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



## kung fu fighter (Nov 1, 2014)

*I would say about 98% of wing chun training focus on how to cross a bridge, but how do you build the bridge in order to cross it?

What's the most effective way you've found to build a bridge?

when building a bridge do you prefer arm to arm contact, or to strike the opponent's center line directly as in boxing?

Trapping works well when an opponent aggressively comes at you, but how do you build a bridge against an opponent who does not want to engage you?

I agree with what this video speaks about in regards to trapping only being done against a stationary opponent, it becomes way more difficlut to apply against a moving opponent with a boxing type structure 



*


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 1, 2014)

To question 1: strike them!
To question 2: strike them!
To question 3: opponent suggests this...based on his approach, tactics, nearest body part to me, etc
To question 4: close the gap, attack & strike them!


----------



## kung fu fighter (Nov 1, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> To question 1: strike them!


If you strike them, they are also free to strike you back, since you are not controlling their center of gravity. So if it's strike for strike without forearm bridging what makes WCK any different from western Boxing?




Kwan Sau said:


> To question 4: close the gap, attack & strike them!


Ok, but how do you do it safely without getting knocked out on the way in as you step into the empty void as the opponent steps away to maintain his space, catching you coming forward with his counter strike?


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 1, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:
			
		

> Ok, but how do you do it safely without getting knocked out on the way in as you step into the empty void as the opponent steps away to maintain his space, catching you coming forward with his counter strike?​



Footwork and balance of movement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 1, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> how do you do it safely without getting knocked out on the way in as you step into the empty void as the opponent steps away to maintain his space, catching you coming forward with his counter strike?


 
In the 

- spear fight, you won't stab your spear at your opponent's chest without touching your spear on his spear (build bridge) first. 
- fist fight, you won't move in without covering your head (shield) first.

If you can touch your opponent's "both arms" (build arm bridge) and "leading leg" (build leg bridge), you can sense his intention, and you will have less chance to be punched, elbowed, kicked, or kneed.

Here is an example.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 1, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> If you strike them, they are also free to strike you back, since you are not controlling their center of gravity. So if it's strike for strike without forearm bridging what makes WCK any different from western Boxing?



Cover as you enter for the strike. Plus, western boxing does not involve leg attacks. 99% of WC'ers out there automatically assume to 'strike' MUST mean the hands only. My WC includes a robust leg system...as such, I tend to "bridge" (if thats what you want to call it) with a kick (either it lands and disrupts my opponent, or it acts as a distraction). 




kung fu fighter said:


> Ok, but how do you do it safely without getting knocked out on the way in as you step into the empty void as the opponent steps away to maintain his space, catching you coming forward with his counter strike?



Footwork, speed, strategy, tactics, etc etc. If he continues to move away from me...well...then I guess we aren't fighting.  


*good topic KFF!!!!


----------



## Argus (Nov 2, 2014)

The most important thing is not to go chasing hands in order to build a bridge.

Attack on a good line. Chase his center. If he puts something in the way, you have a bridge. If he doesn't, even better; your fist should make contact. Ideally, you don't even want a bridge - the best world is that your attack hits its intended target. It's only when there is a barrier that a bridge occurs, and we're looking to get past it so we can, once again, hit the man behind the arms.

If you're concerned with his hands, you'll inevitably find them in your face. Even meeting an attack defensively is about intercepting/occupying lines of attack, and not chasing after hands.

I find a bit of lat-sao practice is a good way to learn this, and gets you out of the habit of chasing hands.


----------



## Argus (Nov 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the
> 
> - spear fight, you won't stab your spear at your opponent's chest without touching your spear on his spear (build bridge) first.
> - fist fight, you won't move in without covering your head (shield) first.
> ...




Absolutely not.

The concept of "not chasing hands" applies to fencing as well; chase the weapon, and you are no threat to your opponent, giving him the chance to change through:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2014)

Argus said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> The concept of "not chasing hands" applies to fencing as well; chase the weapon, and you are no threat to your opponent, giving him the chance to change through ...



In MA, a "safe entry" is trying to reduce your own risk to the minimum (unless you intend to die with your opponent at the same time). A safe entry in sword fight can be done by integrating both defense and offense into one move. This is similar to the CMA "&#21704;&#25331; (Ha Quan) - spiral punch". It's the WC principle "*&#36830;&#28040;&#24102;&#25171; (Lian Xiao Dai Da) - deflect and strike at the same time". *

- touch your sword on your opponent's sword (build bridge).
- apply pressure and guide her sword to your "right" (away from your entering path).
- you then enter through her "right" (the safe side).
- remain swords contact, slide your sword along her sword (sticky principle), and
- cut your sword into her body.


----------



## Argus (Nov 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In MA, a "safe entry" is trying to reduce your risk to the minimum. A safe entry in sword fight can be done as the following. You have just integrated both defense and offense as one move.
> 
> - touch your sword on your opponent's sword (build bridge).
> - apply pressure and guide his sword to your "right" (away from your entering path).
> ...



In that clip, the lady can simply drop her point to deny a bind and cut or thrust him elsewhere. My point is that you do not need to be there to meet your opponent's weapon if your opponent's weapon is not an immediate threat to your body. In that same tempo, you can simply move your own weapon out of the way and strike him in a different manner. The only safe entry is one that threatens your opponent directly.

This is not an example of lin sil dai da, as it is not in a single time. Notice that his initial movement is not towards his opponent; it is outwards, chasing the weapon, and only then glides in after making contact. A better way would be to simply cover the line with an attack in one motion, covering you and threatening your opponent in the same beat. Your opponent must then intercept your attack, as he cannot change through to attack you elsewhere without being hit himself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2014)

Argus said:


> In that clip, the lady can simply drop her point to deny a bind ...



Since your opponent is a moving object, your bridge building will not be successful all the time. If your bridge building fail, you don't have to move in. You can always wait for next chance. This is more "conservative" approach but it can reduce your risk to the minimum.



Argus said:


> This is not an example of lin sil dai da, as it is not in a single time.



When you use

- 2 arms, you use one arm to apply "Xiao" while use another arm to apply "Da".
- 1 arm, you use one arm to apply "Xiao", you then use the same arm to apply "Da".


----------



## Argus (Nov 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since your opponent is a moving object, if your bridge building fail, you don't have to move in. You can always wait for next chance. This is more "conservative" approach but it can reduce your risk to the minimum.



That conservative approach; that eagerness to bind itself, is the problem. It makes simultaneous attack and defense impossible, because you have prioritized one before the other. To chase an opponent's hands is to be led and misled by him; you must instead occupy lines by which he can attack you, and you can attack him. To paraphrase Lichtenauer: "He who displaces only will merely put himself in further danger" and "If you attack direct and to the man, you will not succumb to Durchwechseln, or any other such technique."

Relying on your ability to jump out of distance should you fail to bind is also a bad idea: it's a luxury of space and time to react that you won't always have, and is bad practice if you want to learn to bind properly to begin with.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2014)

Argus said:


> That conservative approach; that eagerness to bind itself, is the problem.



Whether you (general YOU) like to use this strategy or not depends on your favor "finish strategy". It's one of many strategies used in CMA. It's not the only strategy.

Is it a good idea to "chase hands"? 

If you can use

- one hand to control your opponent's leading arm, 
- his leading arm to jam his back arm,  
- your other free hand to knock your opponent out,

that will be a good strategy.


----------



## Argus (Nov 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Whether you (general YOU) like to use this strategy or not depends on your favor "finish strategy". It's one of many strategies used in CMA. It's not the only strategy.



Yes, that's true. It's definitely a different world when it comes to grappling, or FMA, or some other CMA's. But as far as general principles that apply to WC and fencing with long weapons, I feel it's a point that should not be compromised.



> - 1 arm, you use one arm to apply "Xiao", you then use the same arm to apply "Da".


When you use one arm, for example, you can either cut a punch low from the outside, or come up high through the center on the inside to spread your opponent off and hit him in one motion. It is a bit more risky than using two hands -- especially on the inside, but it works, and it's how you can apply siu and da simultaneously with one hand. Otherwise, it's not simultaneous; you're still deflecting first and attacking later.



kung fu fighter said:


> If you strike them, they are also free to strike you back, since you are not controlling their center of gravity. So if it's strike for strike without forearm bridging what makes WCK any different from western Boxing?



Because a western boxer will not adhere to lat-sao-jik-chung. He will retract his punch, giving you an opportunity to follow in; not chasing his hand, but striking him in the opening he has presented by removing his hand. If he does put something in the way, that is where chisau comes in. But if you insist on sticking to and chasing his hands, you won't enter when you're supposed to, and you'll allow yourself to be taken out of position.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2014)

Do you guys knee?

Cos you should it makes hand trapping a peach.

Take it away bakaw.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxpWs_DY7K8

Now notice those clinches tend to be side engagement's rather than clinchy clinches. So you can hand trap into a knee. And is sucks because you fall into it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2014)

Argus said:


> It's definitely a different world when it comes to grappling, or FMA, or some other CMA's. But as far as general principles that apply to WC and fencing with long weapons, I feel it's a point that should not be compromised..



When I modified my post, your respond had already arrived. I try not to bring the word "grappling" into this WC discussion.

Is it a good idea to "chase hands"? 

 If you can use

 - one hand to control your opponent's leading arm, 
 - his leading arm to jam his back arm, 
 - your other free hand to knock your opponent out,

 that will be a good WC strategy.



drop bear said:


> Do you guys knee?



That's a good point and we have almost forgot about it. I agree that without "clinch (bridge)", the knee strike won't be effective. Even in CMA, it's also very common to use one hand to pull your opponent's leading arm and kick his belly at the same time. If I remember correctly, the WC dummy training also has arm pulling and leg kick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2014)

Argus said:


> ... and fencing with *long weapons*, ...


The "bridge building" is also used in the long weapon such as the spear. Here is the most common spear technique:

- a 1/2 counter-clockwise circle (build bridge), followed by 
- a 1/2 clockwise circle (build bridge again if the previous try fail), followed by 
- a stab.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Nov 2, 2014)

I liked the format KPM used in his "HOw to box with wing chun" videos. I wonder what his take is on [h=2]"If there's a bridge, cross it. If there's no bridge, build one"[/h][h=2][/h]


----------



## Argus (Nov 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "bridge building" is also used in the long weapon such as the spear. Here is the most common spear technique:
> 
> - a 1/2 counter-clockwise circle (build bridge), followed by
> - a 1/2 clockwise circle (build bridge again if the previous try fail), followed by
> - a stab.



This is an example of entering direct, and simultaneous attack and defense in fencing:





Notice that they cover the line and attack in the same motion. This can also be found in Wing Chun's pole form, I believe - as well as countless other weapon based arts. Lichtenauer's method of the longsword, however, is a particularly good comparison, because the principles behind it match Wing Chun almost to the letter.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Nov 2, 2014)

Argus said:


> Attack on a good line. Chase his center. If he puts something in the way, you have a bridge. If he doesn't, even better; your fist should make contact. Ideally, you don't even want a bridge - the best world is that your attack hits its intended target. It's only when there is a barrier that a bridge occurs, and we're looking to get past it so we can, once again, hit the man behind the arms.
> 
> If you're concerned with his hands, you'll inevitably find them in your face. Even meeting an attack defensively is about intercepting/occupying lines of attack, and not chasing after hands.




I agree! However I personally believe wing chun to be a bladed system. I recall Yip chun once said "if you put two blades in your hands, you will see the flaws of your empty hand techniques". So You have to be careful not to have a double kill as they say in FMA.



Argus said:


> A western boxer will not adhere to lat-sao-jik-chung. He will retract his punch, giving you an opportunity to follow in; not chasing his hand, but striking him in the opening he has presented by removing his hand. If he does put something in the way, that is where chi sau comes in. But if you insist on sticking to and chasing his hands, you won't enter when you're supposed to, and you'll allow yourself to be taken out of position.



Some very good points! And I think this works really well against an opponent who aggressively comes at you, but I was referring specificly to an opponent who does not want to engage you,  and you have to bring the fight to them by building a bridge to initiate an attack? one Strategy I find work well is man sao or some kind of distraction/fake entry such as kicking his shins to draw his attention low to open the high line for attacks.

Are you from WSL's line?


----------



## Argus (Nov 2, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> I agree! However I personally believe wing chun to be a bladed system. I recall Yip chun once said "if you put two blades in your hands, you will see the flaws of your empty hand techniques". So You have to be careful not to have a double kill as they say in FMA.



Yeah. The "double kill" is something that some Historical Fencers are concerned with as well, as fencing theory emphasizes simultaneous attack and defense. This leads some fencers to adopt a very cautious approach, while others are overly aggressive in tournaments. Personally, I feel that any "double kill" is just the result of poor execution on the part of both practitioners, and against skilled opponents, is something to be expected. But it's also a bit of a tournament phenomenon, as people are more likely to gamble for points, but are much more conservative when their life is at stake, and therefore less likely to gamble for a badly timed counter, but rather more apt to displace first.




kung fu fighter said:


> Some very good points! And I think this works really well against *an opponent who aggressively comes at you, but I was referring specificly to an opponent who does not want to engage you,  and you have to bring the fight to them?*
> 
> Are you from WSL's line?



I'm from Ip Ching's line, but I admit that I am strongly influenced by WSL's philosophy, and my exposure to fencing. I do practice some with other martial artists outside of WC, and I find that I still have the best success when I focus on chasing center with an attack; conversely, I almost always meet with bad results when I chase hands. Even entering with a simple pak-da, for example, gets me in trouble if I focus on paking the lead hand first; the opponent will usually just remove that hand and hit you with the rear before your own punch has time to connect. However, I have pretty good results when focusing on bridging with a good punch that is aimed at connecting with my opponent.

The distance game is a hard one, though, and I'm not good at it myself. But, at the end of the day, the opponent has to come in if he wants to connect with you, so I usually wait for him to feed me a more committed attack, and don't respond to feints or out-of-distance jabs. One thing that can help is to keep your arms a little closer in when you're out of contact; if your hands are too far forward, it encourages your opponent to pick at you from a distance as opposed to closing in.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> I was referring specificly to an opponent who does not want to engage you, ...



IMO, the major difference between CMA and boxing is in CMA, you should always "&#25163;&#19981;&#31354;&#22238; (Shou Bu Kong Hei) - pull your punching back without empty handed". If you can put a "fishing hook" on your opponent's body, when he moves back, his body will pull your body with him. 








If your punch has been blocked by your opponent's arm, it gives you a good opportunity to slide your arm along his arm and pull his blocking arm back.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 2, 2014)

I would dispute the premise of the video in the O.P , that in my opinion is a load of crap.
I like how these videos that try and point out flaws in Wing Chun principles never seem to have a proper grasp of the principles that they are saying won't work.

Hands up , if in your Wing Chun the goal is to make pretty and complex trapping sequences .
Hands up , if your goal is to punch the bastard square in the face as soon as there is a gap.

Don't know about anyone else but mine is the latter.

If you have a proper understanding of "Forward Force" you will not engage in messing around with peoples arms , because if you have been taught chi sau properly both your arms will be instinctively searching for gaps to hit through.

Who cares if the guy moves back or moves , around and throws punches from different trajectories as you move in , that is why you practice ''four corner deflection and bridging the gap with kicks , or you should be.

Until you are in proper range , and hitting and controlling his hands it is always going to be dangerous.
As you are moving in , you have to be focused on your attack , and let your training take care of anything you might have to intercept  on the way in.

One of the strengths of Wing Chun is that the techniques are not committed , any of it's attacking techniques can be interrupted and instantly convert into a defensive technique.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I would dispute the premise of the video in the O.P , that in my opinion is a load of crap.
> I like how these videos that try and point out flaws in Wing Chun principles never seem to have a proper grasp of the principles that they are saying won't work.
> 
> Hands up , if in your Wing Chun the goal is to make pretty and complex trapping sequences .
> ...



They were at his waist when he was getting nailed. Which is generally a fighting faux pas. But I assume that is the difference between chasing hands and staying tight.


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> I liked the format KPM used in his "HOw to box with wing chun" videos. I wonder what his take is on *"If there's a bridge, cross it. If there's no bridge, build one"*



I like to think of the "bridge" as any contact with the opponent.  So if there is no "bridge", I am going to build one by striking the opponent!  The second my fist contacts his face, I have built a "bridge"!  If he manages to stop my punch with a block of some kind, then we are again in contact and therefore have a "bridge", so now I must "cross it" to continue my attack.  If the opponent is attacking me, I am going to "build a bridge" by defending and therefore establishing contact, and then "crossing" with my own counter-attack...preferably at the same time.   If I plan to attack the opponent and he has his guard up as a barrier, then I am likely going to have to contact his arms in some way (building a bridge again) before I can get my attack through.  

Now traditionally, "bridge" often referred to the forearm.  So this saying may have originally referred to establishing contact with the opponent forearm to forearm as in a Chi Sau-like situation.   So in my opinion, this saying is not a perfect rule and can be taken too far in interpretation.

My interpretation of "bridge" as any kind of contact has problems because I'm sure many of you are thinking..."well duh! How are you going to do anything without contacting the opponent???"

But the interpretation of "bridge" as forearm contact has problems because you can obviously hit someone without contacting their forearm first, which would be the ideal!  Or you could kick them, which doesn't use the forearm at all!   So in this case, the saying may assume that you are facing an opponent with his guard up and ready and therefore you are going to have to "bridge" past his guard in some way.  It seems to almost assume you are going to be in a Chi Sau-like situation with an opponent.  Where I prefer to think in terms more like a boxing-like situation throwing multiple punches and not worrying so much about bridging with the forearms unless the opponent has stopped me and I must remove an obstacle in order to keep on punching!

Hope that makes some kind of sense!

I know LFJ has a different interpretation of what a "bridge" means.  I'm surprised he hasn't posted yet, and would like to hear his explanation again.


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the major difference between CMA and boxing is in CMA, you should always "&#25163;&#19981;&#31354;&#22238; (Shou Bu Kong Hei) - pull your punching back without empty handed". If you can put a "fishing hook" on your opponent's body, when he moves back, his body will pull your body with him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



John, this may work with an opponent using fairly committed defenses and bigger motions.  But against someone using fast motions with only very brief contact (like a fast Pak Sau), or someone good at a not only blocking but at controlling the elbow and gaining your center at the same time....it just isn't going to work very well.  Against a boxer who covers up or evades your punch and then comes back very quickly with his own punch, there is going to be nothing to grab.  This approach also keeps you from just throwing your own combination of punches to take the opponent out.   So while it may be useful in some situations, I don't see it as useful as a general rule.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> John, this may work with an opponent using fairly committed defenses and bigger motions. ...



Since every time that your throw your punch out, you have to pull your punch back any way, it doesn't cost you anything extra if you try to pull something back. The WC Fu Shou can be used as that "fishing hook".

I always assume that to control your opponent's leading arm while punching/kicking him at the same time is a very "common" WC strategy.












If your force is A, your opponent's body momentum is B, 

when your opponent is  

 - moving forward by your pulling, your punching force will give you A + B > A.
- not moving, your punching force will give you A = A.
 - moving back, your punching force will give you A - B < A.

The "head on collision" is definitely the best for the striking model. In order to create a "head on collision", you either have to

- wait for your opponent to come in toward you, or
- pull him toward you.


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2014)

John, I didn't say we would never do it.  What I objected to was the "every time" and "should always" comments.  I think it works, but only in certain circumstances, not all the time and after every punch.   And you don't have to pull him towards you to create a collision.  More often than not he is coming towards you already!


----------



## LFJ (Nov 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> I know LFJ has a different interpretation of what a "bridge" means.  I'm surprised he hasn't posted yet, and would like to hear his explanation again.



Oh, would you? 

I read the topic. It's not about what bridge means but how people prefer to do it. I don't even understand bridge as a verb, so I didn't bother as my comments would be off topic.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> John, this may work with an opponent using fairly committed defenses and bigger motions.  But against someone using fast motions with only very brief contact (like a fast Pak Sau), or someone good at a not only blocking but at controlling the elbow and gaining your center at the same time....it just isn't going to work very well.  Against a boxer who covers up or evades your punch and then comes back very quickly with his own punch, there is going to be nothing to grab.  This approach also keeps you from just throwing your own combination of punches to take the opponent out.   So while it may be useful in some situations, I don't see it as useful as a general rule.




Dutch hand trap,you use the tight guard.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WAVxYY0hf-4


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 3, 2014)

True. Lots of confusion when action verbs are interpreted as nouns!!


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2014)

From the Oxford On-line Dictionary:

*noun*
1A structure carrying a road, path, railway, etc. across a river, road, or other obstacle: _a bridge across the River Thamesa railway bridge_

Something intended to reconcile or connect two seemingly incompatible things: _a committee which was formed to create a _*bridge between*_ rival party groups_
*verb*
_[with object]_ Back to top  
1Be or make a bridge over (something): _a covered walkway bridged the gardensearlier attempts to bridge St George&#8217;s Channel had failed


Doesn't seem all that difficult to me!  _


----------



## LFJ (Nov 3, 2014)

We realize "bridge" in this context is a translation from the Chinese word _kiu_, right? It doesn't matter that the English word has another meaning when it functions as a verb. That would be a different word in Chinese. In Chinese it is only a noun and can never be an "action verb". Trying to interpret it through the ambiguity of English terminology, a different idea entirely results.


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2014)

LFJ said:


> We realize "bridge" in this context is a translation from the Chinese word _kiu_, right? It doesn't matter that the English word has another meaning when it functions as a verb. That would be a different word in Chinese. In Chinese it is only a noun and can never be an "action verb". Trying to interpret it through the ambiguity of English terminology, a different idea entirely results.



Good points LFJ.  I didn't know that the word "Kiu" didn't function as a verb in the original language.  So what is the closest English translation of the word "Kiu"?


----------



## LFJ (Nov 3, 2014)

Bridge! (noun)


----------



## Argus (Nov 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> Good points LFJ.  I didn't know that the word "Kiu" didn't function as a verb in the original language.  So what is the closest English translation of the word "Kiu"?



&#27211; simply refers to a physical bridge, as in the kind that spans a body of water and people drive or walk on it. There's not much more to the word than that, as far as I'm aware.


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2014)

Argus said:


> &#27211; simply refers to a physical bridge, as in the kind that spans a body of water and people drive or walk on it. There's not much more to the word than that, as far as I'm aware.



Ok. Thanks guys!  Then I don't see any conflict here.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Nov 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> I like to think of the "bridge" as any contact with the opponent.  So if there is no "bridge", I am going to build one by striking the opponent!  The second my fist contacts his face, I have built a "bridge"!  If he manages to stop my punch with a block of some kind, then we are again in contact and therefore have a "bridge", so now I must "cross it" to continue my attack.  If the opponent is attacking me, I am going to "build a bridge" by defending and therefore establishing contact, and then "crossing" with my own counter-attack...preferably at the same time.   If I plan to attack the opponent and he has his guard up as a barrier, then I am likely going to have to contact his arms in some way (building a bridge again) before I can get my attack through.
> 
> But the interpretation of "bridge" as forearm contact has problems because you can obviously hit someone without contacting their forearm first, which would be the ideal!  Or you could kick them, which doesn't use the forearm at all!   So in this case, the saying may assume that you are facing an opponent with his guard up and ready and therefore you are going to have to "bridge" past his guard in some way.  It seems to almost assume you are going to be in a Chi Sau-like situation with an opponent.  Where I prefer to think in terms more like a boxing-like situation throwing multiple punches and not worrying so much about bridging with the forearms unless the opponent has stopped me and I must remove an obstacle in order to keep on punching!



Keith, What does all this looks like in application? do you apply this exactly like in your "how to box with wing chun" videos? or does your pure application of wck look different to what's presented in those videos regards to building a bridge or closing the gap?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 3, 2014)

Why do you want to build a "bridge" for?

How many times that you can knock your opponent down by your 1st punch? 99% of the time, your opponent will block your 1st punch. If you know that your 1st punch will be blocked most of the time, you don't want to commit 100% on your 1st punch. You may just want to commit 30% of your force into it. Since you know that your opponent will block it, you try to take advantage on his blocking.

- You knock on the door,
- when your opponent open that door,
- you then enter.

That "door knocking" in

- boxing, it's called jab/jabs.
- CMA, it's called "build bridge".


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> *I would say about 98% of wing chun training focus on how to cross a bridge, but how do you build the bridge in order to cross it?
> 
> What's the most effective way you've found to build a bridge?
> 
> ...


I'm late on this discussion, but defanging is my go to method.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you want to build a "bridge" for?
> 
> How many times that you can knock your opponent down by your 1st punch? 99% of the time, your opponent will block your 1st punch. If you know that your 1st punch will be blocked most of the time, you don't want to commit 100% on your 1st punch. You may just want to commit 30% of your force into it. Since you know that your opponent will block it, you try to take advantage on his blocking.
> 
> ...


In boxing, you can build the bridge with fancy footwork, or any art.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 3, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> * What's the most effective way you've found to build a bridge?*



IMO, the 

- linear punch such as jab, or cross will have less chance for your arm to meet with your opponent's arm.
- circular punch such as haymaker, or back fist will have better chance for your arm to meet with your opponent's arm.

The reason is simple. The linear punch is harder to block than the circular punch. If your opponent dodges your jab, or cross, you won't have chance to build a bridge. Since anybody can block a haymaker or back fist, it will give your opponent more motivation trying to block it. 

If you can "slow down" your bait and let your fish has chance to catch it, that will be even better.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> Ok. Thanks guys!  Then I don't see any conflict here.



Weeell, I'll give it to you again, since this is a different forum... 

There's still the issue of taking it too literally and attempting to build a physical bridge of arm or leg contact between oneself and the opponent. Some people think "if there's no bridge, I have to build one" and attempt to make and maintain contact because from there they can in theory manipulate the opponent's limbs and strike them while controlling them.

As you know, I find this interpretation problematic, because a bridge is to facilitate crossing from point A to point B. If you stick to something you're stuck too. If it's with your legs, now you've limited your own mobility. If it's with your arms, it's an obstacle that you must first remove before you can hit. Doesn't sound much like the function of a bridge. Now if you say for example the lead arm controls so you can hit with the rear, that would be closer to the function of a bridge I suppose, but that is still not as efficient as it could be and fighting with two arms against one is not the skill to be developed.

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?

So neither of these interpretations are quite satisfactory to me. In my lineage, a bridge is simply the most direct and efficient route to the target. The CK form (seeking the bridge) teaches one how to find and take or create this path (cross or build the bridge metaphorically), and not how to search for arm contact in the middle of a high speed brawl. This is usually by means of a single arm with simultaneous dual functions of attack and protection (_lin siu daai da_ / _da sau jik siu sau_), or with a helping action to clear the line for the strike if necessary (crossing or building the bridge, as the maxim states). Two such arms work in rotation to create a sustained assault until the threat is eliminated. No searching for arms, no sticking, etc., just taking the most direct and efficient path.

A lot of confusion, and dangerously impractical fighting tactics IMO, stems from taking the word "bridge" too literally or making it a verb and attempting to connect or bridge two things, like arms and legs in a fight.


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2014)

I see what you're saying LFJ.  But I think we just have to conclude that this saying is just problematic in general!     You seem to be saying that you interpret it as finding an opening to strike the opponent in the most direct fashion.  I don't see that as much different that what I said.  I essentially said...just hit the guy!  If he puts up resistance or an obstacle, go around or through the obstacle so you  can keep hitting him! 

  As we discussed back in KFO, you are interpreting "bridge" as empty space...as an opening.  That is problematic because a bridge is a "thing"....something physical.  I am interpreting "bridge" as some kind of contact.  As I already pointed out and you noted as well, this is problematic because of course we are going to hit the opponent!  We don't need to be told to do this! But likewise when seeing the "bridge" as an opening, we shouldn't need to be told to look for an opening!   Intepreting "bridge" as specifically being contact with the forearms in a Chi Sau-like situation (which I suspect may be the original intent) is problematic because its better to just hit without contact whenever possible, and we may be using kicks!

  So again, I think we are left to conclude that this particular Kuen Kuit is rather ambiguous and open for interpretation.  

  If I was going to restate it, I would say...."Strike the opponent immediately if you can!  If he puts up an obstacle in your way, go around or go through it and continue to strike!"   Now, if someone put that into poetic Chinese, we'd have something.  ;-)  But again, do we really need to be told to do this??   I'm becoming less and less impressed with the usefulness of this particular Kuen Kuit as time goes on.


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> Keith, What does all this looks like in application? do you apply this exactly like in your "how to box with wing chun" videos? or does your pure application of wck look different to what's presented in those videos regards to building a bridge or closing the gap?


 
 Pretty much I would follow what I put in my video series.  I'm going to try to hit the guy...in combos...multiple times....to different targets.  If he puts up a block or obstacle of some sort, I'm going to "bridge" past it so I can continue to strike.  This may look "Chi Sauey" but only for 1, at most 3 beats.  If the obstacle drops, I'm not going to continue to try and "stick" in any way, I'm just going to break his structure and work him with multiple punches until he is out!   If he is the aggressor and coming at me, I will try to change the angle and evade in order to strike him first if possible without having to "block" or "parry".  If I have to do a defensive action...therefore give him an obstacle to "bridge" past, I am going to try to be attacking him at the same time, or setting it up so that I "bridge" through the contact we have together before he does!  So....if the opponent is unable to offer much resistance...I'm going to bang the crap out of him like a boxer!   A Wing Chun boxer that is!  If he puts up a defense I'm going to neutralize it, and then bang the crap out of him!   I'm not going to be doing any of the rather elaborate and fancy things you see in so many videos of people doing Chi Sau.  In my experience that just doesn't work against a non-Wing Chun guy intent on taking your head off!  ;-)


----------



## LFJ (Nov 4, 2014)

KPM said:


> You seem to be saying that you interpret it as finding an opening to strike the opponent in the most direct fashion.


 
I'd perhaps rather say opportunity than opening, as finding an opening sounds like picking shots western boxing style, which is not what I'm talking about.



> As we discussed back in KFO, you are interpreting "bridge" as empty space...as an opening.  That is problematic because a bridge is a "thing"....something physical.



That's why it's metaphorical. It's the most direct and efficient "route" to the target, like a bridge from point A to point B. It's not about the physical structure, but the function of facilitating direct and efficient crossing potentially rough waters to the target. In other words, you're focussing on the pointing finger if you take it literally. Just like your "path in life" doesn't refer to which physical route you take to work every day... Metaphors, you know... 



> when seeing the "bridge" as an opening, we shouldn't need to be told to look for an opening!



Of course. The CK form isn't teaching us how to simply pick shots, but how to angle, chase, cut the way, open the line for striking, etc.. It's about fighting strategy and tactics; how to take the most direct and efficient path, simultaneously and thoughtlessly clearing the line for the next strike. It's a simple approach to fighting, but the system is more involved than just picking open shots.



> So again, I think we are left to conclude that this particular Kuen Kuit is rather ambiguous and open for interpretation.




This maxim as I understand it makes perfect sense within the system I train.  It won't be ambiguous if it is connected to a sound fighting strategy. It is, however, only words that help teach the system's ideas. Of course we can teach or be taught the same without using these sayings. Without clear instruction for it to accompany though, many mistaken theories (interpretations) can be invented through speculation of its meaning. So if one's understanding of it is potentially problematic, it's probably best to discard it, or certainly not try and base one's fighting strategy on it.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 4, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the
> 
> - linear punch such as jab, or cross will have less chance for your arm to meet with your opponent's arm.
> - circular punch such as haymaker, or back fist will have better chance for your arm to meet with your opponent's arm.
> ...



Really? My experience is that with elbows in and Man Sau / Wu Sau guard covering center- linear punches are can be deflected or bridged utilizing even the just the straight punch. My lineage teaches to bridge this way, 1) punching and maintaining low elbow force when on the outside of the opponent's punch, and 2) to lock out the elbow when on the inside of the opponent's punch. This is taught to brand new guys, before even moving on to Tan / Gan / Pak / etc as defenses. Some difficulty lies in a forming this bridge when it is a punch that is quick and then retreats immedietely (like a fast boxer's jab), but even then when something retreats or there is nothing in the way, there is nothing keeping your bridging hand from springing forward and striking.

In my experience, very telegraphed haymaker type punches are easy to deflect, but a true hook at close range is very difficult to deal with. I'm certainly not arguing with you, I would just think with a proper guard, deflecting linear attacks is kind of WC/WT's bread and butter, but maybe I am missing something in what you are saying.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Nov 4, 2014)

KPM said:


> Pretty much I would follow what I put in my video series.  I'm going to try to hit the guy...in combos...multiple times....to different targets.  If he puts up a block or obstacle of some sort, I'm going to "bridge" past it so I can continue to strike.  This may look "Chi Sauey" but only for 1, at most 3 beats.  If the obstacle drops, I'm not going to continue to try and "stick" in any way, I'm just going to break his structure and work him with multiple punches until he is out!   If he is the aggressor and coming at me, I will try to change the angle and evade in order to strike him first if possible without having to "block" or "parry".  If I have to do a defensive action...therefore give him an obstacle to "bridge" past, I am going to try to be attacking him at the same time, or setting it up so that I "bridge" through the contact we have together before he does!  So....if the opponent is unable to offer much resistance...I'm going to bang the crap out of him like a boxer!   A Wing Chun boxer that is!  If he puts up a defense I'm going to neutralize it, and then bang the crap out of him!   I'm not going to be doing any of the rather elaborate and fancy things you see in so many videos of people doing Chi Sau.  In my experience that just doesn't work against a non-Wing Chun guy intent on taking your head off!  ;-)



Thanks for the reply Keith! 

My intent is also to hit the guy, If he puts up a block or obstacle, my strike turns into man sau wu sao so I can bridge past it and continue to strike. The difference I see in our approach is that I use my footwork to cut off the ring, converging and intersecting with the opponent from angles in order to initiate close range fighting right away (very similar to WSL's approach). Where as you remain in boxing range using angles to hit with combos until the opponent close the distance with you at which point your wing chun bridging skills kicks in. Just some observations!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 4, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> In my experience, very telegraphed haymaker type punches are easy to deflect,



That's the main point. You want your opponent to have easy time to block your punch. When you go fishing, you want to use those bait that fish likes to eat.



PiedmontChun said:


> but maybe I am missing something in what you are saying.





kung fu fighter said:


> My intent is also to hit the guy, ...



To me, to establish that "bridge/clinch" is more important than to "hit the guy". To others, it may be the other way around.


----------

