# Breaking The Bridge



## futsaowingchun (Jul 10, 2015)

This video show's how to break or control the opponents strong bridge or iron bridge. i show how technique is needed not force to overcome a strong bridge.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 10, 2015)

To comment on the second portion of the clip - The tan sau doesn't work here, not because of some iron bridge or anything else form the opponent, but simply because the contact & leverage points aren't correct for tan sau to even be applied in the first place. So, without proper understanding of what drives tan sau or how it is applied, it makes sense that one would have to resort to 'tricks' and grabbing to compensate.
This IMO is the issue that often arises with technique-focused approaches to WC vs looking at concepts/principles of the system.


----------



## geezer (Jul 10, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> This video show's how to break or control the opponents strong bridge or iron bridge. i show how technique is needed not force to overcome a strong bridge.



First: Good choice of a demo partner for this video. IMO demos always look better when the instructor is matched against a student of equal or larger size and physique.

Second: what's with the sound? When I watched it the sound was out of sync by 2-3 seconds!

Third: Strange. When I was watching this my wife came into the room wearing that same "Gizmo" shirt as your student in a XXL man's size. Hmmm. I hope she isn't keeping something from me!

Now about the clip. I have no problem with the techniques, switching from pak to lap-sau if the energy so dictates. But like JP pointed out, it's not a trick, or even a choice that you make. The energy you receive dictates the response. Yip man famously said that _your opponent will tell you how to hit him_.

Finally, you omitted what is probably the _simplest_ response when trying to pak-sau an opponent with a very strong and immovable arm. If the pak-sau can't move the arm, then let let the force push your body (shifting your centerline) to the side giving you an opening to strike through.

BTW thanks for posting these clips. It's great having concrete, visual material to discuss.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 10, 2015)

geezer said:


> _your opponent will tell you how to hit him_.


Agree!

You can force something to happen. You can also borrow your opponent's force, help him a little bit more, and take advantage on it. IMO, it's much easier to go the way that your opponent wants to go.

For example,

when your right arm touches on your opponent's right arm, if you can sense your opponent's pressure, you can use your left hand to "help" his right arm to move toward your left (that's the direction that your opponent's right arm wants to go any way), your right hand then attack.

Instead, if you try to push your right arm and grab on his right arm wrist, that will be "force against force". It won't be the most effective way to execute your technique.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 10, 2015)

geezer said:


> First: Good choice of a demo partner for this video. IMO demos always look better when the instructor is matched against a student of equal or larger size and physique.
> 
> BTW thanks for posting these clips. It's great having concrete, visual material to discuss.



Agreed. 
And while I don't necessarily agree with the approaches shown, it's good to have a visual to discuss.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 11, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> To comment on the second portion of the clip - The tan sau doesn't work here, not because of some iron bridge or anything else form the opponent, but simply because the contact & leverage points aren't correct for tan sau to even be applied in the first place. So, without proper understanding of what drives tan sau or how it is applied, it makes sense that one would have to resort to 'tricks' and grabbing to compensate.
> This IMO is the issue that often arises with technique-focused approaches to WC vs looking at concepts/principles of the system.


Applying the Lop Sao is not a trick. it just simply works. I agree the tan sao can not work at that contact point which is why you need to use the lop sao in order to move his bridge. The lop sao energy is different then the tan sao.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 12, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> Applying the Lop Sao is not a trick. it just simply works. I agree the tan sao can not work at that contact point which is why you need to use the lop sao in order to move his bridge. The lop sao energy is different then the tan sao.


Lop might work. It's just kinda sorta like a bandaid for bad postioning and not controlling the line properly.

Angle slightly with tan while slightly pivoting and you disrupt his cog then sneak lead punch in. Or again slightly angle slip elbow past his forearm and hook your elbow to lop his stiff forearm. Which is basically a lop motion or idea condensed. Then just disrupt his balance and retake the line to punch with lead. Your way is ok, it's just your giving your opponent a lot to work with. When I get lop'd like in your video. I redirect my energy back into you and disrupt you.

Without over commitment or disruption there is no reason for your opponent to go where you want him to go? Someone really good will read gaps in all the extra movements being made and exploit them. Like already mentioned , I to appreciate the videos. I'm just giving my point of view. I just think the ideas is there. IMO there are to many extra or large exaggerated movements involved when it could be one or two small movements and be done with it. Remember you move that's your turn. Now it's my turn . So make your moves count. Keep the door closed for counters.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 13, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> Applying the Lop Sao is not a trick. it just simply works. I agree the tan sao can not work at that contact point which is why you need to use the lop sao in order to move his bridge. The lop sao energy is different then the tan sao.



Once again I'm confused, as what what you are saying here and what you are doing in a demo don't seem to jive.

You say here lap sao ‘simply works’, yet you start off the video showing how the lap, tan & pak don’t initially work (which I completely agree with, more on that later). As a solution, you have to resort to what are essentially ‘tricks’ (using pak/lap) to make it work, and you even go so far as to say that you ‘do it as a fake'. But, even later in your own video @3:30 you demonstrate again that without the 'fake' that your opponent can resist the lap and that it doesn’t 'simply work'.
You also agree here that the tan doesn't work, which is why you had to use the lap. But then you've also shown several times that the lap also doesn't really work...
Like I said - confusing 

So it had me thinking, why do you have to resort to faking (AKA ‘tricks’) to make your WC work?

The reason these things don’t work isn’t because of any strong or iron bridge training of the opponent as you suggest. Lap, pak and tan are easily neutralized here because you are at the wrong contact point (wrist-on-wrist), wrong bridge height (too low) and wrong range (to far) for them to work in the first place. Your opponent has far too much reaction time.
So IMO, you are trying to use fakes (what I would call tricks) as a band-aid for a much bigger issue – you are trying to use tools in the wrong timeframe. Fix the above mentioned things and you'll have a lot better success without having to fake your opponent - even if they have iron bridge training

(** I see Jake already offered one good possible solution to what I'm referring to, so I took that part out of my reply **)


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 14, 2015)

geezer said:


> First: Good choice of a demo partner for this video. IMO demos always look better when the instructor is matched against a student of equal or larger size and physique.
> 
> Second: what's with the sound? When I watched it the sound was out of sync by 2-3 seconds!
> 
> ...



Sorry about the sound. Not sure what happened. I used Youtube to edit it and messed up the audio. Anyway, the video is not so much about technique but the energy like you said,but you still have to use a techniques. Your idea about letting the force push your body and shiffting to regain the center is good but the video is not about that. It's about manipulating his structure or breaking it down. I don't see many videos on this so I thought I'd talk about it a little. From personal experience, when I was learning I remember my sifu bridge. I could not move it no matter how hard I tried and I was bigger then him. So, now I know its not about who has the stringer bridge but how can you break it at its weak point.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 14, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Once again I'm confused, as what what you are saying here and what you are doing in a demo don't seem to jive.
> 
> You say here lap sao ‘simply works’, yet you start off the video showing how the lap, tan & pak don’t initially work (which I completely agree with, more on that later). As a solution, you have to resort to what are essentially ‘tricks’ (using pak/lap) to make it work, and you even go so far as to say that you ‘do it as a fake'. But, even later in your own video @3:30 you demonstrate again that without the 'fake' that your opponent can resist the lap and that it doesn’t 'simply work'.
> You also agree here that the tan doesn't work, which is why you had to use the lap. But then you've also shown several times that the lap also doesn't really work...
> ...



I guess we have differences of opinions. Mine comes from experience which i have been testing for over 30 years. It has nothing to do with wrong contact point or height.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 14, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I agree the tan sao can not work at that contact point which is why you need to use the lop sao in order to move his bridge.





futsaowingchun said:


> It has nothing to do with wrong contact point


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 14, 2015)

LFJ said:


>



Haha... nice catch LFJ!


----------



## Danny T (Jul 14, 2015)

1. The fundamentals should be taught, practiced, corrected, practiced and ingrained. 
2. Know your positions, structures, and how to maintain them in movement.
3. How to move from position to position with movement and against pressure. 
4. How to correct the positions and structures when they are off.
5. How to correct the positions and structures when they are off within movement and against pressure.
Wrong positioning happens within the dynamics of movement. Knowing how to correct or adjust must be trained but not until the correct fundamentals have been ingrained. Good Wing Chun takes time to ingrain. Problems arise when practitioners 'jump' ahead to learn new things before having the fundamentals correct first.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 14, 2015)

LFJ said:


>





wckf92 said:


> Haha... nice catch LFJ!



Heh. yeah I see the contradictions as well...


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 14, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I guess we have differences of opinions. Mine comes from experience which i have been testing for over 30 years. It has nothing to do with wrong contact point or height.



And mine comes from understanding of WC principle & theory, along with common physics, which I always try and point back to in my replies to help clarify my positions (and am always solidifying in my training). In my lineage, some of these things are line, box & gate theories, time/space/energy awareness as it relates to our heaven/human/earth concepts, as well as out saam mo kiu phylosophy to name a few of the major ideas.

Look, I am only going by what you share here and on your clips, which often-times I find a bit contradictory & confusing. Maybe it's just a miscommunication issue. So instead of giving me your resume, you could simply explain why in your opinion the tan didn't work, if as you put it, it has nothing to do wrong contact point or height (or lack of leverage for that matter)? I'd also ask the same of the pak & lap at various times throughout your clip and yet here you say lan simply works, but I'm getting the impression you're not really hear to talk WC, only to share your clips..

FWIW, '30 years' in a system/art doesn't automatically equal knowledgable or 'correct'. I have often found when people are quick to spouting their years of experience vs. actually backing up their theories and/or differing view points with sound concepts/principles or logic, they typically do the former because they lack the confidence and/or the ability to do the latter. And, I've seen people spend many years in an art only to discover after all that time they didn't really know what they thought and had to 'start over' once they realized this.
Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with you, but it is interesting when I back up my POV with WC principles & theory and you only reply with your resume - as if somehow your 30 years gives you more 'correctness' over others . One would think with all those years experience you would have more to say on the matter.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 14, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> And mine comes from understanding of WC principle & theory, along with common physics, which I always try and point back to in my replies to help clarify my positions (and am always solidifying in my training). In my lineage, some of these things are line, box & gate theories, time/space/energy awareness as it relates to our heaven/human/earth concepts, as well as out saam mo kiu phylosophy to name a few of the major ideas.
> 
> Look, I am only going by what you share here and on your clips, which often-times I find a bit contradictory & confusing. Maybe it's just a miscommunication issue. So instead of giving me your resume, you could simply explain why in your opinion the tan didn't work, if as you put it, it has nothing to do wrong contact point or height (or lack of leverage for that matter)? I'd also ask the same of the pak & lap at various times throughout your clip and yet here you say lan simply works, but I'm getting the impression you're not really hear to talk WC, only to share your clips..
> 
> ...



Watch the video..its very easy to understand. The guy in the video who is a beginner understands so why can't you.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 14, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> Watch the video..its very easy to understand. The guy in the video who is a beginner understands so why can't you.



Short, snappy responses like this to genuine points raised are getting to be troll-like behavior.

If you're not willing to discuss your content, it seems your only motive in posting your videos here is to increase your view rates. I'm no moderator, but I wouldn't allow it much longer.

It's MartialTalk, not MartialClickOnMyVideos and "buzz off with your beginner questions. I have 30 years of experience".


----------



## Phobius (Jul 15, 2015)

Well I am not really that old in the world of Wing Chun with little to no experience to boot. (way less than 30 years).

My question however is this, why go force against force here? If he is strong but has no forward intent, can you not just move to his side? Seems like he is already pushing you in that direction anyway.

If he however shows forward intent why not let his force pass and not be in its way?

If using muscles give an advantage as it seems you are stating here, why would you ever condone a soft way? For me the reason for softness (not skin soft but not brutal force either) has been to sense direction of force so that when your opponent redirects yours you know it. Why not use the weakness that seems to be the case when people use brutal force?

Sorry a lot of questions but for this video alone it feels like this was a technique or set of techniques rather than a concept and based on a lot of "What if...". What if he uses the strength you put up to match his to take a step to his left and attack?


----------



## LFJ (Jul 15, 2015)

The problem I see with this kind of thing is too much "_chi-sau_" type thinking. Many people think they can take their _chi-sau_ ideas straight into fighting, and so give themselves unnecessary riddles like this to solve using "sensitivity" and other things that require thinking, prolonged arm contact, and that just don't work when fists are actually flying at speed.

The riddle here is how to move an immovable object. I ask why you feel the need to do so anyway. Quit trying to wrestle with their arms and focus on hitting them, because no doubt in free fighting they aren't just going to be standing there holding their position like that. They will also be moving and trying to hit you. Focus on the face, not on the arm.

So instead of trying to solve the riddle of moving an immovable object, or penetrating an impenetrable wall, simply just recover position to _wu-sau_ and replace to check forward with the other hand to keep from being followed back, and reset to find another tactical entry on the opponent. This way there is no fighting against his force, or wrestling with his arm thinking which way to go/ what technique to use... only setting up to intercept and strike him from a better position.

This tactic is shown in the following clip. (Notice not a dead/static demo/theory). Recover to _wu-sau_ and check forward, intercept and attack. As he says at the end of the clip; "_Ganz einfach_..." (quite simple).


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 15, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Short, snappy responses like this to genuine points raised are getting to be troll-like behavior.
> 
> If you're not willing to discuss your content, it seems your only motive in posting your videos here is to increase your view rates. I'm no moderator, but I wouldn't allow it much longer.
> 
> It's MartialTalk, not MartialClickOnMyVideos and "buzz off with your beginner questions. I have 30 years of experience".




Good tactic for keeping people here...pretty soon martialtalk will be like all the other martial art forums..


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 15, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Well I am not really that old in the world of Wing Chun with little to no experience to boot. (way less than 30 years).
> 
> My question however is this, why go force against force here? If he is strong but has no forward intent, can you not just move to his side? Seems like he is already pushing you in that direction anyway.
> 
> ...



The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 15, 2015)

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:_

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful

Wes Yager
Senior MT Moderator.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 15, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> Watch the video..its very easy to understand. The guy in the video who is a beginner understands so why can't you.



It's fine if you don't know 'why' things work/don't work, but you would be doing everyone and yourself a favor if you ditched the attitude. There's no need, it's only a discussion

Not that I expect a reply at this point, but the clip wasn't difficult to understand, just difficult to agree with. And your early reply to my questions made things even more confusing so I asked you to re-clarify. After 30 years experience, you would think you would be able to discuss your wing chun easily - and without the snide comments...

FWIW, the 'beginner' might 'understand' because he doesn't know any better - he's just doing as sifu says at this point. IMO, the down-side of teaching WC from a technique-orientated POV is you either have to 'take sifu's word for it' (right or wrong) or figure things out for yourself over many years of trial and error. This is typically a _much_ longer process and often relies on a lot of faith, resulting in the student not really understanding the the hows and whys of what makes things work and not being able to explain why things work or don't work - they 'simply work'.. ..well, sometimes


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 15, 2015)

Phobius said:


> My question however is this, why go force against force here? *If he is strong but has no forward intent, can you not just move to his side*? Seems like he is already pushing you in that direction anyway.
> 
> If he however shows forward intent why not let his force pass and not be in its way?





futsaowingchun said:


> The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.



Phobius, it seems to me that you were talking _exactly_ about static postures in the bolded portion of your post quoted above.

Anyway, I think you've posed some great questions Phobius! I personally don't see the point of focusing on doing anything on a 'static type' opponent when in reality no-one is going to remain static.. (unless they are KO'd LOL). Besides, one of WC's most basic principles is about having fwd energy/intent on centerline.... why would someone want to ignore that?


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 15, 2015)

LFJ said:


> The problem I see with this kind of thing is too much "_chi-sau_" type thinking. Many people think they can take their _chi-sau_ ideas straight into fighting,


IMO it's the reverse. Taking Chi Sao "IDEAS" straight into fighting is exactly what chi sao is for. Taking Chi Sao techniques or set routines into fighting is completely wrong. Maybe this is what you meant? If not I disagree.

Now, transitioning from chi sao to free fighting is not always easy. For me it was easy because we didn't do chi sao from day one like a lot of WC schools. We learned fighting at distances first. Starting from outside in. Eventually we did dan chi sao after 6 months then Poon Sao after that. At my original WC school if day one was chi sao. I would of took another art. I had fighting experience already and I wouldn't of understood the purpose of chi sao.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 15, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.


Static still should have foward? Forward never goes away. It may hide or pretend to be invisible. But it's always there in good WC or any MA for that matter.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 16, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> IMO it's the reverse. Taking Chi Sao "IDEAS" straight into fighting is exactly what chi sao is for. Taking Chi Sao techniques or set routines into fighting is completely wrong. Maybe this is what you meant? If not I disagree.



It depends on what those ideas are. What I meant was these ideas some people have that when fists are flying at speed in free fighting, they're going to be able to stick to their opponent's arms and read some tactile information from them and determine whether to push or pull or change to whatever else.

That kind of thinking only works in _chi-sau _when your partner is agreeing to do the same thing with you, or maybe in grappling where both guys are grabbing and trying to do the same thing. But when someone is trying to knock your head off with a barrage of strikes, the whole sticking and sensitivity ideas go out the window. 

That is not what _chi-sau_ is for and it's nonsense to make up riddles to solve like this. There's a reason that kind of thing is only shown in technique demos with compliant partners like we have here, and it is never seen in fighting, or even free sparring clips... Only "masters" who have "nothing to prove" seem to be able to do it, but they aren't showing.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 16, 2015)

I agree then. IMO chi sao or sticky hands in application happens in the clinch mostly. Most chi sao demos or game type chi sao is in punching range. So why not just punch? That's what I meant about in the beginning of my WC journey, I really wouldn't of known the purpose of chi sao. Instead we learned to punch or Chinese box. Now I get chi sao and how useful it can be under proper circumstances. It's basically grappling IMO.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 16, 2015)

To elaborate a bit more on how I use chi sao. I use it disrupt take your balance and for energy training. I don't like to strike or train techniques when I do it. Then you need another WC guy to do that with. I train chi sao with anybody and everybody. Mostly non Wing Chunners. I let them do what ever they like. From contact they can punch throw trip takedown. Doesn't really matter. Cause I'm training in a realistic manner. So I'm learning to read and stay a step ahead.

I use sensitivity but not in the traditional way. I track, I pressurize and compress. In boxing when punches are flying at you, you either exchange blows or you tie up and clinch. I train my chi sao in the clinch. I train it like I fight. I can roll with WC people. When I do, there strikes don't do anything. Why cause I'm controlling there COG. I'm in good position and my timing is better. Which allows me to come in and choke or break something. Or I could just disengage and throw bombs. I'll eat a punch or two to get to the opponent. Like I say, that was there turn. Now it's mine. So if you come at me with a pak punch. It better KO me. Because when it's my turn that's what's happening to you.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 17, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.



Thanks for your response as well as making this thread for us to discuss. Please do not feel offended by my questions nor the fact that some may not agree, in this case me included.         

I said it before, I think this is great in terms that it allows us all to share thoughts and opinions. Some may contain more vinegar than others but please be part of sharing ideas as you do with your videos.

Anyways back to question, do you have a scenario in mind for static type force. Maybe intend to get past someone only interested in blocking you, but not fighting? Once again I am not sure I agree in such scenario but I have also not trained for anything like that so what would I know. To add also I am curious to know more about not only the art but how you and others interpretate the concepts or contexts where it may be used.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 17, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Thanks for your response as well as making this thread for us to discuss. Please do not feel offended by my questions nor the fact that some may not agree, in this case me included.
> 
> I said it before, I think this is great in terms that it allows us all to share thoughts and opinions. Some may contain more vinegar than others but please be part of sharing ideas as you do with your videos.
> 
> Anyways back to question, do you have a scenario in mind for static type force. Maybe intend to get past someone only interested in blocking you, but not fighting? Once again I am not sure I agree in such scenario but I have also not trained for anything like that so what would I know. To add also I am curious to know more about not only the art but how you and others interpretate the concepts or contexts where it may be used.


Even know this question is directed to OP. I'm curious in what you mean by static force and only blocking? If someone is only blocking it's real easy? Throw a barrage of punches at them. There's no way they will block more then the first 1-2. After that they'll be overtaken. Problem with this scenario is if someone doesn't want to fight back and you throw a bunch of punches at them. That's called assault. So not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate?


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 17, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Thanks for your response as well as making this thread for us to discuss. Please do not feel offended by my questions nor the fact that some may not agree, in this case me included.
> 
> I said it before, I think this is great in terms that it allows us all to share thoughts and opinions. Some may contain more vinegar than others but please be part of sharing ideas as you do with your videos.
> 
> Anyways back to question, do you have a scenario in mind for static type force. Maybe intend to get past someone only interested in blocking you, but not fighting? Once again I am not sure I agree in such scenario but I have also not trained for anything like that so what would I know. To add also I am curious to know more about not only the art but how you and others interpretate the concepts or contexts where it may be used.


What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 18, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Even know this question is directed to OP. I'm curious in what you mean by static force and only blocking? If someone is only blocking it's real easy? Throw a barrage of punches at them.



To clarify I was not the one stating about static force, it was a response to my previous question. Since static force was mentioned my follow-up question was more about what scenario this was intended to occur. Also in self defense scenario it may not be the best option always to beat down your opponent, sometimes you may just need to get away or past them depending on if they try to lock you in somewhere.

Sadly I do not believe in static force type scenario unless you yourself are the aggressor or you attempt to attack where the path is not clear. In the later you perhaps should simply find another opening rather than attempt to outspeed your opponent in two moves before he reacts.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 18, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.



Again, I think this is asking the wrong question and giving yourself more problems than you need. Why are you attacking a guy if he's just on-guard? If he attacks you, he will open doors to you, or there will be doors that can be more easily opened. You need not stubbornly break down that one sealed door.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 20, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.



My question would then be - why are you bridge and enter in on someone that has a static structure that low in the first place? why not occupy the upper gate and just strike him?
As is already mentioned, it seems you are just chasing a bunch of unnecessary scenarios vs. really understanding what it is your are asking in the first place.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 21, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> My question would then be - why are you bridge and enter in on someone that has a static structure that low in the first place? why not occupy the upper gate and just strike him?
> As is already mentioned, it seems you are just chasing a bunch of unnecessary scenarios vs. really understanding what it is your are asking in the first place.



If opponents strong guard is low and you simply enter by punching high, then whats stopping him from punching low just as efficiently? Then you are just trading blows, not controlling at all.

Whether you agree with the way Futsau puts forward in the video, it is useful to have ways of bypassing someone's guard that is unyielding, so I think its silly so many want to call BS on the scenario or consider it a made up problem. I didnt listen to the sound the whole way but I didnt think he specifically said this was preemptive or for entry only; I see this as something that could easily happen mid-fight where there is a pause and this type of static unyielding guard is presented to you. While you might wait for the initial hit or rush in a self defense situation before countering,  once its a fight, it is a fight and you do what you need to in order to win including being the aggressor if needed (I would think).
The simplest (to me, at my level) might be an aggresive Pak and punch, and allow their guard to move me around them to a better angle if needed, or step "through" to disrupt their balance or as an excellent setup to bypass their guard and tie up the neck.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 21, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
a pseudo problem:A "strong" guard is likely to be full of holes- go in or go around.


----------



## geezer (Jul 21, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Whether you agree with the way Futsau puts forward in the video, it is useful to have ways of bypassing someone's guard that is unyielding...
> 
> The *simplest* (to me, at my level) might be an aggressive Pak and punch, and _allow their guard to move me around them to a _*better angle.*



Simple is good. This is a good response that I know Jake will appreciate.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 21, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> If opponents strong guard is low and you simply enter by punching high, then whats stopping him from punching low just as efficiently? Then you are just trading blows, not controlling at all.



I agree. But then, I didn't say you can't also engage and neutralize the low bridge at the same time. Actually, I wasn't specific for a reason, as we could go all day about what-ifs.
The reason I asked is I see a problem with exploring an idea of what to do with a low 'static guard' while completely ignoring the upper gate. I'm not sure why one would chose to essentially chase hands to bridge that low while not also occupying the upper gate at the same time...



PiedmontChun said:


> Whether you agree with the way Futsau puts forward in the video, it is useful to have ways of bypassing someone's guard that is unyielding, so I think its silly so many want to call BS on the scenario or consider it a made up problem. I didnt listen to the sound the whole way but I didnt think he specifically said this was preemptive or for entry only; I see this as something that could easily happen mid-fight where there is a pause and this type of static unyielding guard is presented to you. While you might wait for the initial hit or rush in a self defense situation before countering,  once its a fight, it is a fight and you do what you need to in order to win including being the aggressor if needed (I would think).
> The simplest (to me, at my level) might be an aggresive Pak and punch, and allow their guard to move me around them to a better angle if needed, or step "through" to disrupt their balance or as an excellent setup to bypass their guard and tie up the neck.



I also agree it is useful to have ways of bypassing a 'strong guard'. I just didn't completely agree with the way the 'problem to be solved' was set up, nor some of his solutions to it. Heh, even in the clip it was demonstrated how what was being shown as a solution wouldn't work at times, which is why I was looking for clarification on the thread.

Unfortunately answers were not always forthcoming, sometimes were contradicting and ultimately resorted to short snippy answers. Maybe he's just not comfortable discussing his art if someone doesn't agree with him or asks him to explain his methods? Surprising for someone with an often claimed '30 years' experience, but what'cha gunna do!


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 21, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> I agree. But then, I didn't say you can't also engage and neutralize the low bridge at the same time. Actually, I wasn't specific for a reason, as we could go all day about what-ifs.
> The reason I asked is I see a problem with exploring an idea of what to do with a low 'static guard' while completely ignoring the upper gate. I'm not sure why one would chose to essentially chase hands to bridge that low while not also occupying the upper gate at the same time...


It came across as "the guard is low so strike high" which, even if being non-specific intentionally, is oversimplified to the point of devoid of meaning beyond face value.
The guy in the vid didnt really have a low guard, its a fairly typical WC guard. Almost everything after 2:00 is some combination of Lop and strike to the chin / face, is striking the head ignoring the upper gate as you say, even if its not the way you would do it?


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 21, 2015)

geezer said:


> Simple is good. This is a good response that I know Jake will appreciate.


Thanks Steve! Yes I appreciate all that's simple. I like to keep my minds hard drive space clear for internet porn not a bunch of techniques. Just kidding! Did I just say that out loud? I meant family and wife time.


----------



## Highlander (Jul 23, 2015)

When you tell your student not to let his hand go forward when contact is lost and then demonstrate how your hand doesnt move when his hand is suddenly pulled away....

Are you saying this simply for the video purpose?  Or is this a concept you apply at all times?


----------

