the mix is not a good strategy imo.
> So where does chi Sao fit into all this? Ultimately the movements/reactions that I've repeatedly loaded into my neural pathways during years of chi Sao practice will hopefully kick in as and when they are appropriate based on my opponents reactions.
> In short I'm looking to use the side effects/attributes gained from chi Sao in sparring/fighting. I've had a few scrapes in the street and let me tell you, pukes trying to rip your head off don't  play chi Sao with you.
> Where I've found chi Sao helped was at the pushing/posturing stage of a fight when the bad guy tried to push my arms / fence out of the way to get into my space (I always teach keeping a "fence" in front of you, which is a modified wu Sao/man sao) this often lead to stimuli that caused an automatic reaction which came from chi Sao training. Once the fight goes "live" however sticking/jamming/trapping becomes low percentage as short bridge to clinch (which is the confrontation range in talking about) gets eaten up in a nano second.


Ok. so you do use the concepts in sparring similar to what was thinking.  At the moment I'm only able to stick to punches for a short time, just long enough to redirect them.  I not good enough to stick with it and follow it back in.  I'm always worried about getting hit with the other fist coming at me to practice is.  I have been working on using only my peripheral vision during free sparring and that seems to help with the sticking, jamming, and trapping more. 

Successful use of my peripheral vision almost seems like time has slowed down and I can react to the punch or strike before they actually strike.  For a jab, I can see even the smallest movement.  The smallest movement I've been able to see in a jab was the flexing of shoulder muscle that occurred. I know it sounds way out there but give it a try.
The hardest part of trying to use only peripheral vision is that your eyes will keep trying to focus on your opponent.  When I training it, I have to place my focus about 5 inches to the right of my opponents shoulder so it looks like I'm staring at someone to the side of him and I try to spar this way without directly focusing on him.   Once I think I have "mastered"  that distance then I move my focus inward 4 inches to the right of my opponents shoulder.

From a science point of view our peripheral vision see's motion better so in sparring it only makes sense to use it.  If you decide to try it, then let me know how it turns out.  I always like to hear peoples amazement when they start talking about "time slowing down."  This only works when you are in jabbing range, anything closer is going to require  sensing (touching) more than seeing. Maybe this is something that would benefit you as well.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Successful use of my peripheral vision almost seems like time has slowed down and I can react to the punch or strike before they actually strike.  For a jab, I can see even the smallest movement. The hardest part of trying to use only peripheral vision is that your eyes will keep trying to focus on your opponent. From a science point of view our peripheral vision see's motion better so in sparring it only makes sense to use it.



Yep. For those interested, do some research into the rods and cones of the human eye. Interesting stuff...even more so when applied to certain aspects of daily life, and of course...martial arts!


----------



## KPM (Mar 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Ok. so you do use the concepts in sparring similar to what was thinking.  At the moment I'm only able to stick to punches for a short time, just long enough to redirect them.  I not good enough to stick with it and follow it back in.  I'm always worried about getting hit with the other fist coming at me to practice is.  I have been working on using only my peripheral vision during free sparring and that seems to help with the sticking, jamming, and trapping more.
> 
> .



From my understanding.....Wing Chun is about fighting from a bridge.   A bridge is contact with an opponent, usually at the forearms.  This is where the training of Chi Sau comes in....Chi Sau is about developing sensitivity and control at the bridge. So Wing Chun is designed to be "attached fighting" as much as practical,  as opposed to "unattached" exchange of punches.  Otherwise what is the point of training Chi Sau?   With an "attachment" one can manipulate the opponent's balance and "break his structure."  This is not necessarily easy against modern fighters with lots of upper body movement and fast combinations of punches....conditioned from seeing lots of western boxing.  But the idea of using Chi Sau concepts in sparring would be to establish a bridge....either when you throw a punch that is intercepted or the opponent throws a punch that you intercept....and to try to keep that bridge as you are striking the opponent or manipulating his balance in some way to set up striking the opponent.  If he retracts and moves, you stick and  follow it back.  If he leaves the bridge to try and go around at a wide angle, you go right up the middle directly and should make contact before he does since a straight line is shorter than a curved one.  It shouldn't be a back and forth exchange of punches.   It should be...contact is established... then contact is used close in, manipulate, and finish the opponent.   This is why so often sparring doesn't look much like Wing Chun....because sparring tends to be a back and forth exchange of punches and kicks.  IMHO, Wing Chun was not designed to work like this.  Wing Chun was designed to close and finish.  Chi Sau skills are for establishing and dominating contact with the opponent until he is finished. This may also be why the "forceflow" skills aren't as evident in sparring.  Because a back and forth exchange of punches is not where this is the most useful.  Where forceflow skills are the most useful is from a bridge where you then manipulate the opponent's balance and finish him.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Otherwise what is the point of training Chi Sau?



It trains your punch in terms of elbow behavior, unthinking habits and correct reactions. It trains the body and power chain; correct structure and generation of force. It isn't a fighting method (in WSL VT).



KPM said:


> This is not necessarily easy against modern fighters with lots of upper body movement and fast combinations of punches....conditioned from seeing lots of western boxing



I would say it is impossible.



KPM said:


> It shouldn't be a back and forth exchange of punches



That is what fighting looks like unfortunately, unless you are grappling.



KPM said:


> Where forceflow skills are the most useful is from a bridge where you then manipulate the opponent's balance and finish him.



Is this the CSL teaching or just your personal belief?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Ok. so you do use the concepts in sparring similar to what was thinking.  At the moment I'm only able to stick to punches for a short time, just long enough to redirect them.  I not good enough to stick with it and follow it back in.  I'm always worried about getting hit with the other fist coming at me to practice is.  I have been working on using only my peripheral vision during free sparring and that seems to help with the sticking, jamming, and trapping more.
> 
> Successful use of my peripheral vision almost seems like time has slowed down and I can react to the punch or strike before they actually strike.  For a jab, I can see even the smallest movement.  The smallest movement I've been able to see in a jab was the flexing of shoulder muscle that occurred. I know it sounds way out there but give it a try.
> The hardest part of trying to use only peripheral vision is that your eyes will keep trying to focus on your opponent.  When I training it, I have to place my focus about 5 inches to the right of my opponents shoulder so it looks like I'm staring at someone to the side of him and I try to spar this way without directly focusing on him.   Once I think I have "mastered"  that distance then I move my focus inward 4 inches to the right of my opponents shoulder.
> ...


Interesting observations Jowga. Personally I've found that when I have been in a potentially violent situation I lost peripheral vision and the threat I faced I saw more in a kind of tunnel vision. My heart rate skyrocketed and my whole body shook. I think it was the effect of adrenaline on me, I do all I can to avoid confrontation these days as its a HORRIBLE place to be. In my formative years I hung out with the wrong people I suppose and violence was part of the culture back there.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> From my understanding.....Wing Chun is about fighting from a bridge.   A bridge is contact with an opponent, usually at the forearms.  This is where the training of Chi Sau comes in....Chi Sau is about developing sensitivity and control at the bridge. So Wing Chun is designed to be "attached fighting" as much as practical,  as opposed to "unattached" exchange of punches.  Otherwise what is the point of training Chi Sau?   With an "attachment" one can manipulate the opponent's balance and "break his structure."  This is not necessarily easy against modern fighters with lots of upper body movement and fast combinations of punches....conditioned from seeing lots of western boxing.  But the idea of using Chi Sau concepts in sparring would be to establish a bridge....either when you throw a punch that is intercepted or the opponent throws a punch that you intercept....and to try to keep that bridge as you are striking the opponent or manipulating his balance in some way to set up striking the opponent.  If he retracts and moves, you stick and  follow it back.  If he leaves the bridge to try and go around at a wide angle, you go right up the middle directly and should make contact before he does since a straight line is shorter than a curved one.  It shouldn't be a back and forth exchange of punches.   It should be...contact is established... then contact is used close in, manipulate, and finish the opponent.   This is why so often sparring doesn't look much like Wing Chun....because sparring tends to be a back and forth exchange of punches and kicks.  IMHO, Wing Chun was not designed to work like this.  Wing Chun was designed to close and finish.  Chi Sau skills are for establishing and dominating contact with the opponent until he is finished. This may also be why the "forceflow" skills aren't as evident in sparring.  Because a back and forth exchange of punches is not where this is the most useful.  Where forceflow skills are the most useful is from a bridge where you then manipulate the opponent's balance and finish him.


Bang on the money KPM, I spar a lot but as sparring should be to and fro giving both parties the chance to try things out applying what I would call "pure wing chun" destroys the Rythm of this "ebb and flow". Applied wing chun to me should result in an asymmetrical exchange where once you enter you control and smash until the threat is no more. I like doing 3 second sparring sometimes where both parties go as fast as they can (not as hard of course) with the objective of trying to obtain a dominant position.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 6, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> Bang on the money KPM, I spar a lot but as sparring should be to and fro giving both parties the chance to try things out applying what I would call "pure wing chun" destroys the Rythm of this "ebb and flow". Applied wing chun to me should result in an asymmetrical exchange where once you enter you control and smash until the threat is no more. I like doing 3 second sparring sometimes where both parties go as fast as they can (not as hard of course) with the objective of trying to obtain a dominant position.


First time I've heard of 3 second sparring. Is this 3 second free sparring or is this in context of doing Chi Sao?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 6, 2016)

Chi Sao is a training tool, some people say it should flow and not be pressurized some say it shouldn't be competitive. I train and teach it both of the above and other ways but as far as I'm concerned it's just a piece of the puzzle. It's not a sparring match as such, if I want to spar I might have long range vs short range, kicker vs puncher, clincher vs puncher, shooting for single leg vs kicker etc etc. just like chi Sao, sparring can be trained many different ways. 3 second sparring can take place under different conditions, I might have 2 students facing each other and on the command GO they blast in for 3 secs before we reset. Other times I might get them to both do 50 push ups , they stand up then GO. I'm trying to bring the stress and speed of real confrontation into training. I'm looking to build a mindset in the students to apply "shock and awe" when they need it. Chi Sao has its place but not in these kind of drills


----------



## KPM (Mar 6, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> Bang on the money KPM, I spar a lot but as sparring should be to and fro giving both parties the chance to try things out applying what I would call "pure wing chun" destroys the Rythm of this "ebb and flow". Applied wing chun to me should result in an asymmetrical exchange where once you enter you control and smash until the threat is no more. I like doing 3 second sparring sometimes where both parties go as fast as they can (not as hard of course) with the objective of trying to obtain a dominant position.



Ah!  I'm glad you got what I was saying.  Guy obviously didn't.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Ah!  I'm glad you got what I was saying.  Guy obviously didn't.



Does he simply disagree and spout invective just to get attention? From what I've seen of his posts both on this forum and "the other one" he seems determined to derail any thread he participates in. He seems to always want to have the "last word" on whatever the subject matter is. I kinda feel sorry for the guy, he really seems angry.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Guy obviously didn't



Just providing an answer to your question "otherwise what is the point?"

Feel free to carry on with the mutual backslapping if you like, or engage in a conversation. Up to you.


----------



## KPM (Mar 6, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> Does he simply disagree and spout invective just to get attention? From what I've seen of his posts both on this forum and "the other one" he seems determined to derail any thread he participates in. He seems to always want to have the "last word" on whatever the subject matter is. I kinda feel sorry for the guy, he really seems angry.



I think you nailed it Saul!


----------



## KPM (Mar 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Just providing an answer to your question "otherwise what is the point?"
> 
> Feel free to carry on with the mutual backslapping if you like, or engage in a conversation. Up to you.



_----Funny how when it was you and LFJ tag-teaming on me it was Ok.  Now the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it.  

But I'll play along._

Guy wrote:
It trains your punch in terms of elbow behavior, unthinking habits and correct reactions. It trains the body and power chain; correct structure and generation of force. It isn't a fighting method (in WSL VT).

_---You didn't say anything about the sensitivity or contact.  So exactly what "unthinking habits" and "correct reactions" are you talking about?  If you are serious about engaging in conversation, why do you seem to always make such general statements and no actual detail and information about your WSLVT?   How is rolling going to train a power chain?  Seems to me that this is what punching a wall bag or other objects is for._ 

Guy also wrote:
That is what fighting looks like unfortunately, unless you are grappling.

---_Which is wrong, and why I said you obviously didn't get what I was saying!  That is what sparring looks like!  That was my point!  But real fighting is not always a back and forth exchange of punches.  There certainly are times where one person closes in and finishes off the opponent without stepping back to admire his work._


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 6, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Yep. For those interested, do some research into the rods and cones of the human eye. Interesting stuff...even more so when applied to certain aspects of daily life, and of course...martial arts!


This is how we are able to amaze people when we suddenly catch an object that is falling off a table


KPM said:


> From my understanding.....Wing Chun is about fighting from a bridge.   A bridge is contact with an opponent, usually at the forearms.  This is where the training of Chi Sau comes in....Chi Sau is about developing sensitivity and control at the bridge. So Wing Chun is designed to be "attached fighting" as much as practical,  as opposed to "unattached" exchange of punches.  Otherwise what is the point of training Chi Sau?   With an "attachment" one can manipulate the opponent's balance and "break his structure."  This is not necessarily easy against modern fighters with lots of upper body movement and fast combinations of punches....conditioned from seeing lots of western boxing.  But the idea of using Chi Sau concepts in sparring would be to establish a bridge....either when you throw a punch that is intercepted or the opponent throws a punch that you intercept....and to try to keep that bridge as you are striking the opponent or manipulating his balance in some way to set up striking the opponent.  If he retracts and moves, you stick and  follow it back.  If he leaves the bridge to try and go around at a wide angle, you go right up the middle directly and should make contact before he does since a straight line is shorter than a curved one.  It shouldn't be a back and forth exchange of punches.   It should be...contact is established... then contact is used close in, manipulate, and finish the opponent.   This is why so often sparring doesn't look much like Wing Chun....because sparring tends to be a back and forth exchange of punches and kicks.  IMHO, Wing Chun was not designed to work like this.  Wing Chun was designed to close and finish.  Chi Sau skills are for establishing and dominating contact with the opponent until he is finished. This may also be why the "forceflow" skills aren't as evident in sparring.  Because a back and forth exchange of punches is not where this is the most useful.  Where forceflow skills are the most useful is from a bridge where you then manipulate the opponent's balance and finish him.


thanks this means that I'm on the right track for how to deal with a WC practitioner. It also seems to validate some of my theories about Jow Ga movement and why things are done a certain way. Thanks  for sharing the info about WC.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 7, 2016)

I just saw Ip Man 3 yesterday. Got free tickets.

In the final scene, they started doing _pun-sau_ in the middle of the fight. 

Reminds me now of how KPM thinks Wing Chun fighting works; in YJKYM with parallel arms and fighting from a "bridge". Choreography by KPM.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> Funny how when it was you and LFJ tag-teaming on me it was Ok. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it.



I really don't mind either way KPM. Just seems a bit pointless for you to talk to yourself



KPM said:


> So exactly what "unthinking habits" and "correct reactions" are you talking about? If you are serious about engaging in conversation, why do you seem to always make such general statements and no actual detail and information about your WSLVT?



Elbow usage, finding gaps, automatic covering, recycling, clearing the way, LLHS LSJC



KPM said:


> How is rolling going to train a power chain?



By imposing correct structure and putting force through it, thereby shaping structure correctly and making it functional



KPM said:


> But real fighting is not always a back and forth exchange of punches. There certainly are times where one person closes in and finishes off the opponent without stepping back to admire his work.



Does fighting suddely come to look like chi sau in this kind of situation?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 7, 2016)

Worried here about some things. When people talk about bridge they know not to chase hands but rather establish good control of the fight. However when trying to chase bridge in a fight it usually ends up in chasing hands which is a big no in WC.

If you want a bridge, be prepared to lose it as well. If your tactic requires you to maintain a bridge, how do you react when your opponent does not want to play your game?

My thought on the matter is that a bridge exists for a split second, chi-sau allows me to come on top in that split second and using it to move into better position whether with my fist or my body. It is easier to maintain that bridge in some scenarios but if the moment is gone it will just remain gone until next time there is a bridge. In between nothing changes and our martial arts training should teach us to play in all fields. Not just one.

How much do I spend training chi-sau? Ask me two years ago and I would say "A LOT", today not so much. It varies from year to year and this year it is just something done every now and then.


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I just saw Ip Man 3 yesterday. Got free tickets.
> 
> In the final scene, they started doing _pun-sau_ in the middle of the fight.
> 
> Reminds me now of how KPM thinks Wing Chun fighting works; in YJKYM with parallel arms and fighting from a "bridge". Choreography by KPM.




I never said that.   But you go on believing anything you want!  You do that anyway!


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

I really don't mind either way KPM. Just seems a bit pointless for you to talk to yourself

_---That doesn't even make sense._ 


Elbow usage, finding gaps, automatic covering, recycling, clearing the way, LLHS LSJC

_---Elbow usage...how?  Elbow strikes?  Elbow alignment?   Covering what?  Does that involve using a bridge to limit the opponent's movement?  Recycling what?   For someone interested in conversation, you are still talking in vague terms._




By imposing correct structure and putting force through it, thereby shaping structure correctly and making it functional

_---Whose structure?  The opponent's structure or your structure?   How are you "shaping" anyone's structure?_ 



Does fighting suddely come to look like chi sau in this kind of situation?

_---Of course not.  Again, you obviously didn't get what I was saying.  Go back and reread it._


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

Worried here about some things. When people talk about bridge they know not to chase hands but rather establish good control of the fight. However when trying to chase bridge in a fight it usually ends up in chasing hands which is a big no in WC.

_---Agreed.  But the whole "chasing hands" idea is a bit nebulous as well.  Different people tend to have varying ideas of what this means.  Pin Sun uses more Kum Na than some systems, and those other systems might call what we do "chasing hands" as a result.  But absolutely, if contact or the "bridge" is lost, one should be chasing center.  If the opponent manages to put up an obstruction to prevent that, then you have another bridge and can work from there._ 


If you want a bridge, be prepared to lose it as well. If your tactic requires you to maintain a bridge, how do you react when your opponent does not want to play your game?

_---Again, if the bridge is lost you are going for the center....to finish the opponent.   If he moves out of range quickly, then you have to reset and start again.  This would give a "back and forth" sense to it....the give and take in sparring.  But that is not the goal.  The goal is to close with the opponent and finish him.  But he isn't going to stand by passively and let you do that!  He's going to try and stop you!  When he tries to stop you a contact or a "bridge" is typically established and this is where Wing Chun skills really "kick in."  That is not to say that one MUST have a bridge!  If there is no bridge you should be hitting the opponent!  But likewise to seek to exchange punches without working from and controlling a bridge....that is to neglect what Wing Chun actually trains to do!_ 



My thought on the matter is that a bridge exists for a split second, chi-sau allows me to come on top in that split second and using it to move into better position whether with my fist or my body.

_---I agree._


 It is easier to maintain that bridge in some scenarios but if the moment is gone it will just remain gone until next time there is a bridge. In between nothing changes and our martial arts training should teach us to play in all fields. Not just one.

_---Again, I agree.  But every martial art has its "comfort zone" or area of specialty.  Wing Chun's "comfort zone" is attached fighting.  Not  standing back and exchanging punches like a boxer.  Not going to the ground like a grappler._


----------



## Phobius (Mar 7, 2016)

_


KPM said:



			---Again, if the bridge is lost you are going for the center....to finish the opponent.   If he moves out of range quickly, then you have to reset and start again.  This would give a "back and forth" sense to it....the give and take in sparring.  But that is not the goal.  The goal is to close with the opponent and finish him.  But he isn't going to stand by passively and let you do that!  He's going to try and stop you!  When he tries to stop you a contact or a "bridge" is typically established and this is where Wing Chun skills really "kick in."  That is not to say that one MUST have a bridge!  If there is no bridge you should be hitting the opponent!  But likewise to seek to exchange punches without working from and controlling a bridge....that is to neglect what Wing Chun actually trains to do!
		
Click to expand...

_
What do you mean by exchanging punches? Being hit and hitting? Or something else?

When the way is free we attack, and we will get hit back. Nothing will ever change the fact that in a real fight people get hit no matter their training. Most certainly I misunderstood you so please explain how you mean, if you have time and wish to do so.

_


KPM said:



			But every martial art has its "comfort zone" or area of specialty.  Wing Chun's "comfort zone" is attached fighting.  Not  standing back and exchanging punches like a boxer.  Not going to the ground like a grappler.
		
Click to expand...

_
Can understand this, but my viewpoint as a practitioner of Kung Fu is that if I do not feel comfortable with a zone, I need to focus on training that more. My mind should never be in turmoil or worried but rather at peace. If I can not punch a boxer, how can I expect to punch a grappler? If I cant grapple a grappler, how can I grapple a boxer? Better learn it all. This is not stating you are incorrect, simply a statement that what you call comfort zone I rather call specialty.

WC in my view is more than a theory that requires bridging. It is boxing in more ways than that. But it is not grappling so I have to seek that elsewhere.

If only there were more hours in the day...


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

What do you mean by exchanging punches? Being hit and hitting? Or something else?

_---Not really.  I mean the "tic for tat"...."I hit you, you hit me"....back and forth....like a boxer.....without really trying to shut the other guy down and keep him from being able to punch effectively._ 


When the way is free we attack, and we will get hit back. Nothing will ever change the fact that in a real fight people get hit no matter their training. Most certainly I misunderstood you so please explain how you mean, if you have time and wish to do so.

_---Of course, everybody gets hit in a fight!  But in Wing Chun we typically don't just stand there and take the hit!  We are usually trying to deflect, trap, control, etc._


If only there were more hours in the day...

_---Nothing wrong with cross-training!   Maybe "specialty" is the better term than "comfort zone."  Its good to recognize a systems strengths and weakness.  No one method has it all._


----------



## guy b. (Mar 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> Elbow usage...how? Elbow strikes? Elbow alignment?



Elbow position, elbow movement



KPM said:


> Covering what?



Covering the attacking lines your oppoenent is likely to use



KPM said:


> Does that involve using a bridge to limit the opponent's movement?



What is a bridge?



KPM said:


> Recycling what?



Your punch



KPM said:


> _you are still talking in vague terms._



I am very happy to answer questions



KPM said:


> Whose structure?



Those involved in the training drill



KPM said:


> the opponent's structure or your structure?



No opponent in chi sau



KPM said:


> How are you "shaping" anyone's structure?



By putting force through it, making it a functional working structure



KPM said:


> Of course not. Again, you obviously didn't get what I was saying. Go back and reread it.



I don't understant why chi sau would be more relevant to a one sided exchange than normal fighting training. Chi sau is a training drill, not something directly applicable to a fight.


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

Here's an opinion from someone else.  For what its worth.  






And please note that he is not actually talking about using Chi Sau in a fight.  He is talking about how elements of Chi Sau are applicable in a fight.


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

Elbow position, elbow movement

_---Wow!  You really think it takes all that just to figure out where to position your elbow?_



Covering the attacking lines your oppoenent is likely to use

_---How do you get that, if you think that Chi Sau doesn't apply to fighting?  How are you training the attacking lines your opponent is likely to use if....first there is no opponent in Chi Sau, and second Chi Sau doesn't apply to fighting?_



What is a bridge?

_--- I clearly described that in my prior post that I already recommended that you reread once before.   Again....if you are all about carrying on a meaningful conversation, why are you not even bothering to read what other people are saying on the thread?   No, I think Saul was right.  I don't know why I am even bothering to continue to respond. 


Here was our exchange on the Alan Orr video thread:_

_You asked there:
*What do you mean by a bridge?*_

_And I answered:
---Contact with the opponent arm to arm. Usually at the forearm.

So either you don't pay attention very well, or you're just dense.  Which one is it?_


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> Elbow position, elbow movement
> 
> _---Wow!  You really think it takes all that just to figure out where to position your elbow?_
> 
> ...



It seems just keeping your elbows in and recycling your punches is all one needs to guarantee victory, who knew?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 7, 2016)

KPM, he's just an attention seeking troll who probably lives in his mothers basement and drives her crazy eating up all her bandwidth spouting his bile on forums. He's a firm fixture on my ignore list now. Life's way too short to spend time on people like this...


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> It seems just keeping your elbows in and recycling your punches is all one needs to guarantee victory, who knew?


 
Yep!  But evidently it takes loads of Poon Sau and Lop Sau drills to figure out how to do that!


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 7, 2016)

Yeah and I wish I hadn't wasted all those hours hitting pads and bags trying to improve my punching when all I had to do was focus on my tan Sao elbow position during snt practice...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> Here's an opinion from someone else.  For what its worth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah that's what were talking about when we said using Chi Sau concepts in the fight and not the actual Chi Sau practice exercise.  I like this guy and I don't like him.  He's 20 levels too hyper for me, but he says a lot of valid things just form my perspective as a non Wing Chun martial artist.  My personal opinion is that he should cut down on the coffee lol.  
Is he a respected person in the world of Wing Chun?


----------



## KPM (Mar 7, 2016)

^^^^ Wong puts out a lot of videos that can be entertaining and have some good things in them.  I've heard guys that went to workshops he has done at events in England say that he is a good teacher and a good guy.  So yeah, he has some level of respect I think.  We may not all agree with him all the time.  But that's true of most things!


----------



## geezer (Mar 7, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Is he ("master Wong") a *respected person* in the world of Wing Chun?



Not particularly. People have raised a lot of questions about his lineage and the "authenticity" of his training. Regardless, I find him very entertaining.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> _---Wow!  You really think it takes all that just to figure out where to position your elbow?_



It's not just about elbow position, and it's not as easy as you seem to think.

We can be told how to move and understand the theory quite easily, but what happens when things speed up and become more intense or go to free sparring and fighting? Elbows pop out, people freeze, underreact, overreact, etc.. 

Hence the constant need to train it, unless you're already perfect. Then I guess all you need is to be told once.



> _---How do you get that, if you think that Chi Sau doesn't apply to fighting?  How are you training the attacking lines your opponent is likely to use if....first there is no opponent in Chi Sau, and second Chi Sau doesn't apply to fighting?_



He said "automatic covering" which is in reference to the way we attack and from what angles to provide automatic covering of possible attack lines, should there be an attack incoming or not.

We train similarly on the wooden dummy, in reference to our own position and structure. The dummy is not seen as a human offering attacks, as some others prefer. It's abstract and not filled with direct applications. 

In _chi-sau_ we function as each other's dynamic training apparatus to aid in each other's own development. Still not fighting an opponent yet.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

Hey Saul, up in the middle of the (UK) night at exactly the same time as KPM again? How's work this morning?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> Wow! You really think it takes all that just to figure out where to position your elbow?



As LFJ said, the elbow position in VT is very unnatural and it takes a lot of repetition and correction to entrain the correct behaviours and keep them there.



KPM said:


> How do you get that, if you think that Chi Sau doesn't apply to fighting? How are you training the attacking lines your opponent is likely to use if....first there is no opponent in Chi Sau, and second Chi Sau doesn't apply to fighting?



Chi sau doesn't apply directly to fighting in that going into a fight and trying to do the chi sau drill (which is done with a cooperative opponent to the benefit of both) is likely to result in your getting punched in the face. Chi sau is a drill designed to train habits, skills, movement which apply to fighting. But it is not fighting.



KPM said:


> _Contact with the opponent arm to arm. Usually at the forearm._



The strategy of VT is to hit, not to grapple in some contrived way which is nullified as soon as the opponent doesn't want to do it.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> _I mean the "tic for tat"...."I hit you, you hit me"....back and forth....like a boxer.....without really trying to shut the other guy down and keep him from being able to punch effectively._



Don't you think boxers try to keep the opponent from being able to punch effectively? Why do you think they don't link  arms at the wrist to this effect?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> it takes loads of Poon Sau and Lop Sau drills



What do you think these drills are for?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> As LFJ said, the elbow position in VT is very unnatural and it takes a lot of repetition and correction to entrain the correct behaviours and keep them there.



I agree on this statement, especially since I had to spend some time at one point doing chi-sau just to get rid of a bad habit of opening myself up underneath my arms allowing my partner to hit me in the stomach from time to time. Simple in theory, easy to stretch in SNT but to understand and grasp the need for it? Chi sao is a perfect tool.

Not like it takes ages to train it, but does not change the fact that it is a perfect tool to train elbow placement, tension, movements and what not.



guy b. said:


> Chi sau doesn't apply directly to fighting in that going into a fight and trying to do the chi sau drill (which is done with a cooperative opponent to the benefit of both) is likely to result in your getting punched in the face. Chi sau is a drill designed to train habits, skills, movement which apply to fighting. But it is not fighting.



I think you both mean the same thing but just misunderstand one another. KPM calls the partner in a sparring bout an opponent, same he calls the partner in chi sao (no chi sao and sparring is NOT the same thing) but he does not consider them actual fighting opponents I believe but is rather just a term he uses to describe someone standing facing you. You call it differently but think about it as a training partner, both of you. I believe.

Chi sao is not fighting, but there is an intention to hit you/get passed your guard. Which makes the terms used to describe it often so confusing. Some might even call it a game while others get upset by that term because they dont think a game can be for training purposes. It is all the same.



guy b. said:


> The strategy of VT is to hit, not to grapple in some contrived way which is nullified as soon as the opponent doesn't want to do it.



Bridge has nothing to do with grappling. It is the moment you get contact with your opponent and can potentially feel his force. It can be when your feet clash with your opponent, when you quickly deflect a jab, when his punch hits your face or yours hits his. This is bridging. Some methods more preferred than others. 

Bridging says nothing about how you utilize that touch or of how long it lasts. It can be for a micro second. Or for an hour (what happends in the bedroom stays in the bedroom however).


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

I am very much in favour of bridging using my hand to the face of my opponent. Seeking to make contact with their arms in order to control not so much. 

Controlling via contact is indeed grappling.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Chi sao is not fighting, but there is an intention to hit you/get passed your guard.



So, competitive striking from an unrealistic setup?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> So, competitive striking from an unrealistic setup?



No, however what you just did was quite an unrealistic comment.

Maintaining proper structure and technique is what I meant. Force should have a forward intent. Since your comment makes it sound as if you want to do Chi Sao with a passive intent that is probably fine for you but my opinion would be there is little to learn from such a lack of structure.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I am very much in favour of bridging using my hand to the face of my opponent. Seeking to make contact with their arms in order to control not so much.
> 
> Controlling via contact is indeed grappling.



And bridging has nothing to do with control, touch has nothing to do with control and controlling via contact can be but is not always grappling.

Stop writing as if I said something I did not, it makes discussion a mess if I have to come back and rewrite what I said. This is a friendly request to not add pointless stuff in order to create a non-existent discussion. I never mentioned grappling, if you want to discuss grappling then you should know my belief is that WC sucks in grappling, which is why I touch a bit in GJJ as well.

[EDIT: I have short temper today, damn noise in the office seems to annoy me more than I thought]


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 8, 2016)

To me bridging is simply a side effect of trying to land a shot. My intention is to hit while covering the line and if I get some form of bridge contact during the course of that action I will try to use it to my advantage. Otoh, "fishing" for a bridge with the intention of tying up the guys arms THEN hitting him will get you into all sorts of trouble.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Since your comment makes it sound as if you want to do Chi Sao with a passive intent





Phobius said:


> Stop writing as if I said something I did not,



I made no comment about my intent. Stop writing as if I did.


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

It's not just about elbow position, and it's not as easy as you seem to think.

_---Good answers LFJ.   I find it interesting that guy complains about having a meaningful conversation, yet only gives one-line responses with no elaboration until you decide to chime in.  Then guy is all about trying to explain things.   Are you two fellows joined at the hip or something?   Or when you are around guy feels the need to show that he actually knows a little bit about  WSLVT as well?  

But anyway.....elbow position is Wing Chun 101.  So again, it takes loads and loads of Poon Sau and Lop Sau to train that?_ _ What else are you training?_


We can be told how to move and understand the theory quite easily, but what happens when things speed up and become more intense or go to free sparring and fighting? Elbows pop out, people freeze, underreact, overreact, etc..

_---But if what your are doing in Poon Sau and Lop Sau have nothing to do with fighting and no application to fighting.....how do you know that the attack lines, and responses, and elbow position and such are going to also occur in free sparring and fighting?  If they are such two totally different things, how do you know what is learned in one is going to cross over to the other?_



We train similarly on the wooden dummy, in reference to our own position and structure. The dummy is not seen as a human offering attacks, as some others prefer. It's abstract and not filled with direct applications.

_---I get that part.  I've always viewed the dummy like it was a huge human protractor.  It makes you get all of your lines and angles correct.  It helps you work on correct spacing of your arms and hands, etc.  But to say it has no direct applications is to miss out on a lot of things.  You could train those lines and angles and such with just a few simple drills on the dummy.  You wouldn't need the whole long and elaborate dummy form for that._


In _chi-sau_ we function as each other's dynamic training apparatus to aid in each other's own development. Still not fighting an opponent yet.

_---Do you do Gor Sau as part of your Chi Sau training?  Does your partner give you resistance and make you defend against strikes?  If your partner is acting to challenge you in any way....doesn't that make him an opponent in a limited way?_


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

Chi sau doesn't apply directly to fighting in that going into a fight and trying to do the chi sau drill (which is done with a cooperative opponent to the benefit of both) is likely to result in your getting punched in the face. Chi sau is a drill designed to train habits, skills, movement which apply to fighting. But it is not fighting.

_---And no one here, no one.....has said that someone should do any kind of "cooperative Chi Sau rolling drill" in a fight!_



The strategy of VT is to hit, not to grapple in some contrived way which is nullified as soon as the opponent doesn't want to do it.

_---Do you adhere to the opponent while hitting him?  Do you try and maintain any kind of contact with the opponent while hitting him?  Do you try and manipulate the opponent in any way to make it easier for you to hit him or harder for him to hit you?   Do you try and affect the opponent's balance and structure in any way?   Because those are the things I have been talking about.   I don't know what you mean by "contrived grappling."    Do you do any of these things in WSLVT?_


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

Bridge has nothing to do with grappling. It is the moment you get contact with your opponent and can potentially feel his force. It can be when your feet clash with your opponent, when you quickly deflect a jab, when his punch hits your face or yours hits his. This is bridging. Some methods more preferred than others.

Bridging says nothing about how you utilize that touch or of how long it lasts. It can be for a micro second. Or for an hour (what happends in the bedroom stays in the bedroom however).

_---Good answers Phobius.   I find it pretty amazing (and telling, actually) that someone that claims to be such an expert on Wing Chun can act totally clueless when other Wing Chun people talk about what a "bridge" is and how it is used!_


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 8, 2016)

I don't understand why "grappling" is such a swear word with the "vt" guys. They seem to think just keeping the elbow down and tight and throwing lots of punches forsaking any type of control of the opponent is the panacea to winning fights. Don't want to spoil the party here but if your striking doesn't quickly resolve the fight you will be grappling whether stand up or on the ground. Watch any MMA match, you think they're not trying to finish the fight fast with strikes? How much time do the matches end up in standing grappling? Of course on the street it's different right? Wc works very well in the stand up grappling/clinch range of a fight. If yours doesn't well...


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> And no one here, no one.....has said that someone should do any kind of "cooperative Chi Sau rolling drill" in a fight!



You were saying that chi sau is directly applicable to fighting here, and that aiming to remain attached to arms was the bread and butter of wing chun:



KPM said:


> Wing Chun is about fighting from a bridge. A bridge is contact with an opponent, usually at the forearms. This is where the training of Chi Sau comes in....Chi Sau is about developing sensitivity and control at the bridge. So Wing Chun is designed to be "attached fighting" as much as practical, as opposed to "unattached" exchange of punches. Otherwise what is the point of training Chi Sau?





KPM said:


> Do you adhere to the opponent while hitting him? Do you try and maintain any kind of contact with the opponent while hitting him?



No

There is no trying to maintain contact. If contact is made then the obstruction is removed. This may or may not involve turning or moving the opponent. It depends on the nature of the obstruction. The focus is on clearing the way to hit, not on maintaining contact. Maintaining contact intentionally is hand chasing which is avoided.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> I find it pretty amazing (and telling, actually) that someone that claims to be such an expert on Wing Chun can act totally clueless when other Wing Chun people talk about what a "bridge" is and how it is used!



I've never claimed to be an expert. 

Any attempt to control another body via contact is a form of grappling. Focus on the control rather than the hitting is called hand chasing in VT.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> They seem to think just keeping the elbow down and tight and throwing lots of punches forsaking any type of control of the opponent is the panacea to winning fights



There are many other methods of control other than making contact at the wrists and hoping the opponent stays there to be controlled. The strategy of VT is all about controlling the odds in a physical encounter. Closing options, forcing choices, and pressuring imposes control.



SaulGoodman said:


> Don't want to spoil the party here but if your striking doesn't quickly resolve the fight you will be grappling whether stand up or on the ground.



I am opposed to grappling type approaches to VT because VT is a terrible grappling method. Far better to learn a real grappling method and focus on what VT is good at.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> _elbow position is Wing Chun 101.  So again, it takes loads and loads of Poon Sau and Lop Sau to train that?_ _ What else are you training?_



Basic doesn't mean easy to do or comes naturally. It takes a lot of programming, yes. 

Coordination, alignment, balance, distancing, timing, reflexes, etc.. 



> _---But if what your are doing in Poon Sau and Lop Sau have nothing to do with fighting and no application to fighting.....how do you know that the attack lines, and responses, and elbow position and such are going to also occur in free sparring and fighting?  If they are such two totally different things, how do you know what is learned in one is going to cross over to the other?_



I never said they have nothing to do with fighting. They are an essential part of VT fight training.

How do we know? We spar and/or fight. Drilling is then used to iron out errors revealed under pressure. Then we return to free fighting and see if we've improved and find more errors which we go back to training to fix.

Many primarily go in the opposite direction only; train techniques in _chi-sau_ then try to apply them in fighting. Our method is more about auto-correction than learning new applications.



> _But to say it has no direct applications is to miss out on a lot of things._



That's a fine opinion, but the method I train relies on simplicity and non-application thinking. It's complete and coherent in itself. Extra application ideas would be superfluous at best, detrimental at worst.

_



			---Do you do Gor Sau as part of your Chi Sau training?  Does your partner give you resistance and make you defend against strikes?  If your partner is acting to challenge you in any way....doesn't that make him an opponent in a limited way?
		
Click to expand...

_
An opponent is a competitor. We aren't competing at that stage in training. 

As a partner, we may also allow them to hit us to ensure proper alignments and pressures. We may execute correctly or incorrectly to train responses or to draw out errors in our partner that are known or unknown, for correction. 

Even when pressure is increased, we are still helping each other as partners by the mere fact of it being a VT exercise and not free sparring. We aren't competing, so we aren't opponents.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I never said they have nothing to do with fighting. They are an essential part of VT fight training



Neither have I

Good post by the way


----------



## Phobius (Mar 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I've never claimed to be an expert.
> 
> Any attempt to control another body via contact is a form of grappling. Focus on the control rather than the hitting is called hand chasing in VT.



That is nice and all, but bridge is not grappling once again. Nor is control necessarily grappling. You yourself control your opponent by watching him, if he touches you the sense that he is moving to attack you or even talking with him. All of it is measures of controlling your opponent.

Heck even clapping your hands in front of your opponent is an attempt at controlling him. None of those can be called grappling.

WSL VT also does controlling, to secure that you align your centerline. You do not allow your opponent to move in behind your back. As a simple example.

Bridge is also the moment your fist connects with his face, as you stated before to like. That you would not call grappling but it gives you a sense of his lack of structure, and whether or not he loses balance or is ready to punch back. It is all there with the bridge, and you learn this whether you know it or not when training WC, VT or WT.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Bridge is also the moment your fist connects with his face



We've discussed illogical "bridges" before in this thread:

"If there's a bridge, cross it. If there's no bridge, build one"

Me from that post:

"_Interpreting a bridge as any sort of contact, including fist-to-face as you do, also makes little sense. A punch is a punch. Why do you need to invent special terminology for it? "If there's no bridge, build one" = "If you haven't punched someone, punch them"? Why do you need an maxim to tell you that? Plus, if your fist on someone's face is the bridge, what is crossing the bridge? Putting your fist through their skull?_"


----------



## Phobius (Mar 8, 2016)

Bridge is built when you connect with your opponent in that way or other ways. It is not you physically walking across a bridge, it is a sense that traverses the bridge. This sounds like a bunch of made up sheit but it is really easy for those that train WC. We can call it a sense or feeling that allows you to gather information about your opponent. You may not know it but have you ever thought why in chi-sao you seem to sense what your opponent is doing before your mind even can grasp it? This means it is not your eyes collecting information and reacting to it, the information is passed over the bridge. The more you train the faster you can move across that bridge and understanding your opponent.

Why would you have the term book since the bible is a book, why then not just use word bible? Well answer is simple, a bible is not the only book. (sorry if I offend someone very religious here)

A bridge is not illogical, it just exists. It is your choice whether you use it or not.

Nor is it magical or even special, grapplers have it, boxers (at least to some degree), lovers (as in a very happy old couple), doctors, arm wrestlers.... you name it. Many have it. It is just a WC term 'bridge' that is made up. You want to argue that it should have another name that is fine, but to argue that it is not important or not existing would make me wonder if your style of WSL VT is not interesting anymore to me.

To narrow your field of view will only make you so much closer to blind.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 8, 2016)

You can follow that link to see what else I think about the term "bridge" as you define it, why it is illogical, and what it means in my lineage. Don't really feel like repeating it every time it comes up.

So what information do you get from someone when you punch them in the head? Can you read their mind, see their memories, hack in and download their skills?

The Bible is the title of the book, by the way. It doesn't mean "book".


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> We've discussed illogical "bridges" before in this thread:
> 
> "If there's a bridge, cross it. If there's no bridge, build one"
> 
> ...



Agree. For me it is superfluous and confusing terminology. It is either meaningless (i.e. any contact is a bridge), or it misleads towards ideas of bridge sensitivity, control, and so on.

If it means punch into defensive gaps when there is an opportunity then great but hardly profound.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Mar 8, 2016)

With the hands, a bridge is formed anytime you strike and you meet an obstacle in the way, so it is a *thing* that happens _*anyway*_. I'm sure it can be thought of as a more esoteric concept, and it seems like that's what Guy B and LFJ are looking for to pick apart, but I don't see a need to define in too much detail. The question is what do you do with that bridge, or what are your training methods developing you to do once there is a bridge? 
I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating chasing hands, but rather saying there is value in controlling (to some degree) while striking an opponent, and that chi-sau develops responsiveness for those brief moments when a bridge is formed.
How this looks to me, in just one example, is if I pak my opponent's arm to clear the way for a punch from my opposite hand, my pak is making contact with their forearm / elbow but my pressure and force are being driven toward their center of mass. I am also not going to retract or release that pak until I absolutely have to replace my prior punch, so there is a controlling aspect to this and not just clearing the line to attack. To me that is a nuanced but important distinction between some of the patty cake looking pak sau drills I see on Youtube.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You can follow that link to see what else I think about the term "bridge" as you define it, why it is illogical, and what it means in my lineage. Don't really feel like repeating it every time it comes up.



You think a lot of stuff but as long as you dont understand a meaning what you have ever written about it holds no value. Therefore you have to rethink and rewrite,  or not.  Choice is yours on the net. 



LFJ said:


> So what information do you get from someone when you punch them in the head? Can you read their mind, see their memories, hack in and download their skills.



You are just being silly now for sake of childish arguments. When you hit someone with your first you feel if the punch hit or not,  if it was deflected or they move with the punch to minimize damage. You feel if they lost balance and maybe also if they are counterpunching. 

Well you can feel that,  from your comment I assume you never do. 



LFJ said:


> The Bible is the title of the book, by the way. It doesn't mean "book".



A punch is one possible bridge by the way.  It doesn't mean bridge.

Same as grappling being a possible bridge. But it does not mean bridge.

We can go on all day. But without bridge concept why train using chi Sao. If you share nothing when touching you are way better of training using other methods.


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

You were saying that chi sau is directly applicable to fighting here, and that aiming to remain attached to arms was the bread and butter of wing chun:

_---I'll state again that is seems pretty amazing to me that someone that claims to know so much about Wing Chun is clueless about what it means to use a bridge and how Chi Sau trains that.
_


There is no trying to maintain contact. If contact is made then the obstruction is removed. This may or may not involve turning or moving the opponent. It depends on the nature of the obstruction. The focus is on clearing the way to hit, not on maintaining contact. Maintaining contact intentionally is hand chasing which is avoided.

_---How do you remove an obstruction without contact?  How do you turn or move the opponent without contact?  How do you clear the way to hit without contact?   If you've closed with the opponent, then do you let him get away?  Or do you stay on him until he is finished? Maintaining contact is not chasing hands.  Maintaining contact can be pressing on the upper arm while you are punching the opponent and forcing him backwards into a wall.  _


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I've never claimed to be an expert.
> 
> Any attempt to control another body via contact is a form of grappling. Focus on the control rather than the hitting is called hand chasing in VT.



So Gum Sau is grappling?   Lop Sau is grappling?  Lan Sau is grappling?


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

I never said they have nothing to do with fighting. 

_---That's certainly what Guy seemed to be suggesting.  He has even said on one of the other threads that you wouldn't use Bong, Lop, etc in the fight!  Just punch!_


How do we know? We spar and/or fight. Drilling is then used to iron out errors revealed under pressure. Then we return to free fighting and see if we've improved and find more errors which we go back to training to fix.

--_-Why is that never part of any of Phillip Bayer's many videos?_



That's a fine opinion, but the method I train relies on simplicity and non-application thinking. It's complete and coherent in itself. Extra application ideas would be superfluous at best, detrimental at worst.

-_--Well then, I would say you don't have a very efficient system.   Your dummy form is twice as long as it needs to be for what you are getting out of it!!   It sounds like you don't have a very good way to transition Chi Sau skills to fighting if you never challenge each other as an "opponent" in Chi Sau/Gor Sau.  You have a whole lot of unneeded things in the SNT, CK, and BG forms if all you are worried about is cycling punches and not learning any kind of application.  You make your WSLVT sound like a boxing system, yet you aren't training like boxers train.   _


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> That's certainly what Guy seemed to be suggesting. He has even said on one of the other threads that you wouldn't use Bong, Lop, etc in the fight! Just punch!



Can you point me to this comment please? I think you must have misread.



KPM said:


> Why is that never part of any of Phillip Bayer's many videos?



Maybe you should ask Philipp Bayer about the content of his videos?



KPM said:


> Well then, I would say you don't have a very efficient system. Your dummy form is twice as long as it needs to be for what you are getting out of it!! It sounds like you don't have a very good way to transition Chi Sau skills to fighting if you never challenge each other as an "opponent" in Chi Sau/Gor Sau. You have a whole lot of unneeded things in the SNT, CK, and BG forms if all you are worried about is cycling punches and not learning any kind of application.



It's a different understanding of the system KPM. What you see in one way, we see in a different way. There is nothing superfluous in WSLVT.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 8, 2016)

KPM said:


> So Gum Sau is grappling? Lop Sau is grappling? Lan Sau is grappling?



It depends why and how they are used.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2016)

What's the most popular martial art in England these days?


SaulGoodman said:


> To me bridging is simply a side effect of trying to land a shot. My intention is to hit while covering the line and if I get some form of bridge contact during the course of that action I will try to use it to my advantage. Otoh, "fishing" for a bridge with the intention of tying up the guys arms THEN hitting him will get you into all sorts of trouble.


for me bridging is the contact on the arm or hands that occurs when trying to punch or defend against a  strike. In Jow Ga this connection is almost always through my arms contacting my opponent's body (legs, arms, torso, neck. Etc.)
I think of it like how a real bridge connects the flow of traffic. My arms serve as a bridge that connects the flow of energy that I'm using with the energy that my opponent is using. With this definition I can also create a bridge with my legs.


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> for me bridging is the contact on the arm or hands that occurs when trying to punch or defend against a  strike. In Jow Ga this connection is almost always through my arms contacting my opponent's body (legs, arms, torso, neck. Etc.)
> I think of it like how a real bridge connects the flow of traffic. My arms serve as a bridge that connects the flow of energy that I'm using with the energy that my opponent is using. With this definition I can also create a bridge with my legs.



I think this is a very common understanding in Chinese Martial Arts....at least southern CMAs.  Not sure why the WSLVT guys have so many problems grasping this.   "Kiu Sau" or "bridge hands" is a commonly used term, even outside of Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM (Mar 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It depends why and how they are used.



For a noted conversationalist, that isn't really an answer.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 8, 2016)

Guy you seem like you actually enjoy making threads difficult and argumentative.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> that isn't really an answer



I don't think there is much point in repeating the same point over and over again to generalised disagreement. I am happy to answer specific questions to the best of my ability.


----------



## KPM (Mar 9, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't think there is much point in repeating the same point over and over again to generalised disagreement. I am happy to answer specific questions to the best of my ability.



I asked you a direct question, which I don't believe has specifically been asked before, and you chose not to really answer it.  I think Sean is "spot on" in his conclusion above.   You are happy to argue at every opportunity.  But sharing real information in a friendly way.....not so much.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> I asked you a direct question, which I don't believe has specifically been asked before, and you chose not to really answer it.  I think Sean is "spot on" in his conclusion above.   You are happy to argue at every opportunity.  But sharing real information in a friendly way.....not so much.



Which question? Post again and I will try to answer. Sorry for not giving you enough attention; I am currently at work, not scanning the forum 24/7

There are some questions from me on this thread which have not been aswered if you fancy a discussion


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

Maybe the Wing Chun forum could do with some sub forums dedicated to which branch/lineage a particular member practices. Perhaps then there would not be so many de-constructive comments. Which I will venture to say can catch anybody out who may just be feeling a little punchy. Up to post 9, this thread was an enjoyable read, and some after. May well seem a little contradictory coming from myself, but banter is banter. Trolling and deliberately banging on about the same linage stuff etc, to derail threads is pointless. Just my penny's worth.


----------



## KPM (Mar 9, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Which question? Post again and I will try to answer. Sorry for not giving you enough attention; I am currently at work, not scanning the forum 24/7
> 
> There are some questions from me on this thread which have not been aswered if you fancy a discussion



You really are dense aren't you??  Post #67, on this very page...to which you responded without really answering....to which I pointed out that you didn't really answer...to which you said you are "happy to answer direct questions"....even though you didn't....which was my point.  Clear enough??   If you are truly the conversationalist that you claim to be, one would think you would pay better attention to the actual discussion!!


----------



## guy b. (Mar 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> You really are dense aren't you??  Post #67, on this very page...to which you responded without really answering....to which I pointed out that you didn't really answer...to which you said you are "happy to answer direct questions"....even though you didn't....which was my point.  Clear enough??   If you are truly the conversationalist that you claim to be, one would think you would pay better attention to the actual discussion!!



I think I answered that question adequately. What are you still unsure about?

To spell it out again, it really depends on the intended result. If your goal is control, tying up, offbalancing or otherwise affecting the body of the opponent then hand chasing it is. If your goal is hitting then hand chasing it is not. VT is a system which imposes control not by grabbing hold and controlling (i.e. grappling), but by the use of attacking angles, stepping, pressure, eating space, closing options, automatic covering while hitting, intelligent recycling of strikes. It requires the correct thinking to work. It utilises a particular strategy, which is entrained and internalised by the individual using abstract drills. It is not application based and drills do not relate directly to fighting. There is no searching for arm contact in VT. 

I don't know how your system works, but it sounds a bit different. 

Maybe you would answer some of the questions I asked earlier? Thanks


----------



## KPM (Mar 9, 2016)

I think I answered that question adequately.

_---This was your previous answer:   "It depends why and how they are used."

---Compare that to this:_
To spell it out again, it really depends on the intended result. If your goal is control, tying up, offbalancing or otherwise affecting the body of the opponent then hand chasing it is. If your goal is hitting then hand chasing it is not. VT is a system which imposes control not by grabbing hold and controlling (i.e. grappling), but by the use of attacking angles, stepping, pressure, eating space, closing options, automatic covering while hitting, intelligent recycling of strikes. It requires the correct thinking to work. It utilises a particular strategy, which is entrained and internalised by the individual using abstract drills. It is not application based and drills do not relate directly to fighting. There is no searching for arm contact in VT.

_---And yet you think you answered adequately the first time?  But anyway, thanks for the eventual answer!  

---I am still not clear though....does WSLTV actually use things like Bong Sau, Lop Sau, Lan Sau, Gum Sau, etc in the fight?   And if you do, how do you use them without contacting and controlling the opponent to some extent?  And controlling, tying up, off-balancing and affecting the body of the opponent is NOT "hand chasing" by anyone's definition but yours.  Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"???_


----------



## guy b. (Mar 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> does WSLTV actually use things like Bong Sau, Lop Sau, Lan Sau, Gum Sau, etc in the fight? And if you do, how do you use them without contacting and controlling the opponent to some extent?



I don't speak for all of WSLVT. In the VT I practice actions like these are used to clear the way for striking. They are not first actions. Once the way is clear striking resumes. The way can be closed in a basic physical way, for example an arm in the way, or it can be closed in terms of space and timing. As long as the intent is to continue to pressure and strike then not hand chasing.



KPM said:


> And controlling, tying up, off-balancing and affecting the body of the opponent is NOT "hand chasing" by anyone's definition but yours.



I wouldn't say that.



KPM said:


> Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"???



It appears that way. It is very difficult to get a clear answer about what force flow is for however, so I could be wrong. I get the impression that the idea isn't fully developed yet.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> --_-Why is that never part of any of Phillip Bayer's many videos?_



It's his right to show or not show anything he chooses.



> -_--Well then, I would say you don't have a very efficient system._



You don't really know anything about it to have a clue how efficient it is.
_



			Your dummy form is twice as long as it needs to be for what you are getting out of it!!
		
Click to expand...

_
What are we getting out of each section? What parts are unnecessary?

_



			It sounds like you don't have a very good way to transition Chi Sau skills to fighting if you never challenge each other as an "opponent" in Chi Sau/Gor Sau.
		
Click to expand...

_
I just explained how you're thinking in the opposite direction. Our _chi-sau_ / _gwo-sau_ is primarily corrective, designed to train out errors in various fighting behaviors. 

Free sparring/ fighting experience is essential to discover errors at higher stress levels. We then go from free fighting back to _chi-sau_.

We are making no attempt to develop sticking and sensitivity skills to be taken into fighting.
_



			You have a whole lot of unneeded things in the SNT, CK, and BG forms
		
Click to expand...

_
Such as? I'm pretty sure you have no idea how our forms are interpreted and why each part is important.

As with every other part of the system, you have no clue what it's about. Your criticisms are entirely empty. All because we don't deal in applications or do competitive _chi-sau_.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 9, 2016)

PiedmontChun said:


> With the hands, a bridge is formed anytime you strike and you meet an obstacle in the way,



That's the basic problem with this definition. 

Does a bridge ever obstruct your crossing of a river? The river, the mess of arms in the way is the obstacle. The attack line to the target is the bridge, the way to go. 

How could an obstacle be a bridge? Makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I'm not trying to pick apart an esoteric concept. It's clear and simple, just flawed terminology.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 9, 2016)

Phobius said:


> We can go on all day. But without bridge concept why train using chi Sao. If you share nothing when touching you are way better of training using other methods.



We have a bridge concept but it's entirely different and we are trainings for different ends. It's a great method for its purpose which is not accomplished by other methods.


----------



## geezer (Mar 9, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Maybe the Wing Chun forum could do with some sub forums dedicated to which branch/lineage a particular member practices. Perhaps then there would not be so many de-constructive comments.



I disagree! (Obvious irony intended ). Seriously, one of the most worthwhile things about this forum is exchanging information and opinions with WC people who have different experiences and a different perspective. I mean who wants to live in an "echo chamber" where everybody agrees?

The problem isn't the difference in perspectives, it's a problem of arrogance. Certain individuals are really not here to discuss, but rather to preach the gospel of their particular lineage. And then others take the bait.

We don't need to split the forum, we just have to stop taking the bait and feeding into trollish behavior.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 9, 2016)

geezer said:


> I disagree! (Obvious irony intended ). Seriously, one of the most worthwhile things about this forum is exchanging information and opinions with WC people who have different experiences and a different perspective. I mean who wants to live in an "echo chamber" where everybody agrees?
> 
> The problem isn't the difference in perspectives, it's a problem of arrogance. Certain individuals are really not here to discuss, but rather to preach the gospel of their particular lineage. And then others take the bait.
> 
> We don't need to split the forum, we just have to stop taking the bait and feeding into trollish behavior.



Fair point and a agreeable one.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 9, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I just explained how you're thinking in the opposite direction. Our _chi-sau_ / _gwo-sau_ is primarily corrective, designed to train out errors in various fighting behaviors.
> 
> Free sparring/ fighting experience is essential to discover errors at higher stress levels. We then go from free fighting back to _chi-sau_.
> 
> We are making no attempt to develop sticking and sensitivity skills to be taken into fighting.



This is the difference in approach, concisely stated


----------



## Phobius (Mar 9, 2016)

guy b. said:


> This is the difference in approach, concisely stated



So how do you correct your errors in fighting behavior using chi sau? It was clearly stated that chi sau is not sparring which I whole heartedly agree on. Plus your VT does not believe in bridge and as such sticking to is not used in chi sau for you.

So how do you use chi sau to iron out errors?


----------



## KPM (Mar 9, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That's the basic problem with this definition.
> 
> Does a bridge ever obstruct your crossing of a river? The river, the mess of arms in the way is the obstacle. The attack line to the target is the bridge, the way to go.
> 
> ...



You are thinking too specifically.   "Bridge" does not have to mean the architectural structure you are referring too.  "Bridge" simply means a connection....as in to "bridge a gap" or a "bridging" statement in a written thesis, or the dental appliance called a "bridge."  There is nothing wrong with the terminology.....just your insistence on what you think it means.


----------



## KPM (Mar 9, 2016)

I practice actions like these are used to clear the way for striking. They are not first actions. Once the way is clear striking resumes. The way can be closed in a basic physical way, for example an arm in the way, or it can be closed in terms of space and timing. As long as the intent is to continue to pressure and strike then not hand chasing.

_---Ok.  That is clear enough.  But I would still disagree with your definition of "hand chasing._



It appears that way. It is very difficult to get a clear answer about what force flow is for however, so I could be wrong. I get the impression that the idea isn't fully developed yet.

_---I wasn't referring to any "forceflow."  I was simply referring to Alan's ability to break his opponent's structure and balance and move him about at will.  You think that is "hand chasing"??   This was my question above:   *Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"???*  It had nothing to do with "forceflow."_


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> So how do you correct your errors in fighting behavior using chi sau? It was clearly stated that chi sau is not sparring which I whole heartedly agree on. Plus your VT does not believe in bridge and as such sticking to is not used in chi sau for you.
> 
> So how do you use chi sau to iron out errors?



We take whatever the error is and isolate it in corrective drills, then slowly increase stress levels until we go back to free fighting and see if we have improved or fixed the problem.

The arm contact isn't about fighting methods. It helps force correctness like the dummy.

IMO, this use of _chi-sau_ is far more beneficial than testing fighting techniques that only work in that unrealistic environment.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> You are thinking too specifically.   "Bridge" does not have to mean the architectural structure you are referring too.  "Bridge" simply means a connection....as in to "bridge a gap" or a "bridging" statement in a written thesis, or the dental appliance called a "bridge."  There is nothing wrong with the terminology.....just your insistence on what you think it means.



It does in Chinese. _Kiu_ has only one meaning and it's neither a verb nor a metaphor for anything other than a path.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> IMO, this use of _chi-sau_ is far more beneficial than testing fighting techniques that only work in that unrealistic environment.



So you are testing techniques in an unrealistic environment, because you or guy said earlier that chi-sau is not punching. There are no opponents. This means you test body structure and techniques. Without the techniques there can be no structure after all, or you mean to tell me it is just for stance training? And if you utilize techniques without punching to clear path to punching, does this mean you never punch but just continue to clear a path?

In what way does your chi-sau become more realistic to fighting than anything else? Besides unless you did not know. All chi-sau is about learning to clear a path to your opponent. So all pretty much with a few exceptions train it with same intent and purpose. You are not a special snow flake in this case. And majority of WC have "techniques" to clear path, but to think a technique only serves a single purpose is something we let beginners do. Ever thought why such a small idea as SNT is something mastered only by experts? There is so much more than what meets the eyes.

Some however think, individuals, that chi-sau resembles fighting. Others think it teaches values such as sense, and yes this I must say before you write about it. It works, it is explainable, it is not magical, and it is easily tested and validated. But I personally do not think chi-sau is fighting/sparring and thinks such ideas are hurtful to the art.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> It does in Chinese. _Kiu_ has only one meaning and it's neither a verb nor a metaphor for anything other than a path.



Bridge is a commonly used term in WC. You are free to change that if you wish, but for sake of discussion keep with terminology that is understood or write it path (bridge/kiu) or whatnot so it is clearer.

Your main purpose should be to make yourself understood. And arguing terminology does not lead to development of arts. Nothing changes other than how people can understand you. Just like I can call you "You" or "LFJ", different names but it is all the same in sake of discussion.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> What are we getting out of each section? What parts are unnecessary?



KPM?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> I wasn't referring to any "forceflow." I was simply referring to Alan's ability to break his opponent's structure and balance and move him about at will.



It is difficult to know what Force Flow™ is. It is demonstrated by bouncing the opponent around in chi sau.



KPM said:


> *Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"???*



Again it depends what is being trained during this kind of chi sau. I have tried to ask what this is but no coherent answer has been provided. Usually Alan derides me for not understanding, which doesn't promote understanding.

You appear to suggest that this kind of chi sau training is application based, and that the intention is to develop skills used directly in fighting when arms are joined, in which case yes it would be hand chasing. But I don't know if you are correct, since you are not Alan.



> It had nothing to do with "forceflow."



Alan himself would probably disagree, given that the clips are demonstrations of Force Flow™


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> So you are testing techniques in an unrealistic environment, because you or guy said earlier that chi-sau is not punching.



Chi sau is not testing. Re-read what LFJ wrote. Chi sau is error correction. like the dummy. Sparing and fighting is testing - this is where errors become visible. 



Phobius said:


> you mean to tell me it is just for stance training?



There is a large element of movement, structure, and force generation training in poon sau and chi sau. Errors in these elements exposed during testing is part of what chi sau corrects. The arm bridges utilised in chi sau are not literal techniques to be used in fighting. They are training wheels to allow you to get your balance before trying again to ride the bike without. 



Phobius said:


> In what way does your chi-sau become more realistic to fighting than anything else?



Chi sau is a training drill, not fighting



Phobius said:


> all pretty much with a few exceptions train it with same intent and purpose.



From the discussion here it appears not.



Phobius said:


> I personally do not think chi-sau is fighting/sparring and thinks such ideas are hurtful to the art.



Good, I am glad we agree


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Bridge is a commonly used term in WC. You are free to change that if you wish, but for sake of discussion keep with terminology that is understood or write it path (bridge/kiu) or whatnot so it is clearer.



We do not have bridge as others here appear to understand it. It is difficult to discuss an idea that doesn't exist in the system. Tacitly acknowledging it by failing to raise the issue could lead to misunderstandings. Any time the idea of "bridging" is raised this will be the case.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Bridge is a commonly used term in WC. You are free to change that if you wish, but for sake of discussion keep with terminology that is understood or write it path (bridge/kiu) or whatnot so it is clearer.



Of course it's common terminology. _Cham-kiu_, right? But we have a completely different interpretation than you guys. That's the issue. Also what the interpratation leads to in terms of fighting strategy, but we do not even agree on the definition to begin with.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Of course it's common terminology. _Cham-kiu_, right? But we have a completely different interpretation than you guys. That's the issue. Also what the interpratation leads to in terms of fighting strategy, but we do not even agree on the definition to begin with.



Personally I don't see how the second form makes sense in terms of Phobius' bridge definition. Seeking what?


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Seeking connection = Arm chasing.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

It would seem that way


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Seeking connection = Arm chasing.


 
Wrong


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> It does in Chinese. _Kiu_ has only one meaning and it's neither a verb nor a metaphor for anything other than a path.



A "path" is a connection.  The "path" to success certainly doesn't refer to a physical structure.  A "path" through the forest isn't a architectural structure.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

_Kiu _= connection,
_Kiu-sau _= forearm,
_Cham-kiu _= seeking (forearm) connection

All leading to the strategy of "attached striking".

Sounds like a description of an arm chasing style to me. If it's not, then your terminology is just flawed.


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> KPM?



LFJ asked:
What are we getting out of each section? What parts are unnecessary?

_---I don't know what you are getting out of each section of the dummy form.   I have stated only that if you are seeing the dummy form exclusively as a way to correct body positioning and angles, and positioning/spacing of techniques and such....essentially using the dummy only as a big protractor....then you could accomplish that with a much shorter dummy form.  If you aren't seeing anything in the form as specific techniques and applications, then the form is much longer and more elaborate than needed.  There are only so many ways to move....only so many ways to simply "clear a path" and "cycle punches."  Therefore it seems to me that the dummy form is much more elaborate than you need....because the dummy form trains some very specific applications in every form of Wing Chun except WSLTV.    I have certainly seen Gary Lam teach "applications" from the dummy form.

---Now I know you guys won't agree with this at all.   And I believe you when you say that WSLTV is taught this way now.  But I truly think if you  were honest with yourself and really took a good look at things, you would see what I am saying._


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Also what the interpratation leads to in terms of fighting strategy, but we do not even agree on the definition to begin with.



I can agree on the second part, as for interpretation you know nothing.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> _Kiu _= connection,
> _Kiu-sau _= forearm,
> _Cham-kiu _= seeking (forearm) connection
> 
> ...



All striking is attached striking. With the exception of air striking I guess, always some crazy thing being an exception to any rule.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> _---I don't know what you are getting out of each section of the dummy form._



Then you don't know what is needed and have no basis for saying it is too elaborate.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> All striking is attached striking. With the exception of air striking I guess, always some crazy thing being an exception to any rule.



Completely meaningless and unnecessary to call all striking attached, also inaccurate.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Personally I don't see how the second form makes sense in terms of Phobius' bridge definition. Seeking what?



As I said, I can agree with your definition of it. But this is a philosophical question and does not change its actual meaning in terms of application. It is just a matter of which point of the bridge is the interesting one, the start or the end. Each bridge has two connections. Some place the term on the first connection, others on the later.

The bridge itself is the goal but that bridge is nothing more than a celestial teapot up until its points are connected.

I guess one can argue that the bridge always exist whether points are connected or not, but such an argument in my view seems meaningless since noone can use it.


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

Again it depends what is being trained during this kind of chi sau. I have tried to ask what this is but no coherent answer has been provided. Usually Alan derides me for not understanding, which doesn't promote understanding.

_-- I provided a pretty detailed and coherent explanation in the other thread.  Were not paying attention again?_


You appear to suggest that this kind of chi sau training is application based, and that the intention is to develop skills used directly in fighting when arms are joined, in which case yes it would be hand chasing. But I don't know if you are correct, since you are not Alan.

_---Only by your definition of "hand chasing" which I don't think anyone else (except maybe LFJ) agrees with._



Alan himself would probably disagree, given that the clips are demonstrations of Force Flow™

_---I said my *question* had nothing to do with "forceflow."  Again, I think you don't pay attention very well._


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Completely meaningless and unnecessary to call all striking attached, also inaccurate.



Depends on definition yet again. Is it a striking if you are not hitting something? Otherwise what are you striking? Could be you have a separate definition and that is fine, I am not a native english speaking dude. To me all strikes have hit something. Well except if missing and just hitting air.


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Of course it's common terminology. _Cham-kiu_, right? But we have a completely different interpretation than you guys. That's the issue. Also what the interpratation leads to in terms of fighting strategy, but we do not even agree on the definition to begin with.



So then what do you think the "bridge" in Chum Kiu means or refers to?  An actual architectural structure?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> All striking is attached striking. With the exception of air striking I guess, always some crazy thing being an exception to any rule.



There is no meaningful commonality between attaching as in hitting someone in the head, and attaching as in making arm "bridge" contact. No reason to classify these things as part of some set other than seeking to interpret the terminology in a way that is not contradictory. 

Seeking bridge makes no sense if you interpret it as seeking attachment (however tenuously defined) because all attachment is attachment, there is no differentiation between useful attachment (fist to face) and useless attachment (arms joined). Seeking attachment also entails sticking, because if you become un-attached, then you seek to become re-attached. All of this leads inevitably to hand chasing.

The only interpretation which makes sense of the second form and how it fits into the system in a coherent way is that it is teaching how to find and make attacking lines. And this is what it does, in terms of content.


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> _Kiu _= connection,
> _Kiu-sau _= forearm,
> _Cham-kiu _= seeking (forearm) connection
> 
> ...



Please explain the WSLVT view on all of this.  I think we have just been talking past each other quibbling over terminology rather than getting a real understanding.    What does "Kiu" mean to you, and how is it part of "Chum Kiu" and "Kiu Sau"?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> There is no meaningful commonality between attaching as in hitting someone in the head, and attaching as in making arm "bridge" contact. No reason to classify these things as part of some set other than seeking to interpret the terminology in a way that is not contradictory.
> 
> Seeking bridge makes no sense if you interpret it as seeking attachment (however tenuously defined) because all attachment is attachment, there is no differentiation between useful attachment (fist to face) and useless attachment (arms joined). Seeking attachment also entails sticking, because if you become un-attached, then you seek to become re-attached. All of this leads inevitably to hand chasing.
> 
> The only interpretation which makes sense of the second form and how it fits into the system in a coherent way is that it is teaching how to find and make attacking lines. And this is what it does, in terms of content.



This is all your definition of attachment. I have a simpler one, if you dont hit, try again. < This term is seeking attachment if there is none as well.

You are just talking definitions and then making assumptions despite it all being the same. A line is a bridge. It has two connections. Or one connection and a direction. You use path as having one connection and a direction, for me it is two connections and a drawn line between. Meaning of it all? It is all the same.

So path and bridge might be the same thing. Just another definition leading to same end result.

This was pretty much one of the first few times I actually had to bring up something I learned at university level math. Sad isn't it.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> I provided a pretty detailed and coherent explanation in the other thread. Were not paying attention again?



I'm sorry KPM, but I'm just not sure if your understanding is the same as Alan's since Force Flow™ is apparently still being developed. Have you downloaded the appropriate Force Flow™ videos from Alan's mentorship programme? Are you sure you understood it all and that Alan didn't hold anything back for Platinum members?

Only joking. But I feel I need to hear an explanation from the people creating Force Flow™, not from a student. 

In terms of your explanation already provided then as I said, yes it is hand chasing. 



KPM said:


> Only by your definition of "hand chasing" which I don't think anyone else (except maybe LFJ) agrees with



What is your definition of hand chasing?



KPM said:


> I said my *question* had nothing to do with "forceflow." Again, I think you don't pay attention very well.



Sorry KPM, it is difficult to know what point you are trying to make sometimes.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I have a simpler one, if you dont hit, try again. < This term is seeking attachment if there is none as well.



Again this does not differentiate between useful contact and non useful contact. Nor does it make the distiction between finding and making attacking lines (always need to be seeking these), and attachment (don't always need to be seeking this).


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Again this does not differentiate between useful contact and non useful contact. Nor does it make the distiction between finding and making attacking lines (always need to be seeking these), and attachment (don't always need to be seeking this).



What differentiation do you wish for? All contact is useful if being used.

There are only two types of contacts you can get (well more probably but that I care to elaborate on), the first being you hit something. Second being something got in the way of you hitting something. Both are useful, while the second is annoying if you really wanted to hit something.

A term does not need to make distinctions, you want it to perhaps but then it is a wish you need to keep for yourself. Or argue til the world turns over dead on a forum like this one.

There is no 'attachment' without the seeking of it. But the world is not 1 dimensional. You seek one way of 'attachment', it is when your partner seeks something else that more things can happen. The fact that your partner does something should not change the term of what you are doing. That would make you a slave of your partner from a terminology point of view.

EDIT: Also it is just a term, just because you have found a bridge does not mean it is the bridge you seek. Keep searching.

EDIT: To clarify even further if I am unclear. Seeking a bridge is not same thing as seeking ANY bridge. I never said the second. That would be closer to chasing hands.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> What differentiation do you wish for? All contact is useful if being used.



Seeking and making attacking opportunities is not the same as punching blindly. All contact is not equal

Attachment is a worse definition than attacking line because seeking attachment leads to sticking, while seeking attacking lines leads to continual attack.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> Please explain the WSLVT view on all of this.  I think we have just been talking past each other quibbling over terminology rather than getting a real understanding.    What does "Kiu" mean to you, and how is it part of "Chum Kiu" and "Kiu Sau"?



I have no _kiu-sau _term and no attachment. My punch doesn't attach to the target...

If a mess of arms are an obstruction keeping me from reaching the target, like a raging river keeps me from crossing, a bridge is an open path to the other side.

CK is about finding or opening attack lines, the most direct path to the target. Simple as that.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Seeking and making attacking opportunities is not the same as punching blindly. All contact is not equal
> 
> Attachment is a worse definition than attacking line because seeking attachment leads to sticking, while seeking attacking lines leads to continual attack.



Punching blindly? Are you a troll? Noone said punching blindly. I dont think there is a single martial art in the world that punches blindly (could be wrong but seriously, you are trolling now)

All contact is not equal. Agreed. We can also agree that air is useful. Not sure what the purpose of this comment was other than to state the obvious. Then again I did the same thing saying all contact is useful if used.

Attachment is not the definition we use, I said 'attachment' as a lose term for making contact in terms of a bridge being attached to the ground. Not attachment as in sticking. Thought this was clear, maybe I need to make myself even clearer. Its like arguing with someone that holds his hands on his ears and screaming right now.

Attacking lines was not your definition, path was. Bridge is equal to path in this discussion. You now want to argue that the term is worse. Then I say you need to spend more time training and less time trolling the forums. Most people should be able to discuss without having to argue that ones use of word is worse than their own. The importance is the message itself.

Attachment is not equal to bridge, never said it was. But you can not create a bridge without attaching it to both sides. You can not create a line without connecting two dots.

Now you may feel free to add more random comments.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I have no _kiu-sau _term and no attachment. My punch doesn't attach to the target...



If you are talking about what I said, I wrote it as 'attachment' as an intention of saying I did not mean actual attachment but rather to symbolize the two points of a bridge being attached to something. Not as in sticking but rather an instant point of contact in terms of WC.

Next time I need to write even longer posts explaining more about my own text. You guys are eager to jump the gun.



LFJ said:


> If a mess of arms are an obstruction keeping me from reaching the target, like a raging river keeps me from crossing, a bridge is an open path to the other side.



Now this I thank you for, this is an interesting definition of a bridge. No matter if defining it your way, or my way. The end result is the same. I only dont see it as an existing path until you actually hits the opponent.

Changes nothing in terms of things like CK because it means "Seeking bridge" and not "Finding bridge" to me.

Kiu sao is different, to me these are drills in order to grasp concepts and techniques. Not part of advanced training but rather a way to understand a specific technique in a very limited environment. And I think it means, bridge arm. Something that is trained especially with beginners.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> If you are talking about what I said, I wrote it as 'attachment' as an intention of saying I did not mean actual attachment but rather to symbolize the two points of a bridge being attached to something. Not as in sticking but rather an instant point of contact in terms of WC.
> 
> Next time I need to write even longer posts explaining more about my own text. You guys are eager to jump the gun.
> 
> ...



Phobias , I'm paraphrasing here but "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"..,


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Noone said punching blindly.



When talking about differentiation between useful contact and non-useful contact in terms of attachment, you said "What differentiation do you wish for? All contact is useful if being used."

Punching without concern for finding or opening attacking lines to the target would be a reasonable definition of punchiing blindly. Why not punch anywhere if all contact is equally useful? Why seek or make open paths to the target when punching the arms is just as good?



Phobius said:


> Attachment is not the definition we use



What is the definition you use?



Phobius said:


> in terms of a bridge being attached to the ground



This was not clear at all, over the last few pages. I don't think you mentioned attachment to the ground. Why would it be important to mention being attached to the ground..is it to warn against Superman punches?



Phobius said:


> Attacking lines was not your definition, path was.



The most direct path to the target is the attacking line. I don't know if I did refer to it as a path, I think that was LFJ. You could call it the most direct path, the attacking line.



Phobius said:


> Attachment is not equal to bridge, never said it was. But you can not create a bridge without attaching it to both sides. You can not create a line without connecting two dots.



Seems like a trivial point to make, doesn't help understanding. So what is your definition of a bridge? Before it sounded like you meant any attachment between yourself and the opponent. I will find quotes if you like.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> When talking about differentiation between useful contact and non-useful contact in terms of attachment, you said "What differentiation do you wish for? All contact is useful if being used."
> 
> Punching without concern for finding or opening attacking lines to the target would be a reasonable definition of punchiing blindly. Why not punch anywhere is all contact is equally useful? Why seek or make open paths to the target when punching the arms is just as good?



Huh? You honestly think we don't always try to find a clear path before punching? Seriously this is a martial arts forum. I took you for being serious.




guy b. said:


> What is the definition you use?



Bridge. You know the point you have been arguing now.





guy b. said:


> This was not clear at all, over the last few pages. I don't think you mentioned attachment to the ground.



Now I am sure, you are trolling. I just said attachment when discussing above post making correlation with an actual real bridge.





guy b. said:


> The most direct path to the target is the attacking line. I don't know if I did refer to it as a path, I think that was LFJ. You could call it the most direct path, the attacking line.



Sure, you can call it attacking line. LFJ might have been the one calling it path. Was it anything you wanted to say about it? But if this is all you train, it sounds as if you use chi sau to learn to see with your eyes. How else do you find a clear path if contact is not to be used and a punch is not to meet resistance?

So chi sau is eye coordination? Interesting.






guy b. said:


> Seems like a trivial point to make, doesn't help understanding. So what is your definition of a bridge? Before it sounded like you meant any attachment between yourself and the opponent. I will find quotes if you like.



I said they are not equal. Same time I say you can't have a bridge without having contact. This means I don't consider all contacts to be a bridge.

Now you do know this changes nothing, Bridge is just a term. So no matter how I define it, the term itself does not define how I train. It is just a vague description.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> If you are talking about what I said, I wrote it as 'attachment' as an intention of saying I did not mean actual attachment but rather to symbolize the two points of a bridge being attached to something. Not as in sticking but rather an instant point of contact in terms of WC.



Well, I find that entirely useless and unnecessary terminology.



> Now this I thank you for, this is an interesting definition of a bridge. No matter if defining it your way, or my way. The end result is the same. I only dont see it as an existing path until you actually hits the opponent.



A path is a line in space whether I take it or not. CK is about finding, taking advantage of, or creating these open attack lines.

A line in space not being a line until I take it and hit the target? Sounds strange and again inaccurate.

People have been saying physical connection (arm to arm, fist on face) is a bridge, now you say it is a path?

I think _kiu-sau _comes from a flawed definition of _kiu _and leads to strategies based on arm-chasing from a VT perspective.

We don't have this term in our system.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Well, I find that entirely useless and unnecessary terminology.



It was not a terminology, it was a symbolism.





LFJ said:


> A path is a line in space whether I take it or not. CK is about finding, taking advantage of, or creating these open attack lines.
> 
> A line in space not being a line until I take it and hit the target? Sounds strange and again inaccurate.



You can think that way, to me it is a matter of being a grumpy untrusting guy. I dont think a hit is a hit unless it actually hits. So I dont train possibilities, I train to figure out facts.



LFJ said:


> People have been saying physical connection (arm to arm, fist on face) is a bridge, now you say it is a path?



You guys are really funny. Like hilariously. You called it path, so in order to discuss your term with you I used the name for it.





LFJ said:


> I think _kiu-sau _comes from a flawed definition of _kiu _and leads to strategies based on arm-chasing from a VT perspective.
> 
> We don't have this term in our system.



Then you think wrong, feels funny does it not? And to clarify so you understand. Hand/arm chasing is not used in most styles of WC. In fact most are actually clearly against it.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> Phobias , I'm paraphrasing here but "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"..,



Yea I know, but the more upset they get. The more details they write about. So there is value to making them upset as well.

EDIT: Rewrote, did not mean to sound like a d***.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 10, 2016)

There's nothing of value coming from these guys apart from troll like activity designed to anger people,


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I have no _kiu-sau _term and no attachment. My punch doesn't attach to the target...
> 
> If a mess of arms are an obstruction keeping me from reaching the target, like a raging river keeps me from crossing, a bridge is an open path to the other side.
> 
> CK is about finding or opening attack lines, the most direct path to the target. Simple as that.



So you are saying in WSLVT "Kiu" or "bridge" simply refers to an opening?....open space through which you can strike?  Ok.  That could even fit with "Chum Kiu" in the sense of "seeking an opening."   I can see that.  But I will also point out that this is not the typical understanding in southern CMAs.   And it doesn't fit with the idea of "Kiu Sau."  But that's alright.  We've already noted that WSLVT is a completely different system.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> It was not a terminology, it was a symbolism.



Useless and unnecessary, I think. Sorry.



> You called it path, so in order to discuss your term with you I used the name for it.



It doesn't help to start saying path if you're still talking about physical connections.



> And to clarify so you understand. Hand/arm chasing is not used in most styles of WC. In fact most are actually clearly against it.



In theory maybe, but I see so many talk about not chasing arms and then go about establishing arm contact to work from, which they call "attached striking".

That is arm-chasing to me.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> So you are saying in WSLVT "Kiu" or "bridge" simply refers to an opening?....open space through which you can strike?  Ok.  That could even fit with "Chum Kiu" in the sense of "seeking an opening."   I can see that.  But I will also point out that this is not the typical understanding in southern CMAs.   And it doesn't fit with the idea of "Kiu Sau."  But that's alright.  We've already noted that WSLVT is a completely different system.



Correct. We don't have a _kiu-sau _term and don't care what other Southern CMAs say or do. Irrelevant.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Useless and unnecessary, I think. Sorry.



Your problem, not mine. Sorry. (EDIT: Really nothing I care or can do anything about. You just have to skip those parts of the text then.)





LFJ said:


> It doesn't help to start saying path if you're still talking about physical connections.



Reread my sentence, I was referring to a path as in not connected just the way you want it. And added I do not consider it the purpose unless it is connected (In which we already stated I consider the term Bridge better suited)

I still think path is a term that exist and may be used. It just means something else. Which is the hilarious part of all this and what makes it into such a joke. If you want to call something else, for something else. You can. Path means the same to you as it does to me. You are the ones that want a path to mean Bridge.



LFJ said:


> In theory maybe, but I see so many talk about not chasing arms and then go about establishing arm contact to work from, which they call "attached striking".
> 
> That is arm-chasing to me.



Yes it is, and it is not acceptable in most arts. Either you are A. looking at people that need more training. Or B. People that have been ill-trained. Or C. People who do not agree with their system or trains a system that does not agree with any of the WC lineages I have seen.

It should not take a genius to think of this.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Correct. We don't have a _kiu-sau _term and don't care what other Southern CMAs say or do. Irrelevant.



Great, so you are only interested in discussing things with people training WSL VT?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 10, 2016)

The WSLVT system (especially Philipp Bayer) seems to have a very different approach to WC. That's cool, and if it works for them, that's cool too. I know a guy who made the effort to go to Germany who trained privately with Philipp and was VERY impressed with what he learnt. The thing is, he told me Bayer is a super nice guy who isn't divisive at all. His attitude is "we do what we do, they do what they do". It's a pity other VT guys on this forum can't be like that.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> You are the ones that want a path to mean Bridge.



You're needlessly complicating things. Bridge is the VT term for the path to the target. That's it.



> Yes it is, and it is not acceptable in most arts. Either you are A. looking at people that need more training. Or B. People that have been ill-trained. Or C. People who do not agree with their system or trains a system that does not agree with any of the WC lineages I have seen.



It's actually many lineage heads, but I won't name names for PC purposes.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Great, so you are only interested in discussing things with people training WSL VT?



No, I just mean other styles' terminologies are irrelevant to our terminology and fighting strategy. So it means nothing to me what other Southern CMAs say _kiu _means.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> This means I don't consider all contacts to be a bridge.



What do you consider to be a bridge?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Yea I know, but the more upset they get. The more details they write about. So there is value to making them upset as well.
> 
> EDIT: Rewrote, did not mean to sound like a d***.



You might want to re-write a bit more.

I can see why you might want details, you seem a bit unsure of what you mean.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Sure, you can call it attacking line. LFJ might have been the one calling it path. Was it anything you wanted to say about it? But if this is all you train, it sounds as if you use chi sau to learn to see with your eyes. How else do you find a clear path if contact is not to be used and a punch is not to meet resistance?



CK teaches how to find and make attacking lines. Do you interpret it differently?


----------



## JPinAZ (Mar 10, 2016)

Hahaha, man this is good stuff!



LFJ said:


> _Kiu _= connection,
> _Kiu-sau _= forearm,
> _Cham-kiu _= seeking (forearm) connection
> 
> All leading to the strategy of "attached striking".



Coming from a lineage that has Kiu Sau as a major part of our system, this is a completely wrong and uneducated definition (Kiu-sau does _not_ mean forearm, ). It sounds like someone that is acting as if they know a lot about something they obviously don't.



LFJ said:


> I think _kiu-sau _comes from a flawed definition of _kiu _and leads to strategies based on arm-chasing from a VT perspective.
> 
> We don't have this term in our system.



Ok, so he really doesn't know, he just 'thinks'. Most people base their opinions on experience and facts vs. uneducated guesswork - yet he still seems to know enough to point out others flaws lol.
The only 'flaw' is on LFJ for not knowing or understanding a given subject in the first place yet still tries to define and judge it at the same time.



LFJ said:


> Correct. We don't have a _kiu-sau _term and don't care what other Southern CMAs say or do. Irrelevant.



And there it is. So if he doesn't care and it's irrelevant, then why all the fuss? Only a troll would carry on about a subject he knows nothing about, goes on to give definitions for something he doesn't train and in the end feels is all irrelevant anyway. lol


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 10, 2016)

Wow you guys are still going at it?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 10, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Wow you guys are still going at it?


Talk about flogging a dead horse!


----------



## JPinAZ (Mar 10, 2016)

Bad things never end.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

@JPinAZ 

KPM defined _kiu-sau _previously as basically the forearm, and _kiu _as connection.

I was using his own definitions, not guessing anything.

And other styles' terminologies are irrelevant when discussing my own in the sense that they don't affect the meaning of things in my system.

It was mentioned that my definition differs from other styles as if that should invalidate mine or something. 

Otherwise I don't see why that would matter or even be relevant to my terminology within my system.


----------



## geezer (Mar 10, 2016)

Well folks, when you keep on about _bridges_ and what did you think you would run into?

http://3008-presscdn-26-4.pagely.ne...dge-Three-Goats-Gruff-all-rights-reserved.jpg


----------



## geezer (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> @JPinAZ
> It was mentioned that _*my*_ definition differs from other styles as if that should invalidate mine or something.
> Otherwise I don't see why that would matter or even be relevant to my terminology within my system.



I agree with this. Different lineages use terms differently, just as they train differently, and have different objectives. As long as he is talking about _his_ system and not all WC, etc. he makes a legitimate point.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 10, 2016)

geezer said:


> Well folks, when you keep on about _bridges_ and what did you think you would run into?
> 
> http://3008-presscdn-26-4.pagely.ne...dge-Three-Goats-Gruff-all-rights-reserved.jpg


ha ha ha.. nice.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 10, 2016)

The implication is always that only the "VT" people truly understand Wing Chun. This is manifestly untrue...


----------



## JPinAZ (Mar 10, 2016)

geezer said:


> I agree with this. Different lineages use terms differently, just as they train differently, and have different objectives. As long as he is talking about _his_ system and not all WC, etc. he makes a legitimate point.



Ok, but since his lineage does used this term nor do they train it per his words, he couldn't have been talking about _his_ system at all.

Further, he did say this_ "I think kiu-sau comes from a flawed definition of kiu and leads to strategies based on arm-chasing from a VT perspective.". _Since he has no experience with the technology, nor does it exist in his system, he could only be talking about _other_ systems. And without any experience or first-hand knowledge, he has no legitimate anything. 
I see more frequently a select few argue simply for the sake of arguing and disrupting, this IMO is a clear case and just wanted to make the distinction.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

Rather than post just to cry about it and presume to know my experience, how about you explain your definition and strategy as I have done with mine? 

Otherwise you are bringing no value to the discussion and _you_ are the one being disruptive, posting for no other reason than to be negative.


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Correct. We don't have a _kiu-sau _term and don't care what other Southern CMAs say or do. Irrelevant.



It certainly is relevant if you are going to participate in a discussion with people other than WLSVT people and tell them they are wrong about their understanding!


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> The implication is always that only the "VT" people truly understand Wing Chun. This is manifestly untrue...



If deep down you know there is something wrong with your VT then maybe you will feel this way. People who train coherent joined up systems actually like talking about them and don't feel threatened by different opinions.

I don't know what you mean by "always"; you have only been on the forum a few days, haven't you?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> how about you explain your definition and strategy as I have done with mine?



It is interesting that almost nobody ever does this


----------



## JPinAZ (Mar 10, 2016)

My lineage's usage of Kiu Sau is well documented on forums (here some, but more-so on KFO), articles, as well as our MKF book. If someone is genuinely interested, they will do some homework first. Then, if there any any questions I would be _more_ than happy to discuss and share - as many who know me from the forums thru the years can testify. 
But I'm not going to be baited into negative argumentative discussions by a couple of guys that show little interest in anything other than telling people how wrong they are.


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

If deep down you know there is something wrong with your VT then maybe you will feel this way.

_---Absolutely wrong.   People simply get tired of others coming across as if they know it all._


People who train coherent joined up systems actually like talking about them and don't feel threatened by different opinions.

_---Ah!  But "true believers" are those that can't see any value in any other opinion.  A mark of a "true believer" is always feeling the need to disparage what someone else does and argue against what they see as "wrong" because it doesn't match what they do._ 


I don't know what you mean by "always"; you have only been on the forum a few days, haven't you?

_----I got the impression that Saul was pretty familiar with you from several different forums!_


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It is interesting that almost nobody ever does this



Once again you prove that you really don't pay very good attention around here!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> It certainly is relevant if you are going to participate in a discussion with people other than WLSVT people and tell them they are wrong about their understanding!



Still not. I detailed why your definition is flawed. You can disagree, but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 10, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> But I'm not going to be baited into negative argumentative discussions by a couple of guys that show little interest in anything other than telling people how wrong they are.



So far I don't think anyone has mentioned or trains your lineage.

But if you have an objection you can clear it up by participating so that no one misrepresents your style. 

Otherwise why post only negative comments at all?


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Still not. I detailed why your definition is flawed. You can disagree, but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.



Man, you really "take the cake" don't you!!    "True believer" if I ever saw one!!   Nobody is right but you!  And you wonder why you and Guy have such a hard time participating in any kind of friendly and civil discussion here??


----------



## LFJ (Mar 11, 2016)

Well, you haven't explained how exactly I'm wrong. You just said "wrong".

That's how discussion usually goes here. I make a point and you get upset and are never able to show me the errors in my argument, or defend yours very well if at all.

I think I have been friendly and civil. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm being unfriendly. Maybe you're just uncomofrtable with disagreements and not very open to criticism, so you feel offended? I have not resorted to name-calling like you just did. I've been talking substance. Would like if you did too.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 11, 2016)

Just so we are clear, we are still discussing terminology? I feel like bailing because frankly I don't care because now I am once more interested in actual difference in practise instead.

I guess I understand LFJ and guy better in their use of their terminology. Not agreeing at all that some terminology must be flawed or in error. But at least now I am at the point where I can map a little more what LFJ and guy b. consider their style, I think.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

edit


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

edit


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

edit


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Well, you haven't explained how exactly I'm wrong. You just said "wrong".
> 
> That's how discussion usually goes here. I make a point and you get upset and are never able to show me the errors in my argument, or defend yours very well if at all.



This is the problem here, in a nutshell. 
People get upset, but they won't provide counter arguments to defend their beliefs. It isn't rude to disagree and to back up disagreement with logical argument. 

If you don't have arguments to defend what you believe then you need to ask for more information or go away and think about why that is, not get angry at the person who brought it to your attention.

If you do have arguments then post them here to defend what you believe. There is no reason to be upset about it. 

If you have arguments but they are a big secret which cannot be exposed on a forum (JPinAZ or Joy for eample), then why even bother to comment? Just be happy that you have the secret answers.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I guess I understand LFJ and guy better in their use of their terminology. Not agreeing at all that some terminology must be flawed or in error. But at least now I am at the point where I can map a little more what LFJ and guy b. consider their style, I think.



I am glad that your understanding of WSLVT is increased. I was sorry to read your admission that you were trolling for information with no intention to share. To use a slightly risky term based on previous interactions here, that seems a bit dishonest.

From my persepctive, I am not any closer to understanding how you deal with the idea of a bridge in your system. Your posting seemed confused and contradictory, and now I understand why I feel like the discussion was a bit of a waste of time. 

If you would now like to state clearly how you understand bridge then that would be very helpful in terms of improving mutual understanding.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> Coming from a lineage that has Kiu Sau as a major part of our system, this is a completely wrong and uneducated definition (Kiu-sau does _not_ mean forearm, ). It sounds like someone that is acting as if they know a lot about something they obviously don't.



What does kiu-sau mean to you and how is it important in your system? It is a term I am not familiar with...bridge hand?


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Well, you haven't explained how exactly I'm wrong. You just said "wrong".
> 
> That's how discussion usually goes here. I make a point and you get upset and are never able to show me the errors in my argument, or defend yours very well if at all.
> 
> I think I have been friendly and civil. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm being unfriendly. Maybe you're just uncomofrtable with disagreements and not very open to criticism, so you feel offended? I have not resorted to name-calling like you just did. I've been talking substance. Would like if you did too.



Do you suffer from "attention deficit disorder" like Guy does?  I most certainly have noted errors in your argument and explained and defended my position.   And, if you were paying attention, I even noted how I could see where you were coming from with your understanding of "Kiu."   But, unlike you, I never made a sweeping dismissing and somewhat insulting statement like   *but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.*

And I never pronounced other people's understanding of "Kiu" as "irrelevant."  That certainly is NOT a way to have a "friendly" discussion.....dismissing other people's understanding as "irrelevant", rather than trying to see where they are coming from!


----------



## Phobius (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I am glad that your understanding of WSLVT is increased. I was sorry to read your admission that you were trolling for information with no intention to share. To use a slightly risky term based on previous interactions here, that seems a bit dishonest.
> 
> From my persepctive, I am not any closer to understanding how you deal with the idea of a bridge in your system. Your posting seemed confused and contradictory, and now I understand why I feel like the discussion was a bit of a waste of time.
> 
> If you would now like to state clearly how you understand bridge then that would be very helpful in terms of improving mutual understanding.



First of all, I was not trolling. Well I was striving to understand you. Since first when I can understand you can I explain myself, since you (or LFJ, sorry I confuse you two every now and then) are very hard to discuss with.

To me bridge is a term.

Basically it is like this, I find a seemingly open path. I punch, obstacles get in the way or don't. As soon as anything is sensed preventing me from achieving my goal to hit (not just make contact but really get a hit that unbalances/hurts/wounds/whatnot) that is where I consider having a bridge from which I can cross over and get that hit I seek.

In truth I when prevented from hitting train to clear any obstruction allowing either that punch to continue, my structure/stance to shift in order to align to another path towards my opponent, or clearing the obstruction or a mix of above. This is made possible by that contact, bridge, or whatnot to call it since I can feel what kind of obstruction is in my way and how to pass it properly.

My concepts explain how I behave and what I seek. Bridge does not mean fulfilling the concepts, my training does that. It is just that point when I get a possibility to clear an obstruction, or step across the river so to speak. In whatever way is necessary.

So bridge would also allow me to chase hands (which I am very much against and hate myself when doing by accident), but I dont consider bridge to be a term dictating how I fight, it is just a term to explain that which occurs when I make contact due to listening with my body. If the concepts are not in my spine already my reactions could be stupid such as chasing hands or walking into bad position as well as being punched in the face. Is it now clearer as to why I say Bridge has nothing to do with how I fight? So saying the term is a bad one gives me no value because I only use it to describe something I dont know how else to describe.

Is this making myself clearer? I have no intention of not sharing such information. I just want to remain anonymous, talking about how I see things is not going against that goal.

(EDIT: Clarifying, if the opponent gets hit in the face but moves so the punch slides on their skin, that contact allows me to figure out how to get a good hit. How to move my body and structure to make next hit count. As such even contact with a face is a Bridge in some cases)

(EDIT2: Bridge to some is just a simple meaning of crossing, I do not say my term is how others describe it but to me just crossing a distance for instance is more of finding a path. So my description is probably different to that of others)


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> Do you suffer from "attention deficit disorder" like Guy does?  I most certainly have noted errors in your argument and explained and defended my position.   And, if you were paying attention, I even noted how I could see where you were coming from with your understanding of "Kiu."   But, unlike you, I never made a sweeping dismissing and somewhat insulting statement like   *but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.*
> 
> And I never pronounced other people's understanding of "Kiu" as "irrelevant."  That certainly is NOT a way to have a "friendly" discussion.....dismissing other people's understanding as "irrelevant", rather than trying to see where they are coming from!



I don't understand what you find insulting about that statement. He is talking about VT, not your mainland wing chun system.

Similarly Kiu Sau understanding in other Chinese systems was dismissed as irrelevant to VT, not to your Mainland wing chun. 

You seem incapable of differentiating between the particular and the general. And of giving benefit of the doubt. I don't get offended when you say something I think strange because I assume you are speaking from your KPM Mainland perspective. In fact it motivates me to find out what you mean.

When we talk of misunderstandings, not making sense, being contradictory then yes of course that is always from our own perspective. Nobody replies with a description of how it does make sense from their own perspective though; they just get offended.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

Phobius said:


> First of all, I was not trolling. Well I was striving to understand you. Since first when I can understand you can I explain myself, since you (or LFJ, sorry I confuse you two every now and then) are very hard to discuss with.
> 
> To me bridge is a term.
> 
> ...



Ok thanks. This is helpful but I still don't fully understand what you mean or exactly how your system works from that description.

It appears that for you a bridge is contact with an obstruction, yes? If so then how would you rationalise the term bridge as defined above in terms of the second form, assuming you have one similar to the one I know? Is your second form called "remove/clear bridge" or "seek bridge"? What does it contain?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 11, 2016)

I'm not sure "what is your definition of a bridge" has to do with "what percentage of time do you spend practicing chi Sao"? This thread has been derailed and destroyed. Pity, as when we were on topic it was quite interesting.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

Start another thread if you like. We can all stick exctly to topic and the thread will be done in about 5 posts.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> I got the impression that Saul was pretty familiar with you from several different forums!



I've never heard the name before in my life


----------



## Phobius (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Ok thanks. This is helpful but I still don't fully understand what you mean or exactly how your system works from that description.
> 
> It appears that for you a bridge is contact with an obstruction, yes? If so then how would you rationalise the term bridge as defined above in terms of the second form, assuming you have one similar to the one I know? Is your second form called "remove/clear bridge" or "seek bridge"? What does it contain?



Well seeking bridge does not mean seeking ANY bridge. It means seeking bridge and I interpret it as seeking or finding more options. If there is no obstruction all you need to do is punch, a simple idea. Then again I also consider the forms to be dictionaries, divided into categories. I am sure most do but might as well mention it. (Oh and once more, if a technique is in a form, that does not mean that technique is to be used solely for that purpose/category, but just that it was a good way to introduce or train that technique)

System to me is a way to teach martial art, a martial art exist in the practitioner or master himself and is very individual. Perhaps this idea comes from my sifu, I do not know, since he is very much in approval of studying or learning other systems as well.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> I even noted how I could see where you were coming from with your understanding of "Kiu."



Does it just offend you that I can't say the same about yours? I can't help that.



> But, unlike you, I never made a sweeping dismissing and somewhat insulting statement like   *but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it. They have absolutely nothing to do with VT strategically and copying their terminology is not a good case for its correctness in VT.*



I wasn't dismissing those styles. It is correct for them and their strategy, just not for VT. How is that insulting?



> And I never pronounced other people's understanding of "Kiu" as "irrelevant."  That certainly is NOT a way to have a "friendly" discussion.....dismissing other people's understanding as "irrelevant", rather than trying to see where they are coming from!



I said that in response to you stating that other Southern CMA terminology differs from mine as if that should invalidate mine or something. I really don't know why else you'd mention that or see how it's at all relevant. What was your point?


----------



## yak sao (Mar 11, 2016)

Phobius said:


> System to me is a way to teach martial art, a martial art exist in the practitioner or master himself and is very individual. Perhaps this idea comes from my sifu, I do not know, since he is very much in approval of studying or learning other systems as well.



I share this view as well.  When we start out, our WC is going to be a carbon copy of our teacher's, for the most part.
 But as we develop and learn more of the system,  what we do should be our WC. 
 The over arching ideas , principles or concepts or whatever you want to call them will still be there , but it will have each individual's distinct flavor .
At least it should. We shouldn't look like little WC robots running around mimicking movements, trying desperately to fit WC techniques into our arsenal. WC is not a style of kung fu, it is a system. 
 And as such once it's understood, the principles of the system do not restrict you they free you up. WC doesn't teach us what moves to do, it teaches us how to move.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 11, 2016)

yak sao said:


> I share this view as well.  When we start out, our WC is going to be a carbon copy of our teacher's, for the most part.
> But as we develop and learn more of the system,  what we do should be our WC.
> The over arching ideas , principles or concepts or whatever you want to call them will still be there , but it will have each individual's distinct flavor .
> At least it should. We shouldn't look like little WC robots running around mimicking movements, trying desperately to fit WC techniques into our arsenal. WC is not a style of kung fu, it is a system.
> And as such once it's understood, the principles of the system do not restrict you they free you up. WC doesn't teach us what moves to do, it teaches us how to move.


What a brilliant post!
I consider Wc a training method to encourage efficient use our bodies. How this is manifested depends on many things. It's refreshing to hear from another practitioner who isn't trapped in the dogma that if it doesn't "look" like wing chun (in that persons opinion), it ain't wing chun. It's the side effects of the training you take to the battle, not the fixed shapes and pak Sao drills...


----------



## JPinAZ (Mar 11, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> I'm not sure "what is your definition of a bridge" has to do with "what percentage of time do you spend practicing chi Sao"? This thread has been derailed and destroyed. Pity, as when we were on topic it was quite interesting.



I agree with the thread being derailed. Unfortunately it's becoming a common theme on this forum more and more.

On the other hand, in my lineage Kiu Sau plays a major role in our over-all Chi Sau 'umbrella', being a big part or engagement and dealing with bridges out-side, or at the edge of the box. So, I can see why the definition of Kiu would have relevance on a thread regarding Chi Sau, even if it's almost futile to try to discuss these things here as of late..


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't understand what you find insulting about that statement. He is talking about VT, not your mainland wing chun system.
> 
> .



Again, LFJ said:     *but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it.   *Since WSLVT is totally different that the rest of Wing Chun, I can only assume when he says "other Southern CMAs" he is including Wing Chun.  So yes, I do find it insulting for him to say all Wing Chun other than WSLVT are "arm-chasing styles by design" because that is certainly the implication in what he said.


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I said that in response to you stating that other Southern CMA terminology differs from mine as if that should invalidate mine or something. I really don't know why else you'd mention that or see how it's at all relevant. What was your point?



My point....... was that your understanding of "Kiu" may be perfectly valid for WSLVT, but it is not the widely accepted and "typical" understanding of the term by any means.  That doesn't invalidate your understanding.  It was meant to point out that other ways of viewing it are also perfectly valid....which is something that you were not admitting, but rather considered everyone else to be "wrong."


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> On the other hand, in my lineage Kiu Sau plays a major role in our over-all Chi Sau 'umbrella', being a big part or engagement and dealing with bridges out-side, or at the edge of the box. So, I can see why the definition of Kiu would have relevance on a thread regarding Chi Sau, even if it's almost futile to try to discuss these things here as of late..



Jonathan, I would be interested in how your system defines and uses "Kiu Sau", if you are willing to share (and willing to ignore the naysayers).


----------



## LFJ (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It appears that for you a bridge is contact with an obstruction, yes? If so then how would you rationalise the term bridge as defined above in terms of the second form, assuming you have one similar to the one I know? Is your second form called "remove/clear bridge" or "seek bridge"? What does it contain?



Right, I'm confused by this as well. 

First, bridge was defined as contact with or a sensed obstruction. Then it was said seeking the bridge is finding options to remove the obstruction and get the hit or move around it to find another path. 

The bridge metaphor pretty much falls apart at that point. It really makes no sense at all, since you should be able to cross a bridge, not have to tear it down or find another detour.

I would fear a unclear terminology would reflect a messy strategy. But I would perhaps have to see the style in action to say for sure.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> Again, LFJ said:     *but other Southern CMAs are arm-chasing styles by design and their terminology reflects it.   *Since WSLVT is totally different that the rest of Wing Chun, I can only assume when he says "other Southern CMAs" he is including Wing Chun.  So yes, I do find it insulting for him to say all Wing Chun other than WSLVT are "arm-chasing styles by design" because that is certainly the implication in what he said.



Hang on, weren't you arguing that your wing chun was similar to SPM and White Crane in terms of conceptual base and strategy on a recent thread?

SPM is an arm chasing style that actively seeks arm to arm contact as part of it's trap/draw and finish approach to fighting.

I don't understand what you would be complaining about if your art was conceptually similar to these other styles- they don't work in the same way as VT and their practitioners would not care if you told them they were chasing hands or seeking hand contact because such criticism means nothing to them.They are not VT.

I don't see how you can have it both ways, claiming similarity to these systems but denying hand chasing?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I would fear a unclear terminology would reflect a messy strategy. But I would perhaps have to see the style in action to say for sure.



It doesn't inspire confidence, but like you say would need to see it.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Well seeking bridge does not mean seeking ANY bridge. It means seeking bridge and I interpret it as seeking or finding more options. If there is no obstruction all you need to do is punch, a simple idea.



But this isn't what you said above. You didn't define bridge as "options", you defined it as contact with an obstruction. So seek bridge would be "seek contact with an obstruction" in these terms?

Can you expand further to clarify please?


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You are so full of sh!t, KPM.
> 
> I said nothing of the sort, although the WC world is indeed full of arm chasers.
> 
> But it was YOU who first said "other southern CMAs" and you were clearly not referring to other lineages of WC or you would have said so. So don't put words in my mouth and offend yourself!



Now hold on....Guy said you were speaking ONLY about WSLVT when you wrote "VT."  In your comment I took you as grouping everything else as separate from your WSLVT as "other Southern CMAs".   And several of us had also been making the point that the "Kiu" terminology in our Wing Chun was also common to other southern CMAs.   So are you now saying you were including all Wing Chun when your wrote "VT"?  Because that's very confusing and inconsistent!


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't see how you can have it both ways, claiming similarity to these systems but denying hand chasing?



Again, you seem to suffer from an attention deficit disorder or reading comprehension problem or something.......I stated more than once that you and I do not agree on what "hand chasing" consists of.   You see those videos of Alan Orr that were posted where he is manipulating the balance and destroying the structure of his partner as "hand chasing."   You seem to have a very broad definition of "hand chasing."


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

First, bridge was defined as contact with or a sensed obstruction. Then it was said seeking the bridge is finding options to remove the obstruction and get the hit or move around it to find another path.

_----What's wrong with that?  If a bridge is a connection...an established contact....then once contact is made it is used to determine how to remove or get around the obstruction that produced the connection._ 


The bridge metaphor pretty much falls apart at that point. It really makes no sense at all, since you should be able to cross a bridge, not have to tear it down or find another detour.

_---No it doesn't.  You are simply trying to take it too literally.  You and Guy seem to be the only ones having that problem.   A bridge is a connection.  You don't necessary literally "cross" a connection, but you can certainly remove it or go around it!_


I would fear a unclear terminology would reflect a messy strategy. But I would perhaps have to see the style in action to say for sure.

_--There is nothing wrong with the terminology.  Only with people that refuse to try and see things from someone else's viewpoint.  But tell us LFJ....you are a translator, are you not?.....just how does "Kiu" translate into English?   Does it not translate as the architectural structure known in English as a "bridge"?   And using this as a metaphor in Wing Chun without over-using it by trying to be too literal fits just fine.  But how do you get "bridge" as an open space....a lack of anything....a potential area...a nothingness....from the translation of "Kiu"?   Note, I am NOT saying that your view of "Kiu" as an opening is invalid for what you do!  I'm just pointing that "Kiu" as connection fits the metaphor better than "Kiu" as "opening."  _


----------



## LFJ (Mar 11, 2016)

A bridge is a path to the other side where crossing would otherwise be impossible (over a raging river, say).

A bridge is not something you ever have to remove or detour around, so it makes no sense to call connection to an obstruction a bridge.

Not sure what's hard to understand here.

A physical bridge made by connection to the opponent is what I would call taking things too literally! 

I'm looking at the function, you're looking at the structure. And you think I'm the one taking it too literally?

Plus, "seeking the bridge" by your definition would mean looking to connect to an onstruction. 

How is that not arm-chasing?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> you and I do not agree on what "hand chasing" consists of.



What does hand chasing consist of?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> What's wrong with that? If a bridge is a connection...an established contact....then once contact is made it is used to determine how to remove or get around the obstruction that produced the connection.



Phobius defined it as contact with an obstruction, not as any connection. Why would you seek to make contact with an obstruction?


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

A bridge is a path to the other side where crossing would otherwise be impossible (over a raging river, say).

_---A bridge is a connection between the bank on one side of the raging river and the bank on the other side of the raging river.  It is not an "opening" unless you are assuming you are going to leap across the river!!_


A bridge is not something you ever have to remove or detour around, so it makes no sense to call connection to an obstruction a bridge.

_---What if in the process of crossing over the physical bridge over the raging river you met with a barrier across your path.  Would you not then have to either remove the barrier or go around it?  Is not the barrier in some sense part of the bridge?_


Not sure what's hard to understand here.

_---I agree!  But it seems to be you that is having the hard time understanding!   Any metaphor when looked at too closely starts to break down.  That's why it is considered a metaphor!  The value of a metaphor is simply in the understanding that it provides by providing an analogy.  The analogy does not have to be precisely exact in every sense.  It seems everyone here but you and Guy understands the metaphor of "Kiu" being a "bridge" just fine.  _



I'm looking at the function, you're looking at the structure. And you think I'm the one taking it too literally?

_---The way you are using the term "Kiu" doesn't match the translation of the word at all.   An open space is not a "bridge."  If you wish to change the word from "Kiu" to a word meaning "opening" when using the Kuen Kuit, that's fine.  But I don't think that is what the creator of the Kuen Kuit intended._ 


Plus, "seeking the bridge" by your definition would mean looking to connect to an onstruction.

_--- "Seeking a bridge" simply means looking to contact the opponent.  That may be contacting with a fist to his face!  If you meet an obstruction and form an actual "bridge" or "connection", then you deal with that.  It does NOT mean you are throwing your arms out there looking for contact rather than trying to hit the opponent.  No one on this long thread has ever suggested that!_


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> What does hand chasing consist of?



You first.  You and LFJ are the people here that seem to have your own unique terminology.  You and LFJ are the ones that are saying everyone else is wrong.  So you tell us what "hand chasing" means from a WSLVT perspective.


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Phobius defined it as contact with an obstruction, not as any connection. Why would you seek to make contact with an obstruction?



Geez!  Really?     An obstruction is something in the way...when you contact something in the way....don't you connect with it?  If I am throwing a punch and someone puts up a block to obstruct my punch....are we not now connected by the contact?  And can I not now use that connection to sense what the opponent may be about to do and flow into my next move in response?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Phobius defined it as contact with an obstruction, not as any connection. Why would you seek to make contact with an obstruction?



Why build a bridge on an open road if not to cross something blocking the path? 

You don't seek contact with an obstruction. It happens however. If it does not you punch and hit,  fight over. Basics in all martial arts. I still have doubts there is a whole form named seeking bridge that is only about punching on a clear path where there will be no obstructions. 

Or from what I understand of your style you think there exists a punch that none can only obstruct. A path in your view. Having serious doubt on that personally.  Way too optimistic and unrealistic.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Phobius defined it as contact with an obstruction, not as any connection. Why would you seek to make contact with an obstruction?



Did he specifically state 'seeking to make contact with an obstruction'?


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> _It does NOT mean you are throwing your arms out there looking for contact rather than trying to hit the opponent._



Exactly.


I'm wondering if this arm-chasing / bridge connecting weirdness was a serious issue in the WC/VT/WT versions previously studied by Guy and LFJ; and perhaps that is why they feel so strongly about it now that they study WSLVT(?).


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Did he specifically state 'seeking to make contact with an obstruction'?



Contact with an obstacle is considered a bridge by Phobius:



			
				Phobius said:
			
		

> As soon as anything is sensed preventing me from achieving my goal to hit (not just make contact but really get a hit that unbalances/hurts/wounds/whatnot) that is where I consider having a bridge



Is this what you consider to be a bridge? If so then what are you seeking in CK?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

Phobius said:


> You don't seek contact with an obstruction



You defined a bridge as contact with an obstruction. Does your wing chun not seek bridge?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> You first.



You identified me as having a different definitions of hand chasing to yours, in order to invalidate my claim of hand chasing.

You can't use this as an argument if you are unable to back it up with details. I don't mind if you fail to do so, it will just be another argument that I have won. 

So what is your definition? Obviously you know mine.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

Phobius said:


> have doubts there is a whole form named seeking bridge that is only about punching on a clear path where there will be no obstructions.



VT CK is about finding or making a clear attacking line. What is your CK about?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> What's wrong with that? If a bridge is a connection



Bridge was identified as contact with an obstruction. Bridge as a connection was denied. Do you agree that bridge is contact with an obstruction?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

KPM said:


> when you contact something in the way....don't you connect with it?



Why would you seek to contact something that is in the way? Why not seek the most direct and efficient path to target instead?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 11, 2016)

edit


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Why would you seek to contact something that is in the way?



I don't think he is saying that.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 11, 2016)

> ... it will just be another argument that I have won.


And it is attitude's like this by several here that is causing what used to be a great "Discussion Forum" to now be a disappointing "Argument Forum".


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You identified me as having a different definitions of hand chasing to yours, in order to invalidate my claim of hand chasing.
> 
> You can't use this as an argument if you are unable to back it up with details. I don't mind if you fail to do so, it will just be another argument that I have won.
> 
> So what is your definition? Obviously you know mine.



  Man!  Talk about delusional!   What argument have you won?  If you aren't willing to provide a definition, then you shouldn't be asking other people to provide a definition.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 11, 2016)

Danny T said:


> And it is attitude's like this by several here that is causing what used to be a great "Discussion Forum" to now be a disappointing "Argument Forum".



Its like an endless loop of arguing.


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Bridge was identified as contact with an obstruction. Bridge as a connection was denied. Do you agree that bridge is contact with an obstruction?



Who denied bridge as a "connection"?   And did anyone actually write "a bridge is a contact with an obstruction"?   But contacting an obstruction is just one instance in which a bridge appears.   How many times do I have to explain it to you Guy?  I've already written that if someone is attempting to land a punch and the opponent puts up a block to stop it...an obstruction....you have created a connection by that contact and therefore a "bridge."  Now you can use the "bridge" to control the opponent....to trap him....to move him....to destroy his structure....AS you hit him.  You don't purposefully try to attach to his arms....you try to hit him as the goal.  But he gives you a gift...that connection that you can exploit.  This is different from western boxing which is unattached hitting. If a boxer encounters an obstacle, he typically won't try to exploit that contact....he will try to avoid it!  And it sounds to me like you approach your WSLVT as "unattached hitting"...you don't try to exploit that contact at all...and yet you don't train like a boxer.  Seems like there may be a disconnect in that approach somewhere to me!   Western boxers are very good at finding openings to hit through.  They don't need any Wing Chun techniques.  They use timing and angling.  So are they "bridging" as well?  Does that Kuen Kuit apply to them as well?  Because it seems to me that if you think it does....they are much more efficient at it all than WSLVT is!


----------



## KPM (Mar 11, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Its like an endless loop of arguing.



It certainly becomes a repeated loop when some people ignore what has been written already, attempt to twist what has been written, or simply "play the fool" and act like they don't understand what has been written in order to draw people into saying something they can jump on!  At least that is what I am seeing!  How many times have I repeated myself on this  thread so far by trying to answer the same question repeated multiple times when it has already been answered?  But...I guess it generates interest.  People complain, but look at how many hits this thread has!


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 11, 2016)

Thread locked pending review

jks9199
Administrator


----------

