# Does your opponent make your defense?



## geezer (Aug 12, 2012)

One of the defining characteristics of the lineage I come from is that you strive to achieve a level where _you let your opponent's attack literally create your defense_. When it works, his energy actually bends and shapes your arms into the necessary defensive position. In my experience, this is not characteristic of most other groups of WC, even within other branches that also descend from Grandmaster Yip Man. I'm curious as to whether any of the rest of you also work toward this objective. With respect to this, I would loosely categorize WC groups into the categories listed below:

1. Those that prefer to use explosive force aggressively against an opponent. Even a "defensive" technique like bong-sau is launched explosively, backed by a solid structure, superior position, angle, etc. to overcome the opponent's attack.

2. Those that prefer a "softer", more yielding approach in which they seek to blend their energy with their opponent's and exploit his force to lead him to his own defeat ...almost like a very tight, efficient, linear, and pugilistic equivalent to something like Aikido.

3. Those, who like my tradition, seek to extend a sort of _"springy energy"_ and let the opponent's energy bend and shape their arms into the appropriate defensive posture. Example: When you spring out to strike but encounter an opponent's heavy force crossing your arm, depending on the angle of interception, that opposing force will bend your arm over into a bong-sau, or press it into tan sau, or into jum sau, etc., etc. literally shaping the defense for you. 

4. Those that think discussions like this are BS and just learn how to make their stuff work. Period.

As I said, The groups I've spent the majority of my time training with try to develop the "springy-energy" described in #3 above. I also have good friends who subscribe to the other approaches. I'm basically a "Big Tent" thinker on this. I've seen good people from different groups make their stuff work. In fact, when sparring, we all tend to end up in category #4. Still, I'd like to get your take on this. Opinions anyone?


----------



## mograph (Aug 12, 2012)

I can't answer your question directly, but I like the way you describe techniques.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 12, 2012)

As my sifu would tell us, an attack is a question, and your defense is the answer.  So it depends upon what question is asked as to what answers can be effeciently given.


----------



## K-man (Aug 13, 2012)

Although I am not greatly versed in WC, I do practise a form of MA based on Kung Fu, although most styles have been modified so much that those links have all but disappeared. 

I think that 2 and 3 are the descriptions that best fit my ideas and I find them mutually inclusive rather than exclusive.  I would be interested in seeing anyone 'block' a strike using a technique that is taught as a block.  I can only see that happening if you can anticipate the strike that is about to occur. Failing that, the response will reflexive and whether you yield and blend or meet with a 'springy energy' (or even just cover up to protect) will depend on your reflex reaction to any given unexpected attack. That becomes the springboard for your response.

So, to the original question .. "Does your opponent make your defense?"  Answer of best fit .. it depends.  For an unexpected or non-telegraphed strike .. big yes.  For an anticipated or telegraphed attack you can do whatever you have trained to do.


----------



## J W (Aug 13, 2012)

It could just be that my relative inexperience in Wing Chun keeps me from being able to see which of your categories my family's kung fu best fits into, but the answer right now seems to be 1, 2 and 3. 

We do train to be aggresive on the attack, you know, as in the best defense is a good offense. So #1. However, when our attack meets an obstacle, we train to develop a high degree of sensitivty that will allow us to move around the obstacle by exploiting our opponents force, rather than using our own force. So #2. We also work to develop a constant forward energy (something I am currently struggling with), so that our defense (and offense) will be shaped by the situation in front of us. So #3.

Of course, I'll reiterate that I may not fully understand the question, since my kung fu is still so young. My answer may change as it develops.


----------



## WingChunIan (Aug 13, 2012)

geezer said:


> One of the defining characteristics of the lineage I come from is that you strive to achieve a level where _you let your opponent's attack literally create your defense_. When it works, his energy actually bends and shapes your arms into the necessary defensive position. In my experience, this is not characteristic of most other groups of WC, even within other branches that also descend from Grandmaster Yip Man. I'm curious as to whether any of the rest of you also work toward this objective. With respect to this, I would loosely categorize WC groups into the categories listed below:
> 
> 1. Those that prefer to use explosive force aggressively against an opponent. Even a "defensive" technique like bong-sau is launched explosively, backed by a solid structure, superior position, angle, etc. to overcome the opponent's attack.
> 
> ...



Why limit yourself to one approach? The straight blast approach is great if you can find the gaps and the yeilding method can help to find / create those gaps. Lut sao jik cheung or the sticky energy allows you to exploit the holes without having to withdraw and hence lose the opportunity. Learning to make your stuff work doesn't just happen through random trial and error, you need to have an understanding of what you are trying to acheive and how to get there before you go and test and refine.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 14, 2012)

Being that defence and attack are pretty much inseparable in Wing Chun , I'd say that he also helps to make your attack.

In our lineage we have techniques called "Chark Jong", it roughly means smashing defences , or what some people call entry techniques.
Basically it is penetrating the opponents guard to hit them , but done in such a way that their limbs are under control so that they cannot hit you.

A common one against a Wing Chun guard would be to use a double Tan Sau so that the opponents arms are trapped between both of yours , one or both your arms will strike through then you can lap Sau and elbow strike.

But it doesn't really matter what type of guard he presents , he could have one arm high and one arm low or whatever.

All we are doing is copying the positions of his elbows and using the appropriate Wing Chun shapes to get inside his defence and spread it apart like a wedge splitting a log.
Or in the case where he is already controlling the centerline we can collapse his angles from the outside.

But generally speaking , except in the case of someone's arms both being way off the centerline then our arm positions will be a mirror image of the opponents , so in this case he makes our defence and our attack.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm not Yip Man based, but our approach is more about interception and the guiding the opponent to what we call a "reference point." In layman's terms, that's a position where we have maximum leverage as defined by our "rule set." 

From there, it's 
A) the opponent has good structure, so you flow to a different reference point, 
B) the opponent has bad structure, so you compromise it and not yours  
c) You have bad structure, so recover to a spot where you have good structure. 

To move the opponent to a reference point position it requires you to have the timing to apply bridge tracing to change his structure.

This means having a better structure so his breaks against yours, or crashing in to his bad structure, or flowing around his structure, or chopping his structure down, or neutralizing his good structure. 

So I guess, I'd agree, while we choose our method of interception, the opponent shows us the way in.


----------



## Nabakatsu (Aug 14, 2012)

Got some interesting answers! 
Springy energy all the way woo!!


----------



## wtxs (Aug 15, 2012)

geezer said:


> _you let your opponent's attack literally create your defense_.



Nice post.  Don't mind me add/change to what you said - "let you opponent's attack creates your defense and at the same time your counter attack", such as forward cutting jarm sau, pak sau, bong lap lan and others... things of endless drills we all had been doing.


----------



## geezer (Aug 15, 2012)

From the majority of the responses so far, it seems that the concept of allowing your opponent's force to literally form your defense isn't widely stressed in most of your WC. (That doesn't mean you don't do it. Just that you don't describe what you do with those words!) It is, regardless, a central teaching of my old sifu and his "WT" system, and it continues to be a core concept in most of the groups that later branched off from his organization.

Apologies in advance. Words usually fail me when talking about WC, but I'll give this another try:

Imagine that you are in a the classic WC "ready position" or "pre-fighting posture" with a right man-sau or lead hand extended in front of you, and a left rear guard-hand or wu-sau held behind in front of your chest. Your training partner is facing you in the same position, also with a right lead, and your lead arm's "bridges" are crossed with the back of the wrists touching, and with each of you _extending gentle forward pressure_ along the centerline toward the other persons chest. 

Now imagine your partner converts his lead arm into a strong punch straight forward towards your chest. Several things can happen: 

1. If his punch is heavy with a low elbow, and if his energy crosses your centerline from your right to left, his force will roll your lead arm over to the left into a bong sau "like a log rolling over in water" ...that is, if you are relaxed, have "springy energy" directed forward and maintain your "stick" to his bridge. It is a natural mechanical action. His force bends and rolls your arm into bong sau. _He makes your defense_.

2. If his punch is heavy with a low elbow, but his energy is wide of center, towards the right side of your chest or towards your right shoulder, then his force will bend and compress your man-sau/lead arm rolling the wrist to the right into tan sau ...again if you have loose, "springy energy" and maintain" stick. Once more, it's a simple mechanical action resulting in tan-sau, and, voila, _h__e makes your defense.

_3. If his punch is high, toward the face, with a light elbow and breaking stick, it will now release your man-sau which will spring forward into a punch. As your "springy" arm snaps straight, it will deflect his punch (and posibly hit him as well). When he releases your spring-loaded arm, he initiates a simple mechanical action causing the classic punch against punch deflection. Again, _he makes your defense._ 

In the WC groups that share "_WT"_ roots, being able to let go of our own strength, to become so springy and responsive that we can use our opponent's energy to literally,_ mechanically_ make our defenses is perhaps the highest goal, and this is our interpretation of the famous kuen kuit: _Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung. _Stay with what comes, follow the retreat, thrust forward when the hand is free ... or more simply, _Become a spring_.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 15, 2012)

geezer said:


> From the majority of the responses so far, it seems that the concept of allowing your opponent's force to literally form your defense isn't widely stressed in most of your WC. (That doesn't mean you don't do it. Just that you don't describe what you do with those words!) It is, regardless, a central teaching of my old sifu and his "WT" system, and it continues to be a core concept in most of the groups that later branched off from his organization.
> 
> Apologies in advance. Words usually fail me when talking about WC, but I'll give this another try:
> 
> ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understand those alternatives---- but they are a few important variables that can be involved...including timing,distance etc. In some contexts a different kuit can be relevant-
"you"(generic) start first, I arrive earlier. But yes even there- your opponent shows you the way.


----------



## geezer (Aug 15, 2012)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Understand those alternatives---- but they are a few important variables that can be involved...including timing,distance etc. In some contexts a different kuit can be relevant-
> "you"(generic) start first, I arrive earlier. But yes even there- your opponent shows you the way.



Well said, Joy. You have a gift for saying a lot with few words.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2012)

geezer said:


> From the majority of the responses so far, it seems that the concept of allowing your opponent's force to literally form your defense isn't widely stressed in most of your WC. (That doesn't mean you don't do it. Just that you don't describe what you do with those words!) It is, regardless, a central teaching of my old sifu and his "WT" system, and it continues to be a core concept in most of the groups that later branched off from his organization.
> 
> Apologies in advance. Words usually fail me when talking about WC, but I'll give this another try:
> 
> ...



Yes , we do that.
At the most basic level you see it is first taught in single sticking hands.
After you roll from Bong to Tan and do a palm strike , your opponent will use a Tor Sau to parry the attempted palm strike down.
From that low position you let him initiate the movement and let him raise your arm back into Bong Sau , all you have to do is let him revolve your forearm as you maintain your angle.

There are simple examples like that where the opponents force will revolve just your forearm into the appropriate shape and also exercises and techniques at a later stage that use the opponents energy to not only revolve your forearm but also your body (pivoting).

I would have thought that most Wing Chun would have included this , it seems to me that it would be an important prerequisite in not using brute strength and being able to overcome greater force.


----------



## geezer (Aug 16, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> Yes , we do that *...I would have thought that most Wing Chun would have included this* , it seems to me that it would be an important prerequisite in not using brute strength and being able to overcome greater force.



I would also expect to find this in most WC. After all Mook, you immediately recognized what I was talking about. I suspect others may work at this, but just describe the process differently. Or perhaps they really don't try to move like this at all. 

Often people try to be "soft" and borrow force more through their own conscious effort or through reflexive actions rather than just letting their opponent do the work. Depending on trained reflex alone is not the same as letting your opponent make your defense for you. I know it's hard for me to really pull this off except to a limited degree. And even less, under pressure.

When it's working, it's as natural as water flowing around rocks. The rocks shape the path of the water. When you are making a conscious effort "to go around the rocks" it seems awkward and ponderous by comparison.


----------



## J W (Aug 16, 2012)

geezer said:


> Imagine that you are in a the classic WC "ready position" or "pre-fighting posture" with a right man-sau or lead hand extended in front of you, and a left rear guard-hand or wu-sau held behind in front of your chest. Your training partner is facing you in the same position, also with a right lead, and your lead arm's "bridges" are crossed with the back of the wrists touching, and with each of you _extending gentle forward pressure_ along the centerline toward the other persons chest.
> 
> Now imagine your partner converts his lead arm into a strong punch straight forward towards your chest. Several things can happen:
> 
> ...



When you put it that way, then yes, we do train for that. Maybe it's my inexperience showing again, but wouldn't a condition like #1 be necessary for a bong sau anyway? Isn't a bong sau usually going to be the result of your opponent's energy rolling your arm into it? Would you normally use a bong sau without being pressed into doing so?

If my assumption is correct, then the fact that the bong sau is common to all lineages would seem to suggest to me that most of them practice this sort of thing, at least to some degree, right? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. I often am at this stage.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 17, 2012)

J W said:


> When you put it that way, then yes, we do train for that. Maybe it's my inexperience showing again, but wouldn't a condition like #1 be necessary for a bong sau anyway? Isn't a bong sau usually going to be the result of your opponent's energy rolling your arm into it? Would you normally use a bong sau without being pressed into doing so?
> 
> If my assumption is correct, then the fact that the bong sau is common to all lineages would seem to suggest to me that most of them practice this sort of thing, at least to some degree, right? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. I often am at this stage.



Yes you can initiate the use of the Bong Sau.
Bong Sau combined with a step forward has an off balancing effect , so in a situation where you may not be able to pierce through the opponents defence with your Tan Sau , the use of the Bong Sau will off balance and often lead to his structure being weakened and a gap will often times open up.


----------



## geezer (Aug 17, 2012)

J W said:


> ...wouldn't a condition like #1 be necessary for a bong sau anyway? Isn't a bong sau usually going to be the result of your opponent's energy rolling your arm into it? Would you normally use a bong sau without being pressed into doing so?



Just because someone uses something shaped like a bong-sau doesn't mean that they use energy the same way. To answer your question above, no, I would _not_ normally use a bong sau without being pressed into doing so. My first intent is always to go forward, to pierce my opponent's defense and to strike him. Bong is created by my opponent's force if I fail to pierce through his arms. When that occurs the bong can then yield and bent with the flow of his attack, or if my structure and angle is stronger, I can do what Mook suggested and press aggressively forward with my bong to unbalance my opponent and create an opening.

However, there are other WC lineages who prefer to use bong-sau aggressively, even as an attacking technique. They will launch a hard bong intentionally at an opponent's guard as an entering technique to knock their oppenent's arms aside. Others apply bong almost like a rising block in Karate to block an opponent's strike upward. In my lineage, we avoid such hard-style, power-based techniques.


----------



## J W (Aug 17, 2012)

Thanks for the corrections, Mook and Geezer. 

I think I get your distinction now between #2 and #3 in the original post, when I first read it I didn't really understand the difference. But you're making a distinction between the type of energy applied, constant forward energy vs a more yielding type of energy (right?). So given that, then I believe we use the same concept that you are describing, since forward energy is stressed in our school. 

I didn't realize there were "hard" styles of Wing Chun, we're always told that if you have to use strength, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## geezer (Aug 17, 2012)

J W said:


> *...if you have to use strength, you're doing it wrong.*



That's the gist of it.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 17, 2012)

J W said:


> Thanks for the corrections, Mook and Geezer.
> 
> I think I get your distinction now between #2 and #3 in the original post, when I first read it I didn't really understand the difference. But you're making a distinction between the type of energy applied, constant forward energy vs a more yielding type of energy (right?). So given that, then I believe we use the same concept that you are describing, since forward energy is stressed in our school.
> 
> I didn't realize there were "hard" styles of Wing Chun, we're always told that if you have to use strength, you're doing it wrong.



In my opinion if you are using strength with your Bong Sau , you are no longer doing a Bong Sau.
You are doing something , but it is not Wing Chun.

Even if you are initiating the Bong Sau as an aggressive and invasive movement , it should still remain relaxed.

There are many important reasons for this , the most obvious one of course being that your Bong Sau maybe countered by the opponent ripping your arm down with his Fook Sau.
 If your relaxed it's not too hard to recover from this , but if your arm and shoulders all tensed up it is not going to end well for you.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 20, 2012)

J W said:


> I didn't realize there were "hard" styles of Wing Chun, we're always told that if you have to use strength, you're doing it wrong.



I tried to follow this maxim for a long time, IME it's dead wrong.

You should use strength that supports your structure, as well as "smart strength" of not fighting force with force, but applying force when you have superior leverage. 

To use no strength means you must move your center more. To move your center makes you less efficient. As WC people we should always strive to be maximally efficient.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 21, 2012)

The problem is defining exactly what using strength in Wing Chun is.
I can extend my Tan Sau forwards and although my triceps , biceps and shoulder muscles are activated everything is quite relaxed.
In order to move the limb , muscles have to contract , there is no avoiding that.

What must be avoided though is the use of brute strength and excessive muscular tension , the type of force that locks up the muscle groups.
With this type of force the muscles are under so much tension that they can't react fast enough to the movements of the opponent.
To change direction and move the limb , the muscles have to first relax from their level of excessive tension before the opposing muscle groups can fire and move the limb in the other direction.

Staying relaxed avoids this delay , because the muscles stay in a type of neutral state that can quickly move the limb in any direction in order to adapt to the varied movements of the opponents limb.


----------



## Nabakatsu (Aug 21, 2012)

This is a hard thing to talk about, I like the idea of a weak pak sau, if I can punch through someones weak attempt to pak sau me, than why not.. I'm not going to collapse under the weakest of pressures, but if he paks to the point where I can no longer punch through, than I will most likely be deforming reflexively to whatever pressure has overcome mine, in whatever way. Of course the other hand and my lower body will be picking up the attack and so on and so forth.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 21, 2012)

Nabakatsu said:


> This is a hard thing to talk about, I like the idea of a weak pak sau, if I can punch through someones weak attempt to pak sau me, than why not.. I'm not going to collapse under the weakest of pressures, but if he paks to the point where I can no longer punch through, than I will most likely be deforming reflexively to whatever pressure has overcome mine, in whatever way. Of course the other hand and my lower body will be picking up the attack and so on and so forth.



Generally speaking , if their Pak Sau is weak it is usually due to their stance being weak and the elbow not being correctly aligned with the wrist.

On the other side of the coin , if you throw your punch in a relaxed manner , you will either strike through or your arm will be redirected by the pak sau.

If however you punch with a fair amount of muscular tension then you have provided a link between your arm and torso and instead of just your arm being redirected , your whole body will be.

This not only causes your stance to become destabilized but can also place you at a positional disadvantage as you are likely to end up with your blindside now facing the opponent.


----------



## Nabakatsu (Aug 21, 2012)

The idea behind my statement was to state that: My goal is to hit the person attacking me, when they intercept a limb of mine doing this, they need to force me off my path. I am intent on hitting, but I'm not flexing and powering the blow through tension, loose punches generate more power to me anyways, they penetrate, they flow, keeping me from getting unbalanced, and into positions I'd rather not be in. If I can wedge through, or if there isn't enough force behind what they're doing to stop my attack, than I'm going to land it. I think that's the idea I am trying to stress. I think that's the proper mentality, you don't want to be, all yang, and you don't want to be all ying.. either should contain a part of each other for the most part.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 21, 2012)

Nabakatsu said:


> The idea behind my statement was to state that: My goal is to hit the person attacking me, when they intercept a limb of mine doing this, they need to force me off my path. I am intent on hitting, but I'm not flexing and powering the blow through tension, loose punches generate more power to me anyways, they penetrate, they flow, keeping me from getting unbalanced, and into positions I'd rather not be in. If I can wedge through, or if there isn't enough force behind what they're doing to stop my attack, than I'm going to land it. I think that's the idea I am trying to stress. I think that's the proper mentality, you don't want to be, all yang, and you don't want to be all ying.. either should contain a part of each other for the most part.



Oh absolutely , it goes without saying , that if there is gap you will go through it , if their angle is weak you will collapse it.

The question is how are you generating this force , is it coming from your stance or is it coming from upper body strength?
I'm reminded of a story related to me about a very muscular young guy getting pushed around in chi sau by Tsui Seung Tin.
When the young guy questioned how this was happening , TST said " Your power comes from the muscles , mine comes from the brain".


----------



## Nabakatsu (Aug 21, 2012)

The stance is where the power should be starting from, but there is  power in every part of that connection, and I feel like you could  utilize them individually to varying effects.


----------



## geezer (Aug 21, 2012)

Eric_H said:


> I tried to follow this maxim for a long time, IME it's dead wrong.
> 
> You should use strength that supports your structure, as well as "smart strength" of not fighting force with force, but applying force when you have superior leverage.
> 
> To use no strength means you must move your center more. To move your center makes you less efficient. As WC people we should always strive to be maximally efficient.



I would agree that when you have a superior angle or superior leverage supported by sound structure, then you can apply superior force. 

Now as to the second part, when your opponent has superior force, our approach is to let his force move our arm, body, and if need be, our stance and "center" as well. Just as the opponent's energy can make our arm roll into bong-sau, his force can make our stance roll aside into turning stance. The goal is to yield and sort of ride the oncoming force, typically turning aside and slipping out of the way. As we are aalways rear weighted in our stances, when we turn our centerline slips aside and out of the line of the attack. 

I believe this may be a major difference in approach between my lineage and Hung Fa Yi. I played a bit with our mutual acquaintance Jake after he trained some with you, and found that after starting HFY he began favoring a wider, more rooted and less yielding structure than what I normally use. But then again, I'm kind of an anomaly due to old ankle and leg injuries that make my stances "idiosynchratic" to say the least.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 21, 2012)

geezer said:


> I would agree that when you have a superior angle or superior leverage supported by sound structure, then you can apply superior force.
> 
> Now as to the second part, when your opponent has superior force, our approach is to let his force move our arm, body, and if need be, our stance and "center" as well. Just as the opponent's energy can make our arm roll into bong-sau, his force can make our stance roll aside into turning stance. The goal is to yield and sort of ride the oncoming force, typically turning aside and slipping out of the way. As we are aalways rear weighted in our stances, when we turn our centerline slips aside and out of the line of the attack.
> 
> I believe this may be a major difference in approach between my lineage and Hung Fa Yi. I played a bit with our mutual acquaintance Jake after he trained some with you, and found that after starting HFY he began favoring a wider, more rooted and less yielding structure than what I normally use. But then again, I'm kind of an anomaly due to old ankle and leg injuries that make my stances "idiosynchratic" to say the least.



I think mook hit the nail on the head a few posts up wherein the term "strength" means different things to different people.

My WC used to be very "loosey goosey" in that I could shift and get to a 2 handed laap/saat combo pretty easily (probably my best move cause of my long reach). Basically I was operating under "if there's any resistance at all to what you are doing, change and flow around it."

What I'm discovering now through constantly being moved (frustration!) the last 9 months or so by my SF sihingdai is that the attitude for HFY folks should be more "Hold on to what matters stubbornly, only change if you have to, but be smart enough to know when you have to." Resistance is ok if you're doing it through superior angle and leverage and not with "tension" or "dead" force. 

HFY's dip gwat training for joint power is pretty unique, the only similar I've seen is in Chu Ga Tonglong, and that's where our strength to back up structure comes from. We try to build a "grinding power" as opposed to tension. After that, we add in the chi kung aspects (compressing the energy like steam to create density) and you end up with alignment of structure, muscle and mind to back you up. We take a different roads to get there but I'm pretty sure thats what TST was referring to as nim lik.

For stances, our attitude is also different, we don't slip our centerline via rearweighting (at least not that I've seen yet), but our Leung Yi Ma accomplishes a similar goal, just with original centerline/center of gravity maintenance. Its interesting to think of the body yielding the same way as the bong sao though, we didn't discuss things in those terms in Moy Yat WC, but that system was also more focused on the 50/50 vs the 90/10. 

I miss that crazy dude, he still keeping up with the DTE stuff?


----------



## geezer (Aug 21, 2012)

Eric_H said:


> ...Basically I was operating under "if there's any resistance at all to what you are doing, change and flow around it."
> 
> "Hold on to what matters stubbornly, only change if you have to, but be smart enough to know when you have to." Resistance is ok if you're doing it through superior angle and leverage and not with "tension" or "dead" force.



The NVTO Ving Tsun I'm training now is more aligned with the first statement quoted above. The highest goal would be to flow around or through any resistance without crossing force. 

The attitude of the DTE Eskrima I train is closer to that of the second quote. Assume a better angle, structure and position, and issue strong, yet flexible force. Jack up the other guy's structure and you won't have to shift your own.

Sometimes one approach works best for me, sometimes the other. If I were fighting for my life, I'd probably favor the second approach. Besides it's hard to maintain that "loosey goosey" relaxed approach you mentioned when facing great stress and the adrenaline rush hits. 

Oh, and I'm sorry to say that I haven't seen Jake since late last winter. I don't know what's become of him.


----------



## WTchap (Aug 22, 2012)

As I train in Leung Ting's WT system, I am (as always), liking what I hear from Geezer. His approach to training and learning is pretty much on the same tracks as my own. Well, mine is the same as his (as he started way earlier than I have).

My training outside of the WT lineage was with Kamon Wing Chun in London, and they had a very different approach (esp. regarding Bong Sau). When I was at Kamon, Bong Sau was almost always used actively, rather than passively. In the WT it is the other way round - with an active Bong Sau being the exception rather than the rule.

As a side note, the big difficulty for me in learning WT is developing the 'springy force' that Geezer is talking about. It is almost second nature to try and create this springy force towards the opponent by using the point of contact (your wrist/part of the forearm, depending), instead of from 'the elbow'. Also, when you're doing it wrong and trying to create this force from the point of contact, it also becomes second nature to direct it _towards_ the point of contact, instead of towards the opponent's 'center'.

But when you get it right.... oh the awesomeness!  Everything slots into place - as you automatically strike/eat up space/take control of the opponent's center when they have bad structure or they themselves move away from the line of attack (away from your own center). I should add that for this to really operate properly you need to make sure the rest of you is following your arms - so for me various push and pull drills have helped make sure my footwork keeps in time with my arms


----------

