# What if Wing Chun remained a concept...



## Nobody Important

There is a rare art called Fung Gar, descended from the Fung family of White Crane fame. It is considered a specialty method used to elevate one's current art. It is not a stand alone method. It consists of loose techniques that are bound with philosophical ideals of righteousness. It is a method of employing short bridges and is most likely the original method of White Crane developed by Fung Chat Leung and the parent of Wing Chun. It is a secretive method often linked with Hung Gar.
What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.


----------



## wckf92

Interesting! Thanks.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.



I'm not sure what you mean by "a concept of loose techniques". Can you elaborate please?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.



Yes, I think there would still be bickering, maybe even more so!  Because you are talking about something that would even less defined than what we have now.  How can you not have bickering over who is doing it "right" in that situation?  If you want to use Ku Lo as an example...there has definitely been uncertainty over who had the "real thing" and who didn't.  Those guys were famous for teaching both a "public" art and a "family" art shown only to a few.  So now, its hard to know what is what and so there is still infighting and bickering.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "a concept of loose techniques". Can you elaborate please?


If the forms were never created the structure of Wing Chun as we know it wouldn't exist. Concepts can and will be interpreted differently as the individual understands them. Concept is not truly movement or technique, but idea. Perhaps me saying a concept of loose techniques was a poor choice, ideas is more fitting, but for context, techniques will suffice. Without forms or linked San Sik, strict adherence to structure is open to interpretation and will be influenced by previous understanding of how application is applied. So if a new concept is brought into a system, that system will mold the concept to align with their movement. For example, the concept of centerline. It is found in Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Wing Chun, SPM, Kali etc. Each approach and execute differently, yet the end result, as far as the concept is concerned, is the same. One can argue semantics (efficiency, structure, power) but cannot deny that centerline wasn't used. If the forms of Wing Chun were never created there wouldn't be a reference for the structure and movement of the art, because concept is impressionable, it is molded by the shape it is placed into. Hence, no shape, no litmus, no argument. Simply different interpretations of concept. Over the years the framework of the forms has solidified what we interpret Wing Chun to be, instead of what it could be, unlike Fung Gar which can be added to any southern Siu Lam art as a compliment and refinement method.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Yes, I think there would still be bickering, maybe even more so!  Because you are talking about something that would even less defined than what we have now.  How can you not have bickering over who is doing it "right" in that situation?  If you want to use Ku Lo as an example...there has definitely been uncertainty over who had the "real thing" and who didn't.  Those guys were famous for teaching both a "public" art and a "family" art shown only to a few.  So now, its hard to know what is what and so there is still infighting and bickering.


If there was never a model, never a standard (in this case the forms) as to how one approached or utilized a concept what would there be to argue about? As long as the concept is understood why would it matter? There is never only one way to approach or solve a problem. To ignore that is to retard understanding and stunt growth. In short, constraints such as structure, movement, range etc. Cannot be placed on a concept. The argument comes from practicality and effectiveness of the methods used to empty the concept, but as with all things each way will have it's shortcomings and flaws. But if the forms never existed, originality couldn't be claimed and arguing would only be over practicality and effectiveness.


----------



## yak sao

But would WC even be around today if the forms had not been there to transmit the concepts and principles forward to us?
You use Fung Gar as an example. Not that I'm any form of expert by any means but I've been around CMA for 3 1/2 decades and I've never heard of it.... So as good as it might be, if it's so rare that nobody is able to get a hold of it, is it doing anyone any good? 
I'm just saying with all its faults with all its bickering with all of the misunderstanding, I think the people who handed WC down to us did a pretty decent job of doing it.... form being part of that success.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> If there was never a model, never a standard (in this case the forms) as to how one approached or utilized a concept what would there be to argue about? As long as the concept is understood why would it matter? There is never only one way to approach or solve a problem. To ignore that is to retard understanding and stunt growth. In short, constraints such as structure, movement, range etc. Cannot be placed on a concept. The argument comes from practicality and effectiveness of the methods used to empty the concept, but as with all things each way will have it's shortcomings and flaws. But if the forms never existed, originality couldn't be claimed and arguing would only be over practicality and effectiveness.



True.  But people are people.  They will always find something to argue about.     A wise man once said to me (in regards to forum interactions)..."you get a group of martial artists together and a fight breaks out.  Go figure!"


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Concepts can and will be interpreted differently as the individual understands them. Concept is not truly movement or technique, but idea.



For a concept and principle based MA to function, the ideas base needs to be clearly understood. Forms and drills serve the purpose of expressing in limited physical terms and physically entraining those ideas. But even this is not usually enough, as the recent history of YM's system shows.

There is no system if all that exists is a few vaguely defined concepts that the individual is left free to express however they wish (including differently from the way they were originally designed to be understood). There is no generational development and perfection as was achieved in VT following such an approach. Everyone is starting from scratch with a few written words. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. 

I think that what you are trying to describe is something like the relationship between Hsing Yi (a system full of old forms and drills and based on old, possibly outdated and certainly misunderstood ideas of fighting) vs Yiquan- a modern reformulation intended at getting to the point much faster and incorporating a modern physical form (basically western boxing) to embody the original ideas. 

The difference with such a comparison is that Yiquan still teaches the central ideas in a particular order using particular drills and other methods. It just drops a lot of what its founder considered superfluous. Your idea for VT sounds like it just drops everything, including everything of value.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Nobody Important said:


> There is a rare art called Fung Gar, descended from the Fung family of White Crane fame. It is considered a specialty method used to elevate one's current art. It is not a stand alone method. It consists of loose techniques that are bound with philosophical ideals of righteousness. It is a method of employing short bridges and is most likely the original method of White Crane developed by Fung Chat Leung and the parent of Wing Chun. It is a secretive method often linked with Hung Gar.
> What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.


After seeing all of the Wing Chun disputes in MT and then watching IP 3.  I would have to say that the forms aren't the issue; it's the people who practices the forms. You know the infighting is wide spread when someone makes a movie about the infighting about what is "true Wing Chun."  This type of infighting that you see in Wing Chun doesn't exist in other fighting systems and if it does exist then it's not to the extent that some Wing Chun practitioners take it.

Maybe Wing Chun became too popular too fast and as a result had teachers declaring that they teach "true Wing Chun" as a marketing pitch and from there it just spiraled out of control. Maybe it's the Ego of practitioners that causes the infighting by saying that there is only one way to do a particular technique, or that techniques can't be expanded beyond the basic understanding and application of that technique.  Who knows.  The only thing I do now is that the internal Wing Chun disputes are a hot mess.  

As a Jow Ga practitioner, I ask about other martial arts in order to understand my system better, which in terms will help me be able to fight against other fighting systems better.
With a Wing Chun practitioner the view that I see is that Wing Chun rather fight Wing Chun for purity.  Instead trying to understand other fighting systems in an effort to better understand their own. The fight is always about what is pure, what technique is the real technique, what technique has the "true application" and "true meaning."

I'm not saying all Wing Chun practitioners are like this, but there's enough that fit this characteristic to highlight this internal dispute in a movie.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> True.  But people are people.  They will always find something to argue about.     A wise man once said to me (in regards to forum interactions)..."you get a group of martial artists together and a fight breaks out.  Go figure!"


yeah but usually those fights break out in the form of System #1 vs System #2 and not System #1 vs System #1


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah but usually those fights break out in the form of System #1 vs System #2 and not System #1 vs System #1



Different lineages of Wing Chun might as well be different systems. In many ways they are. Especially the fact that they often end up creating vastly different types of fighters.


----------



## JPinAZ

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah but usually those fights break out in the form of System #1 vs System #2 and not System #1 vs System #1



Haha, funny, but not sure I agree. There is plenty of in-fighting and arguing within the 'Ip Man lineage', and that could be viewed as only "one system"


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> Different lineages of Wing Chun might as well be different systems. In many ways they are. Especially the fact that they often end up creating vastly different types of fighters.


 As an outsider, the core of WC looks the same but the application of the WC techniques and the theories of fighting is what seems to be what is mainly different.  To me this isn't enough to be a different system since these things can vary from student to student as the developer their fighting preferences within the system.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just sharing an outsider perspective.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JPinAZ said:


> Haha, funny, but not sure I agree. There is plenty of in-fighting and arguing within the 'Ip Man lineage', and that could be viewed as only "one system"


That's what I was referring to. Wing Chun Vs Wing Chun instead of Wing Chun Vs Hung Ga.


----------



## Phobius

JowGaWolf said:


> After seeing all of the Wing Chun disputes in MT and then watching IP 3.  I would have to say that the forms aren't the issue; it's the people who practices the forms. You know the infighting is wide spread when someone makes a movie about the infighting about what is "true Wing Chun."  This type of infighting that you see in Wing Chun doesn't exist in other fighting systems and if it does exist then it's not to the extent that some Wing Chun practitioners take it.
> 
> Maybe Wing Chun became too popular too fast and as a result had teachers declaring that they teach "true Wing Chun" as a marketing pitch and from there it just spiraled out of control. Maybe it's the Ego of practitioners that causes the infighting by saying that there is only one way to do a particular technique, or that techniques can't be expanded beyond the basic understanding and application of that technique.  Who knows.  The only thing I do now is that the internal Wing Chun disputes are a hot mess.
> 
> As a Jow Ga practitioner, I ask about other martial arts in order to understand my system better, which in terms will help me be able to fight against other fighting systems better.
> With a Wing Chun practitioner the view that I see is that Wing Chun rather fight Wing Chun for purity.  Instead trying to understand other fighting systems in an effort to better understand their own. The fight is always about what is pure, what technique is the real technique, what technique has the "true application" and "true meaning."
> 
> I'm not saying all Wing Chun practitioners are like this, but there's enough that fit this characteristic to highlight this internal dispute in a movie.



Not sure I agree. Most lineage fights are because people want to stop the few proclaiming they have true WC because of bad memories in the past. There was once a large dispute about what was the only true and supreme Wing Chun. On forums now it is mostly fights now because people want to stop that from occurring yet again. 

All systems have this more or less.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> Not sure I agree. Most lineage fights are because people want to stop the few proclaiming they have true WC because of bad memories in the past. There was once a large dispute about what was the only true and supreme Wing Chun. On forums now it is mostly fights now because people want to stop that from occurring yet again.
> 
> All systems have this more or less.


I'm happy to say that as far as my system goes, the only dispute that I know of is related to who brought Jow Ga to the U.S. There's no "what is pure Jow Ga" debates and many times you can recognize which lineage someone comes from by the way that they perform Jow Ga which is cool since it's like validity test within itself.  If someone claims a certain lineage you can tell if they are lying or not by how they perform their kung fu.  For other martial artist that I've talked to both online and in person.  It seems that the disputes are more about correct technique and function of technique and not about the system.  For example, I can be from one karate school that performs a technique one way and someone from another karate school can tell me that I'm doing it wrong.  The dispute isn't about if I train "true karate"  it's about the technique.

When I see Wing Chun disputes much of it spins away from the dispute of technique and changes into a dispute about who is doing "True Wing Chun."

If I do Jow Ga poorly then, I still acknowledge as doing Jow Ga and I'm acknowledge as doing it poorly.

If you google Pure Wing Chun then you'll find tons of articles and discussions related to Pure Wing Chun.  If you look up Pure Karate, or Pure TKD or any other system then you'll won't get similar results with discussions that talk about Pure TKD or Pure Karate.


----------



## guy b.

JowGaWolf said:


> As an outsider, the core of WC looks the same but the application of the WC techniques and the theories of fighting is what seems to be what is mainly different



I think you are wrong. It is the core understanding that differs or is lacking.


----------



## Nobody Important

yak sao said:


> But would WC even be around today if the forms had not been there to transmit the concepts and principles forward to us?
> You use Fung Gar as an example. Not that I'm any form of expert by any means but I've been around CMA for 3 1/2 decades and I've never heard of it.... So as good as it might be, if it's so rare that nobody is able to get a hold of it, is it doing anyone any good?
> I'm just saying with all its faults with all its bickering with all of the misunderstanding, I think the people who handed WC down to us did a pretty decent job of doing it.... form being part of that success.


That is why I left the question open, for everyone to fill in the blanks with their thoughts and opinions. Yes Fung Gar is rare, because how and whom it was passed onto for safekeeping. It doesn't mean that it is superior, simply that it is treated as a treasure. It's true worth is said to be in its message not its methods. When something is taught quickly to the masses, dilution becomes a problem.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> For a concept and principle based MA to function, the ideas base needs to be clearly understood. Forms and drills serve the purpose of expressing in limited physical terms and physically entraining those ideas. But even this is not usually enough, as the recent history of YM's system shows.
> 
> There is no system if all that exists is a few vaguely defined concepts that the individual is left free to express however they wish (including differently from the way they were originally designed to be understood). There is no generational development and perfection as was achieved in VT following such an approach. Everyone is starting from scratch with a few written words. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
> 
> I think that what you are trying to describe is something like the relationship between Hsing Yi (a system full of old forms and drills and based on old, possibly outdated and certainly misunderstood ideas of fighting) vs Yiquan- a modern reformulation intended at getting to the point much faster and incorporating a modern physical form (basically western boxing) to embody the original ideas.
> 
> The difference with such a comparison is that Yiquan still teaches the central ideas in a particular order using particular drills and other methods. It just drops a lot of what its founder considered superfluous. Your idea for VT sounds like it just drops everything, including everything of value.


I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed, not that this couldn't be, IMO it just wasn't the intention. Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar. If Fung Gar was to be used and taught in the same manner as Wing Chun, it would fall down the rabbit hole too, because it was designed as a refining tool not a general purpose tool.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> True.  But people are people.  They will always find something to argue about.     A wise man once said to me (in regards to forum interactions)..."you get a group of martial artists together and a fight breaks out.  Go figure!"


Such is human nature, lol.


----------



## yak sao

Nobody Important said:


> I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed, not that this couldn't be, IMO it just wasn't the intention. Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar. If Fung Gar was to be used and taught in the same manner as Wing Chun, it would fall down the rabbit hole too, because it was designed as a refining tool not a general purpose tool.



So tell me more about Fung Gar.


----------



## wckf92

yak sao said:


> So tell me more about Fung Gar.



Yes, definitely! Sounds very interesting!!!


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed



VT is a stand alone system, not meant to elevate something already posessed, and not designed to be added on to other systems as you describe for Fung Gar



> Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar.



Don't see the relevance to VT. I don't agree that VT anything to do with white crane


----------



## Nobody Important

yak sao said:


> So tell me more about Fung Gar.


Sorry to say I do not know much beyond what I have seen and been told. I do not practice it. What I do know is that it is a system reputed to be founded by Fung Chat Leung, of White Crane fame and is an art based on bridges. The entire art is bound with the philosophical ideals of madam Fung. It bares resemblance to Hung Gar's 12 bridges and is similar in concept. I do practice a similar method called Lo Fu San Bak Hok, it is rumored they are related, but what I know only consists of 10 exercises of about 3 moves each. Like hard Chi Kung but no philosophy.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> VT is a stand alone system, not meant to elevate something already posessed, and not designed to be added on to other systems as you describe for Fung Gar


It is today, not necessarily true during it's inception. It is what it is because of how it was directed, it could of easily taken another course.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> It is today, not necessarily true during it's inception. It is what it is because of how it was directed, it could of easily taken another course.



No, what you are actually saying this:



> the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed



i.e. you believe that VT is not supposed to be a stand alone method and is instead intended to be an adjunct for people who have trained other more complete systems, e.g. Hung Gar

I have heard this theory before, mostly from a HG person who used to post on the forums. He claimed the same thing about SPM and other systems, saying they need the more complete system understanding and physicality of HG to function. Obviously he didn't know VT, which has its own methods and is indeed a stand alone system.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> No, what you are actually saying this:
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. you believe that VT is not supposed to be a stand alone method and is instead intended to be an adjunct for people who have trained other more complete systems, e.g. Hung Gar


Pretty sure what I said was what I meant. Interpret as you like, we don't need to agree. Just thoughts to build a conversation, take from it what you will and interpret as you see fit. I won't be drawn into an argument debating trivial things.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Pretty sure what I said was what I meant. Interpret as you like, we don't need to agree. Just thoughts to build a conversation, take from it what you will and interpret as you see fit. I won't be drawn into an argument debating trivial things.



You said:

"the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed"

This is a pretty unambiguous statement. You seem to want to equate VT and Fung Gar. Why would that be, and why should I take it seriously?


----------



## wtxs

Nobody Important, if you to stick around, better strengthen them finger tips, and get an spare keyboard, cause you are going to bang the sh$t out of them.


----------



## JPinAZ

Nobody Important said:


> I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed, not that this couldn't be, IMO it just wasn't the intention. Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar. If Fung Gar was to be used and taught in the same manner as Wing Chun, it would fall down the rabbit hole too, because it was designed as a refining tool not a general purpose tool.



The WCK system is and can be both - a stand alone system and also something to help elevate what one already has. This is due to WCK being a principle/concept based art with the end goal of operating towards maximum efficiency & effectiveness vs. a stylized interpretation by an individual. 
The principles of the system apply regardless of the person's experience level. I am equally able to teach someone to fight more efficiently that is new to martial arts, as well as someone with many years of experience.

Maybe it would be easier if you didn't compare Wing Chun and Fung Gar as they are 2 different systems and this might lead to more confusion. I might have missed it, but have you studied WC? And if so, for how long?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> You said:
> 
> "the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed"
> 
> This is a pretty unambiguous statement. You seem to want to equate VT and Fung Gar. Why would that be, and why should I take it seriously?


Concepts are not bound by physical technique, range or power generation. There are many different ways to achieve similar outcomes. Ones approach is determined by their personal beliefs and understandings. This can clearly be seen in how different arts approach defending against a haymaker. If it works in the confines of their method it is correct regardless of how someone else feels it should be done. If your art is missing a concept and the needed concept was added, wouldn't that art now be elevated? That's all I'm really saying.


----------



## Nobody Important

JPinAZ said:


> The WCK system is and can be both - a stand alone system and also something to help elevate what one already has. This is due to WCK being a principle/concept based art with the end goal of operating towards maximum efficiency & effectiveness vs. a stylized interpretation by an individual.
> The principles of the system apply regardless of the person's experience level. I am equally able to teach someone to fight more efficiently that is new to martial arts, as well as someone with many years of experience.
> 
> Maybe it would be easier if you didn't compare Wing Chun and Fung Gar as they are 2 different systems and this might lead to more confusion. I might have missed it, but have you studied WC? And if so, for how long?


Nice post, I agree.

Yes I study WC, about 25 years now.


----------



## Nobody Important

I used Fung Gar merely to illustrate an example of an art based on concepts. My thoughts were simply to evoke some discussion. For anyone who feels that what I wrote is an attack on your personal beliefs, it was not. If after reading this you still feel that your beliefs have been threatened, then perhaps you should reevaluate and search for the cause of your insecurities.


----------



## jhexx

JPinAZ said:


> The WCK system is and can be both - *a stand alone system and also something to help elevate what one already has*. This is due to WCK being a principle/concept based art with the end goal of operating towards maximum efficiency & effectiveness vs. a stylized interpretation by an individual.
> The principles of the system apply regardless of the person's experience level. I am equally able to teach someone to fight more efficiently that is new to martial arts, as well as someone with many years of experience.
> 
> Maybe it would be easier if you didn't compare Wing Chun and Fung Gar as they are 2 different systems and this might lead to more confusion. I might have missed it, but have you studied WC? And if so, for how long?



Truth.


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b. said:


> I think you are wrong. It is the core understanding that differs or is lacking.


I don't know enough about Wing Chun to argue the finer points and I'm actually glad that I don't know the finer points.  When I look at any WC lineage I assume the following about WC Practitioners.

Likes to take a direct linear path from A to B
Always thinking forward pressure either by continuous punching and interference with my ability to punch on that same path or by literally charging forward with chain punches.

High chance that the WC practitioner has limited footwork mobility simply because most practice from the perspective of close quarters fighting and just fail to train the necessary foot work to be quick on the feet beyond a fast pivot.
A WC practitioner is dependent on bridging as a form of attack and defense, Their goal is to screw up my punches while being successful with their punches
Fast hand speed for the purpose of overwhelming me with punches
An 80% chance of lack of awareness of their own footing because of the focus trying to flood punches to my face.  I'm pretty sure about this one because there are very few videos showing Wing Chun footwork.  Most Wing Chun videos show only the upper torso.  The reason why only the upper torso is usually shown in demos and practice videos is because many of the school probably pay very little attention to mobility.
There will be 2 types of WC practitioners.  One with a wide mobile stance and another with a forward facing squared off stance that isn't mobile.
Rapid combos, meaning that they aren't going to throw out many test punches if any.  Their goal is to quickly throw punch 1-2-3 out really fast.
The majority of WC are obsessive about 4 main areas. Direct Linear attacks, Center Line, Fast combination punches, and Bridging.  They train these areas more than anything else and as a result,  shouldn't try to play or compete with them in those same areas.
These are things that I would consider as core to Wing Chun.  If I were to go to any Wing Chun school and spar with the students, more than 5 of these characteristics would show in the first match.  I can pick a random WC free sparring video from youtube and more than 5 of these characters will be present in those videos.  I've only seen a couple of WC practitioners that don't fit the majority of these characteristics.


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> These are things that I would consider as core to Wing Chun.  If I were to go to any Wing Chun school and spar with the students, more than 5 of these characteristics would show in the first match.  I can pick a random WC free sparring video from youtube and more than 5 of these characters will be present in those videos.  I've only seen a couple of WC practitioners that don't fit the majority of these characteristics.



You are looking at very poor examples. But I guess that's a good thing if my opponent knows what MA I train and makes these assumptions about how I might fight them.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> You are looking at very poor examples. But I guess that's a good thing if my opponent knows what MA I train and makes these assumptions about how I might fight them.


In all fairness to Jogawolf he is not incorrect, you only have to look at YouTube to see the examples he his talking about. Good WC is rare. Unfortunately the art is too often represented by individuals who learned too quickly and have a poor understanding of how the principles and concepts can be applied outside the box.


----------



## Phobius

JowGaWolf said:


> Removed
> Removed
> High chance that the WC practitioner has limited footwork mobility simply because most practice from the perspective of close quarters fighting and just fail to train the necessary foot work to be quick on the feet beyond a fast pivot.
> Removed
> Removed
> An 80% chance of lack of awareness of their own footing because of the focus trying to flood punches to my face.  I'm pretty sure about this one because there are very few videos showing Wing Chun footwork.  Most Wing Chun videos show only the upper torso.  The reason why only the upper torso is usually shown in demos and practice videos is because many of the school probably pay very little attention to mobility.




This is the reason so many people say you don't find good WC on YouTube, I believe. 

Footwork is everything, you can't be close quarter without superior footwork. Also if practiced correctly there is very high focus on feet/leg awareness in close distance with a lot of drills specifically for it. 

I sadly think there was a problem in how WC was taught and the forms teaching footwork got introduced too late and kept secret to many. As such footwork to a lot of schools is deemed unnecessary when in fact it is a vital key. So people should not spend years on first forms alone.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Concepts are not bound by physical technique, range or power generation.



Some concepts are not expressable in terms of certain physical techniques, ranges or power generations. This is why different systems look different.



Nobody Important said:


> There are many different ways to achieve similar outcomes.



Sometimes so, sometimes not. VT concepts are quite specific and not that open to free creative interpretation.



Nobody Important said:


> Ones approach is determined by their personal beliefs and understandings. This can clearly be seen in how different arts approach defending against a haymaker.



You are talking about system understanding, i.e. concept and principle upon which the system is based- why different systems do different things, not personal understanding



Nobody Important said:


> If your art is missing a concept and the needed concept was added, wouldn't that art now be elevated?



It would depend on the concept and the system. Some ideas are not assimilable into some systems because they cause contradiction with ideas already present. You can't integrate the concept of avoiding blows to the head by slipping, bobbing and weaving very effectively into VT for example because it contradicts llhs, lsjc. Likewise it would be counter productive to integrate VT ideas into BJJ.


----------



## Nobody Important

*Sometimes so, sometimes not. VT concepts are quite specific and not that open to free creative interpretation*.

That can be debated, but I understand where you are coming from and won't disagree outright.


*You are talking about system understanding, i.e. concept and principle upon which the system is based- why different systems do different things, not personal understanding*

Ones level of understanding leads to their interpretation, no argument to be found here. Adherence to specific structural patterns is directly related to interpretation of a concept, but this can be altered with more knowledge.
*
It would depend on the concept and the system. Some ideas are not assimilable into some systems because they cause contradiction with ideas already present. You can't integrate the concept of avoiding blows to the head by slipping, bobbing and weaving very effectively into VT for example because it contradicts llhs, lsjc. Likewise it would be counter productive to integrate VT ideas into BJJ.*

Agree if importing a systems worth of concepts, but I'm not, only one or two key ones that may be missing or beneficial. I think you may be confusing structure with concept, perhaps not. We only have to look to MMA to see that integrating different concepts can and do work, otherwise it wouldn't be mixed martial arts. Now some purist may say that integrating something into an art changes it to where it is no longer that art. I disagree. CMA masters have a vast history of borrowing from other styles to give their respective arts an edge or specific identity. This doesn't mean because they did so that they no longer practice style X. It is because of this innovation specifically that we have family systems of specific arts, it's why there are so many branches of WC. People interpret and apply according to their understanding. This changes all the time, with knowledge comes understanding.


----------



## yak sao

So I'm curious , how have you integrated fung gar into your WC?
 Did it fill some gaps that were there or just enhance some attributes that were already there.


----------



## geezer

Three* core concepts* of DTE (Direct Torres Escrima/ Direct Torres Extreme-MMA): 1. _Establishing Advantageous Position and Range_ ("Get an Angle"), 2. _Diamondpoint_ or pin-point transition from parry to attack (shortest path = maximum efficiency), 3. _Continuous Forward Intent_ (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating).

DTE founder Martin Torres, his head-coach Jeff La Torre, and their staff help apply these concepts to boxing, grappling, Escrima, ...even to VT. He coaches people from diverse backgrounds using these concepts and helps us all become move effective in what we do. Each in our own way. It's possible because the concepts apply universally, whereas techniques are situationally specific responses.

Maybe this is the sort of thing the OP was talking about?


----------



## Nobody Important

yak sao said:


> So I'm curious , how have you integrated fung gar into your WC?
> Did it fill some gaps that were there or just enhance some attributes that were already there.


No, I did not. I do not study or know Fung Gar. I used it as an example of an art of concepts that has survived until today. The question I asked was what if Wing Chun had never developed forms? Would the infighting surrounding purity be as extensive as it is today? All other comments have been supporting comments to questions asked.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> Three* core concepts* of DTE (Direct Torres Escrima/ Direct Torres Extreme-MMA): 1. _Establishing Advantageous Position and Range_ ("Get an Angle"), 2. _Diamondpoint_ or pin-point transition from parry to attack (shortest path = maximum efficiency), 3. _Continuous Forward Intent_ (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating).
> 
> DTE founder Martin Torres, his head-coach Jeff La Torre, and their staff help apply these concepts to boxing, grappling, Escrima, ...even to VT. He coaches people from diverse backgrounds using these concepts and helps us all become move effective in what we do. Each in our own way. It's possible because the concepts apply universally, whereas techniques are situationally specific responses.
> 
> Maybe this is the sort of thing the OP was talking about?


Yes this type of thing exactly. I'm afraid my communication skills don't appear up to par. That and people cherry picking, baiting, etc. Lol. Thank you for providing a concise example.


----------



## geezer

Nobody Important said:


> Yes this type of thing exactly. I'm afraid my communication skills don't appear up to par. That and people cherry picking, baiting, etc. Lol. Thank you for providing a concise example.




No worries. There are folks who will argue with you if you say the sky is blue!  Anyway, for what it's worth, I train traditional WC/VT and with the DTE guys. Sometimes the traditional guys don't like it. But they tolerate me.


----------



## yak sao

Nobody Important said:


> No, I did not. I do not study or know Fung Gar. I used it as an example of an art of concepts that has survived until today. The question I asked was what if Wing Chun had never developed forms? Would the infighting surrounding purity be as extensive as it is today? All other comments have been supporting comments to questions asked.



Just a simple question don't get your panties in a wad
If this is something you had done I was genuinely interested and how it worked and what it did for you.


----------



## Nobody Important

yak sao said:


> Just a simple question don't get your panties in a wad
> If this is something you had done I was genuinely interested and how it worked and what it did for you.


No wad, lol. No need to be insulting, as I wasn't trying to come off as sensitive. I was just stating, for the third time now, I do not study it. Thank you for your interest.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> You are looking at very poor examples. But I guess that's a good thing if my opponent knows what MA I train and makes these assumptions about how I might fight them.


Show me a video of what you think is a good example of Wing Chun.


----------



## Nobody Important

JowGaWolf said:


> Show me a video of what you think is a good example of Wing Chun.


Rabbit hole now open! This should get interesting, lol!


----------



## yak sao

Nobody Important said:


> No wad, lol. No need to be insulting, as I wasn't trying to come off as sensitive. I was just stating, for the third time now, I do not study it. Thank you for your interest.



So what you're saying is you don't practice fung gar?...
And I apologize for being insulting


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Nobody Important said:


> What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques,


I have evolved Tan Da and double Tan Shou into "rhino guard". To me the WC Tan Da is like the boxing guard except that you fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Three* core concepts* of DTE (Direct Torres Escrima/ Direct Torres Extreme-MMA): 1. _Establishing Advantageous Position and Range_ ("Get an Angle"), 2. _Diamondpoint_ or pin-point transition from parry to attack (shortest path = maximum efficiency), 3. _Continuous Forward Intent_ (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating).


 #2 doesn't apply to circular fighting systems. For Circular fighting systems it's not the shortest path that determines maximum efficiency. For circular systems it's that path that offers the least amount of resistance.  You can throw a punch at my face as hard as you want and I'll be able to redirect it with less effort than it took for you to throw the punch. The more committed you are to that punch the easier it will be for me to redirect it.  If I redirect your punch I can continue that movement along a circular path to build up momentum to deliver a very hard counter punch. Circular systems try to flow without stopping and starting, which is what you get from a jab that goes forward and then comes back.   Not saying that # 2 is wrong and I'm right. Just pointing out different perspectives of efficiency from a different system

#3 Continuous Forward Intent (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating).  This is the first time I've heard someone express it as Forward Intent instead of Always moving forward. Forward Intent which is totally different than just saying relentless forward pressure. Usually I hear Foward pressure expressed as in always moving forward continuously. You can tell when people in WC have that assumption because they always look as if they are trying to run into their opponent with a series of punches.  Hopefully we'll start seeing the term Forward Intent being used more often because I think that is a more accurate description and it applies to a lot of fighting systems and not just WC.


----------



## Nobody Important

yak sao said:


> So what you're saying is you don't practice fung gar?...
> And I apologize for being insulting


Lol, no problems sir. Thank you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> #3 Continuous Forward Intent


The forward intend is a 2 edges sword. When you move in toward your opponent, you opponent doesn't have to move in toward you. You just save him some extra "footwork".

When I'm tired, I like to play defense. I just wait for my opponent to move in. The moment that my opponent moves in, the moment that I'll attack his leading leg. Since my opponent moves in that leading leg for me, it takes me no effort to get it.


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The forward intend is a 2 edges sword. When you move in toward your opponent, you opponent doesn't have to move in toward you. You just save him some extra "footwork".
> 
> When I'm tired, I like to play defense. I just wait for my opponent to move in. The moment that my opponent moves in, the moment that I'll attack his leading leg. Since my opponent moves in that leading leg for me, it takes me no effort to get it.


This is a fairly common strategy in the fight game. Though one that doesn't have to be used defensively. It's a go to in MMA for take downs, timed right it's very hard to defend.


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have evolved Tan Da and double Tan Shou into "rhino guard". To me the WC Tan Da is like the boxing guard except that you fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory.


How would you define that as a concept and not as a technique? I ask to see if the concept would hold up if a different technique was used for the application.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The forward intend is a 2 edges sword. When you move in toward your opponent, you opponent doesn't have to move in toward you. You just save him some extra "footwork".


  Well forward intent doesn't mean that you are always literally moving forward. This is why I like the term. I can display Forward Intent without actually punching.  I can punch with Forward Intent without actually moving forward.  The concept of focusing to punch then inside of the target vs punching at the surface of the target would be Forward Intent in my book.   I can draw someone in, with the purpose of moving and punching forward while they are moving forward which results in a more effective punch.  To me, in some cases, drawing someone in by moving backward, is forward intent.  Forward Intent could mean that just the body weight moves forward even if the feet do not.   It can also mean as you say and the body (feet and all) is moving forward.

I drill a technique where we punch going backwards and from the start it looks like the drill is totally useless.  At first the students thought it was useless.  Their opinions about the drill changed when we started using the punching pads. All of the students with the pads, including me got hit in the face with the pad because the punches came in harder than one would expect while going backwards.  Form the pad holders eyes we see a person going backwards. From the puncher's eyes they know they are moving backwards but that forward intent makes it feel like you are fighting forward.  For us that backwards movement is more of a re-positioning than a movement backwards.  Sometimes we'll move backwards for the main purpose of moving forward. Real movement backwards often has Backwards Intent with the goal of not engaging.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Nobody Important said:


> How would you define that as a concept and not as a technique? I ask to see if the concept would hold up if a different technique was used for the application.


If you draw a line between your head and your opponent's head, all straight line attack will have to go through that line. If you put both Tan Shou in that straight line, your opponent's straight line attack will have to pass your both Tan Shou before his hands can reach to your head. If you can let your opponent to feel that your arms are in his striking path and make him feel uncomfortable, you are doing the right thing.

This to me, is principle/concept/strategy and not just technique.


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you draw a line between your head and your opponent's head, all straight line attack will have to go through that line. If you put both Tan Shou in that straight line, your opponent's straight line attack will have to pass your both Tan Shou before his hands can reach to your head. If you can let your opponent to feel that your arms are in his striking path and make him feel uncomfortable, you are doing the right thing.
> 
> This to me, is principle/concept/strategy and not just technique.


I understand your thinking here. The only issue I see, and this could just be the illustration, is with arms extended & hands clasped. This creates a triangle that is being attacked at its weak points. In this case the elbows. Shoulders are base, hands apex. Those are the support and power respectively, to neutralize that we are taught to attack the weak point, in this instance the elbow. Are your elbows bent or straight when doing this?


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> You are looking at very poor examples. But I guess that's a good thing if my opponent knows what MA I train and makes these assumptions about how I might fight them.


 To be honest. I don't have to know what MA that you take in order fight you.  None of that is relevant.  I can pretty much tell what system you may fight with just by looking at how you stand.  Kickers tend to stand a certain way, grapplers tend to stand a certain way, and strikers tend to stand a certain way.  It's not just the stance alone but the movement in while in that stance. Things like feet forward, feet pointed to the side, the positioning of the feet all help to give me some idea of what you like to do.  A person can lie to me about what system they fight in, but their stance and footwork will tell on them every time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Nobody Important said:


> to neutralize that we are taught to attack the weak point, in this instance the elbow. Are your elbows bent or straight when doing this?


Both elbows are straight. The beauty of this strategy is when your opponent tries to attack your elbow, he will expose his head for your attack.






When your opponent attacks your elbow, it also gives you a chance to wrap his arm, and ...


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Both elbows are straight. The beauty of this strategy is when your opponent tries to attack your elbow, he will expose his head for your attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When your opponent attacks your elbow, it also gives you a chance to wrap his arm, and ...


I can see how it would be effective on the inside, but am not sold if the attack is coming from the flank. I can see where attacking the elbow while striking the head from the outside could neutralize it. That being said, on the inside it gives you the opponents centerline and is very effective. Thank you.


----------



## geezer

John, I actually like the application of the "Rhino" by your student Keegan better than the way you demonstrated it. Your demo looked like a _drill_. Useful practice, but dangerous in application if your opponent grabs your extended hands and sidesteps, punching from an angle. The version in the 'Keegan" clip uses the "rhino" technique just once to edge inside to execute the throw. He didn't give the other guy any chance to adapt and counter. Nice clip!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Your demo looked like a _drill_.


Any technique X can be developed in different stages.

1. use X in offense only.
2. use X in defense only.
2. use X in both offense and defense.
3. ...


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> John, I actually like the application of the "Rhino" by your student Keegan better than the way you demonstrated it. Your demo looked like a _drill_. Useful practice, but dangerous in application if your opponent grabs your extended hands and sidesteps, punching from an angle. The version in the 'Keegan" clip uses the "rhino" technique just once to edge inside to execute the throw. He didn't give the other guy any chance to adapt and counter. Nice clip!


I don't understand the technique . Everytime i see it want to kick the person and take angles. It seems like an over committed technique.


----------



## Nobody Important

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't understand the technique . Everytime i see it want to kick the person and take angles. It seems like an over committed technique.


To me it appears as a wedge movement, suited for grappling more so than boxing. With modification I can see it being utilized for boxing specifically. But I don't believe it's his intention. I think it is more a defensive cover technique for heavy pressure meant to be used to get inside quickly and wrap as in the second video. Kinda reminds me of Muay Thai kiep and Wing Chun double neck detaining hands. Of course those are applied after entering and not before.


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> Show me a video of what you think is a good example of Wing Chun.



No. I like you keeping the assumptions you have now.



JowGaWolf said:


> To be honest. I don't have to know what MA that you take in order fight you.  None of that is relevant.  I can pretty much tell what system you may fight with just by looking at how you stand.  Kickers tend to stand a certain way, grapplers tend to stand a certain way, and strikers tend to stand a certain way.  It's not just the stance alone but the movement in while in that stance. Things like feet forward, feet pointed to the side, the positioning of the feet all help to give me some idea of what you like to do.  A person can lie to me about what system they fight in, but their stance and footwork will tell on them every time.



You think you can tell by the way I stand that there's an "80% chance" I'm unaware of my feet and will have limited mobility, and that I intend to control your arms and run in with chain punches?

Even if you knew what MA I do that would all be false, and I don't stand in a typical WC robot guard.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> No. I like you keeping the assumptions you have now.


Here's another assumption for you.  You won't show a video that shows a good example of Wing Chun because you don't want me to point out point out the very things that I put in my statement.



LFJ said:


> You think you can tell by the way I stand that there's an "80% chance" I'm unaware of my feet and will have limited mobility, and that I intend to control your arms and run in with chain punches?


Every system has stance requirements.  Boxer stand one way, Grapplers stand another. Along with the stances are movements that are best suited for the stance and the technique to be used. Boxers move one way and Grapplers move a different way.  
*Can I tell if you are unaware of your feet?* Most definitely as that's the easiest thing to pick out in a person. 
*Can I tell if you will have limited mobility?*  Yes I can and not only that I can tell how far you can retreat and which directions you'll be less mobile in based on the stance that you take.
*Can I tell that you intend to control your arms?* Yes.  Most WC practitioners tend to make no effort to hide that they are WC. Their stance is such that it allows them to do WC movement and WC technique. This is especially true for any WC practitioners who have a purist mindset.  WC stance and movement is unique in comparison to other fighting systems and WC practitioners are proud of that and don't mind having the body position that screams "I am Wing Chun."  For those who aren't purist, the practitioners may have a different stance that resembles more of wider fighting stance. In those cases the stances will still show traces of WC. For example, this guy's stance still has traces of Wing Chun. 





Same with this guy







LFJ said:


> Even if you knew what MA I do that would all be false


 To be honest I don't pay attention to people when they tell me what fighting system they do. People tend to lie from their mouth and not their stance.


----------



## LFJ




----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Your demo looked like a _drill_.





Nobody Important said:


> To me it appears as a wedge movement, suited for grappling more so than boxing. With modification I can see it being utilized for boxing specifically. But I don't believe it's his intention. I think it is more a defensive cover technique for heavy pressure meant to be used to get inside quickly and wrap as in the second video. Kinda reminds me of Muay Thai kiep and Wing Chun double neck detaining hands. Of course those are applied after entering and not before.


When I was 4 years old, my cousin was in the army. He taught me a technique that when your opponent uses both hands to choke on your throat,

- you hold both hands into a "big fist",
- move that "big fist" straight up between your opponent's arms as a "wedge",
- break that choke hold,
- grab your opponent's head, and
- smash your knee into it.

That was the 1st MA technique that I had learned in my life.

So the "rhino guard - big fist" functions well to "separate your opponent's arms away from his body". It also give you a good head protection when you do that.

You are also right. It's designed for a wrestler who doesn't have much boxing skill but need to deal with a boxer in MMA game. If that wrestler can get into a clinch (such as head lock, or double over hooks) after his boxer opponent's 1st, or 2nd punch, the striking game will stop and the grappling game will start.


----------



## guy b.

JowGaWolf said:


> Most WC practitioners tend to make no effort to hide that they are WC. Their stance is such that it allows them to do WC movement and WC technique. This is especially true for any WC practitioners who have a purist mindset.  WC stance and movement is unique in comparison to other fighting systems and WC practitioners are proud of that and don't mind having the body position that screams "I am Wing Chun.



Postings show you have no clue how VT functions and are not open to hearing it when offered. Is the jow ga forum a bit quiet?


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b. said:


> Postings show you have no clue how VT functions and are not open to hearing it when offered. Is the jow ga forum a bit quiet?


I don't know why you think I'm not open to hearing it when it's offered especially when my posting says this:


JowGaWolf said:


> Show me a video of what you think is a good example of Wing Chun.


 I have yet to see someone post a video to show that what I say is so wrong and off base.

All you have to do is show me a video that you think is a good example of Wing Chun.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> ....Most WC practitioners tend to make no effort to hide that they are WC. Their stance is such that it allows them to do WC movement and WC technique. This is especially true for any WC practitioners who have a purist mindset.



OMG, You said_ that?!? 
_
...Well OK, that's pretty much my experience too. Not sure why this has Guy riled up.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> OMG, You said_ that?!?
> _
> ...Well OK, that's pretty much my experience too. Not sure why this has Guy riled up.


Yep and I'm still waiting on LFJ and now Guy, to show me a video example of what they think is good Wing Chun.  If they can't find one then maybe they can record themselves doing good Wing Chun.


----------



## LFJ

I already said no, I like you keeping the assumptions you have now. I don't care if you think all Wing Chun sucks.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I don't care if you think all Wing Chun sucks.



Yeah. It's terrible the things that darn _Jow Ga_ guy says, like how all Wing Chun sucks.  ...Oh, wait, ...I guess_ he didn't say that _after all. My bad!


----------



## Phobius

geezer said:


> Yeah. It's terrible the things that darn _Jow Ga_ guy says, like how all Wing Chun sucks.  ...Oh, wait, ...I guess_ he didn't say that _after all. My bad!



But he does bring up a good point, a majority of the WC schools at least displaying themselves online and getting clicks (and as such become the only clips we see on YouTube) have seemingly fallen into the pit of doing SLT first for along time, moving on to Chum Kiu and believing this is teaching you the full footwork of WC. And then spending some years here before moving onto the next forms.

Imagine how we would all be fighting if CK was our bible for movement. (EDIT: Not saying CK teaches wrongly, it teaches good structure for stances, but I do not see it as the vision of WC footwork)

This is of course not how I was taught, and if someone was taught the way I am bashing here. Well I do not say it is bad footwork but I do not believe it personally to be good if it was for me personally. However I do want to highlight that moving in such a way is very telegraphic in terms of quickly understanding what style we practise.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Yeah. It's terrible the things that darn _Jow Ga_ guy says, like how all Wing Chun sucks.  ...Oh, wait, ...I guess_ he didn't say that _after all. My bad!



He said 80% chance. My bad!


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> He said 80% chance. My bad!



Yeah, last Thursday in post #36 Jow Ga saidd the following regarding the WC clips he had seen on Youtube:



JowGaWolf said:


> An *80% chance of lack of awareness of their own footing *because of the focus trying to flood punches to my face. I'm pretty sure about this one because there are very few videos showing Wing Chun footwork. Most Wing Chun videos show only the upper torso. The reason why only the upper torso is usually shown in demos and practice videos is because many of the school probably pay very little attention to mobility.



I also believe this to be untrue, but honestly, this is _not _the same as saying that 80% of VT/WC sucks!!!

Regarding footwork, the VT/WC I practice places _great emphasis _on footwork and mobility. But it is a style of movement that is very distinct from long-bridge kung-fu systems, and it's methods are probably pretty unfamiliar to _Jow Ga. _

For one thing, although we can move quickly in any direction, we are known for compact rather than long-range movements. My old sifu said that a WC man is like the king on the chess-board. He moves easily in any direction, but only a distance of one square. We do have passing-steps and three-angle walking that cover more ground, but they are not so commonly used.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Yeah, last Thursday in post #36 Jow Ga saidd the following regarding the WC clips he had seen on Youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe this to be untrue, but honestly, this is _not _the same as saying that 80% of VT/WC sucks!!!
> 
> Regarding footwork, the VT/WC I practice places _great emphasis _on footwork and mobility. But it is a style of movement that is very distinct from long-bridge kung-fu systems, and it's methods are probably pretty unfamiliar to _Jow Ga. _
> 
> For one thing, although we can move quickly in any direction, we are known for compact rather than long-range movements. My old sifu said that a WC man is like the king on the chess-board. He moves easily in any direction, but only a distance of one square. We do have passing-steps and three-angle walking that cover more ground, but they are not so commonly used.


Thank you, that was the most I've ever heard any one speak of in terms of WC footwork and it makes sense to me. Do you know of any videos that show this movement? I found one a long time ago and haven't been able to find it lately.   Movement in long fist systems travel quite a distance. The idea seems to be able to be out of range by about an arms length and suddenly be on top of some one with attacks. We also shorten such long distances by using our opponent's forward motion.  The rapid closing of distance will usually catch the opponent off guard.

I've been watching short movement used by boxers but their stance makes it difficult to do Jow Ga techniques with solid footing.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> I also believe this to be untrue, but honestly, this is _not _the same as saying that 80% of VT/WC sucks!!!



If you lack awareness of your own footing, you suck.

If there's an 80% chance of this being the case for any Wing Chun practitioner, then there's an 80% chance that all Wing Chun sucks.

That's the implication of his argument. I don't believe it is untrue. It's probably more like 90%, but there is still another 10% and I don't mind if he thinks I belong to the 80 or 90%. I don't care to prove the 10% to him.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> If you lack awareness of your own footing, you suck.


 Doesn't mean that the person sucks. It means that the person may have tunnel vision and when you get tunnel vision you pay less attention to other parts of your body.  If you are so focused on hitting someone in the face then your focus is drawn away from your legs and more towards the target you are hitting.  Tunnel vision can pop up for a short period of time or it can pop up and stay through out the length of the fight. Tunnel vision can affect any fighting system and any fighter. Some fighting systems are more aware than others, but only because their legs get attacked often
To prove my point:
Both are Wing Chun, but only one practitioner is more aware of his legs. More specifically aware of his footing.  





You may have also notice that one practitioner's footing is more stable than the other. Who seems to have a stance that is always trying to seek a root "tap dancing feet."

To be honest I don't know what percentage you belong to and never made claim that I did.  I also never lumped you into the 80% or the 20% grouping.  You did that on your own based on comments that I often see from Wing Chun practitioners on Youtube.  You could have very easily put yourself in the category of the 20% that doesn't fit the characteristics that I pointed out as what I saw.  

Geezer did exactly that and he clearly stated that he didn't fall in the 80% comment that I made.  In addition he told me that he thought I was wrong.  You know what I didn't do.  I didn't sit here and try to tell him that I think he doesn't have good footwork.  I didn't try to tell him that his system sucks.  I accepted what he said and even thanked him for explaining how he views the footwork.  You could have easily done the same.  

Oh by the way.  Based on that video that I posted I'm currently at 50%.  I wonder how close I'll get to 80% if I look at 9 more random videos of Wing Chun sparring against someone who attacks the legs.


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> Doesn't mean that the person sucks.



I disagree.



> To be honest I don't know what percentage you belong to and never made claim that I did.  I also never lumped you into the 80% or the 20% grouping.



You already said you assume that there's an "80% chance" Wing Chun practitioners from "any lineage" will be unaware of their feet and will have limited mobility, and that they intend to control your arms and run in with chain punches.

So, you assume this about me then without knowing how I stand, move, or what my fighting strategy is, only based on what you think you know about Wing Chun from Youtube videos and knowing that I practice some form of Wing Chun.

That's incredibly stupid.

If you can safely assume there's an 80% chance that practitioners from any Wing Chun lineage suck so badly as to blindly run straight in with no awareness of their feet, why bother spending so much time doing homework on them? You've already determined they'll likely be easy opponents. The rest you can deal with as they come. You should move on to researching other opponents.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> If you can safely assume there's an 80% chance that practitioners from any Wing Chun lineage suck so badly as to blindly run straight in with no awareness of their feet, why bother spending so much time doing homework on them?


You are the only person here that is saying that not being aware of one's feet (footwork, stance, etc) = "you suck."


----------



## LFJ

And lacking mobility, you said.

If someone isn't aware of their feet and lacks mobility, the likelihood of getting whooped is quite high. You still think they're pretty good if they're always getting beat because of this?


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> And lacking mobility, you said.
> 
> If someone isn't aware of their feet and lacks mobility, the likelihood of getting whooped is quite high. You still think they're pretty good if they're always getting beat because of this?


Only if someone attacks their legs.  It's still possible for someone with bad footwork, bad mobility to still knock other people out and win fights.  It happens all the time. But it rarely happens when someone attacks their legs.  It's a good tactic to attack the legs of a person who isn't aware of their feet and lacks mobility. You attack people where they are weak and not where they are strong.  If a Muay Thai fighter sees that you have weak legs and bad mobility, you can be pretty sure that he or she is going to kick your legs until you can't stand.  There's no reason to attack the head because that's not the weakest point.  Here's a video of people who don't suck but were unaware of their legs. People who like doing sweeps, low leg kicks, trips, and shoots for the legs understand the benefit of doing these things when people are aware of their feet.







LFJ said:


> You've already determined they'll likely be easy opponents.


If you fight people where they are weak then your battle will be easier.  If you fight people where they are strong then your battle will be extremely difficult.


----------



## LFJ

You got Wing Chun figured out then. Sweep the leg! 

You should move on now.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ....You already said you assume that there's an "80% chance" Wing Chun practitioners from "any lineage" will be unaware of their feet and will have limited mobility, and that they intend to control your arms and run in with chain punches.
> 
> So, you assume this about me then without knowing how I stand, move, or what my fighting strategy is, only based on what you think you know about Wing Chun from Youtube videos and knowing that I practice some form of Wing Chun.
> 
> *That's incredibly stupid.*



Boy, somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! 







FWIW I don't think _Jow Ga_ was even talking about you. Wasn't he talking about _Youtube clips?_


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> Boy, somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW I don't think _Jow Ga_ was even talking about you. Wasn't he talking about _Youtube clips?_



For VT it is great if Jow Ga Wolf believes what he sees on youtube.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> For VT it is great if Jow Ga Wolf believes what he sees on youtube.



See _that's_ the ticket. Look for the _positive _side of everything! 

On another subject, here's something that recently occurred to me.  If everyone except you and LJF quit posting on the WC forum for a while, you and LJF would be fighting with each other within about 15 minutes. That would be fun to watch.      Or maybe not.


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b. said:


> For VT it is great if Jow Ga Wolf believes what he sees on youtube.


Feel free to show a video example of what you think is a Good Wing Chun.


----------



## guy b.

JowGaWolf said:


> Feel free to show a video example of what you think is a Good Wing Chun.



To what purpose?


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> You are the only person here that is saying that not being aware of one's feet (footwork, stance, etc) = "you suck."


I believe his term is wrong but I get where he is going.  I would say the practitioner is unprepared.  Tunnel vision, if it is not simply a product of not being confident in your technique so you are thinking only about your hands, is often a product of physiology.

The human heart beat, in a combat situation, has a sweet spot, on average, of between 115-145 BPM.  If you go above this range you literally get tunnel vision.  Your brain simply stops working correctly, so coordinating hand and foot work becomes an issue, and unlike some other Martial Arts WC, in my experience, has a fair amount of fine muscle movements which exacerbate the coordination issue.

There are ways around this, build (and maintaining muscle memory) and practicing tactical breathing mitigate the issues tremendously.  This physiological issue is tremendously important because in training, light contact sparring, dummy training etc we could do everything perfectly, including footwork, but in a real fight or, depending on your mind set, full contact sparring, that heart rate has to potential to throw it all out the window.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Juany118 said:


> I believe his term is wrong but I get where he is going.  I would say the practitioner is unprepared.  Tunnel vision, if it is not simply a product of not being confident in your technique so you are thinking only about your hands, is often a product of physiology.
> 
> The human heart beat, in a combat situation, has a sweet spot, on average, of between 115-145 BPM.  If you go above this range you literally get tunnel vision.  Your brain simply stops working correctly, so coordinating hand and foot work becomes an issue, and unlike some other Martial Arts WC, in my experience, has a fair amount of fine muscle movements which exacerbate the coordination issue.
> 
> There are ways around this, build (and maintaining muscle memory) and practicing tactical breathing mitigate the issues tremendously.  This physiological issue is tremendously important because in training, light contact sparring, dummy training etc we could do everything perfectly, including footwork, but in a real fight or, depending on your mind set, full contact sparring, that heart rate has to potential to throw it all out the window.



Adrenaline robs you of a huge amount of fine motor skills. 145 Bpm you begin to lose fine motor skills and when you hit 180 + only gross motor skills are available. It doesn't matter how great your wooden dummy form looks, all those clean movements are robbed from you due to the adrenaline dump. Auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are very common side effects also. 

I'm not sure how much this is covered in tcma, I have never been to a Wc class where the instructor took the time to discuss the effects pre-fight/in-fight/post-fight adrenaline on ones skills. It's the main reason a lot of martial artists look like "bad kickboxers" when the sh@t hits the fan. And the worse thing about it is that it's very hard to re-create the pure shock of an adrenaline dump in regular training. I've attended rbsd courses where they go through scenario training in an attempt to get the old adrenaline going but even that ain't the same. Apart from real fighting, doorwork has been the only experience I've had where I got to "enjoy" exposure to adrenaline now and again. It sucks.


----------



## Juany118

SaulGoodman said:


> Adrenaline robs you of a huge amount of fine motor skills. 145 Bpm you begin to lose fine motor skills and when you hit 180 + only gross motor skills are available. It doesn't matter how great your wooden dummy form looks, all those clean movements are robbed from you due to the adrenaline dump. Auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are very common side effects also.
> 
> I'm not sure how much this is covered in tcma, I have never been to a Wc class where the instructor took the time to discuss the effects pre-fight/in-fight/post-fight adrenaline on ones skills. It's the main reason a lot of martial artists look like "bad kickboxers" when the sh@t hits the fan. And the worse thing about it is that it's very hard to re-create the pure shock of an adrenaline dump in regular training. I've attended rbsd courses where they go through scenario training in an attempt to get the old adrenaline going but even that ain't the same. Apart from real fighting, doorwork has been the only experience I've had where I got to "enjoy" exposure to adrenaline now and again. It sucks.




Which is why first getting that muscle memory and then maintaining it is so important.  You can get fine motor memory but it is perishable as all hell.  I use, as an example, a soldier in combat.  Clearing misfeeds, reloading and hitting the slide lock?  These are fine motor skills BUT they MUST be maintained, not just built.

The tactical breathing is also important.  Some would be surprised how much your breathing can effect your heart rate.  I count myself lucky.  My WC Sifu used to be an Operator serving high risk Drug Warrants in Baltimore and is now a Law Enforcement Consultant/Instructor.  He thus teaches WC (and Inosanto Kali) from a Combative Perspective and he makes sure he teaches this stuff though,  as an occupational hazard I had to learn it already, reinforcement never hurts.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Dans very cool, met him a long time ago. A walking encyclopedia of knowledge !


----------



## LFJ

SaulGoodman said:


> Adrenaline robs you of a huge amount of fine motor skills. 145 Bpm you begin to lose fine motor skills and when you hit 180 + only gross motor skills are available. It doesn't matter how great your wooden dummy form looks, all those clean movements are robbed from you due to the adrenaline dump. Auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are very common side effects also.



And yet, in a high speed, high stress situation where fine motor skills are lost, some people still think they're going to stick, yield, and use "sensitivity" to manipulate arms! That whole strategy is based on one of the first things to disappear as soon as speed increases, never mind stress levels.

And our VT is called one-dimensional because we focus on simple things that actually work under real pressure.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> And yet, in a high speed, high stress situation where fine motor skills are lost, some people still think they're going to stick, yield, and use "sensitivity" to manipulate arms! That whole strategy is based on one of the first things to disappear as soon as speed increases, never mind stress levels.
> 
> And our VT is called one-dimensional because we focus on simple things that actually work under real pressure.


Fine motor skills can be turned into muscle memory and that is  large part of over coming this issue.  The problem is they degrade quickly without constant reinforcement. If this was not the case modern armies would collapse in battle because firearm use is all about fine motor skills.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> I'm not sure how much this is covered in tcma, I have never been to a Wc class where the instructor took the time to discuss the effects pre-fight/in-fight/post-fight adrenaline on ones skills. It's the main reason a lot of martial artists look like "bad kickboxers" when the sh@t hits the fan.



Remember: you are pretending to be a wing chun guy on this forum


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> Remember: you are pretending to be a wing chun guy on this forum



You really are a sad little man aren't you, did you not get much attention when you were a child or something?


----------



## SaulGoodman

Juany118 said:


> Fine motor skills can be turned into muscle memory and that is  large part of over coming this issue.  The problem is they degrade quickly without constant reinforcement. If this was not the case modern armies would collapse in battle because firearm use is all about fine motor skills.



This is why training your art under "battlefield conditions" is so important.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> Fine motor skills can be turned into muscle memory and that is  large part of over coming this issue.  The problem is they degrade quickly without constant reinforcement. If this was not the case modern armies would collapse in battle because firearm use is all about fine motor skills.


Muscle memory is like language. The less you use it the more it degrades.  It may not completely disappear but it definitely degrades

I think of all the things I did as a teenager, roller skate, roller blade, skateboard, BMX tricks on my bike, playing pool, playing ping pong, playing baseball, etc.  I can't do half of these things now simply because I stop doing it, and as a result my abilities degraded.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> And our VT is called one-dimensional because we focus on simple things that actually work under real pressure.



What?  You don't think those layers and layers of "abstract" thought and training are also going to go out the window under real pressure???    You don't think all the "abstract" principles from your entire dummy form are going to go out the window under real pressure???


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> What?  You don't think those layers and layers of "abstract" thought and training are also going to go out the window under real pressure??? You don't think all the "abstract" principles from your entire dummy form are going to go out the window under real pressure???



Train hard, fight easy. 

The conceptual base is simple, yet profound. Easy to understand, difficult to internalise. It holds up very well under pressure once you have it. This is what all the training is for; what the system is for.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> You



You aren't sure how much this is covered in tcma? You haven't been to a VT class where the instructor discussed it? Lol


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> Train hard, fight easy.
> 
> The conceptual base is simple, yet profound. Easy to understand, difficult to internalise. It holds up very well under pressure once you have it. This is what all the training is for; what the system is for.



There's no such thing as an easy fight, you talk like the classical "theoretical fighter" that the martial arts world is plagued with. Fighting is ugly, frightening and visceral. Throwing out sound bites like "train hard fight easy" speaks volumes about your practical experience. Keep your advice to yourself if this is the best you have.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> You aren't sure how much this is covered in tcma? You haven't been to a VT class where the instructor discussed it? Lol



LOL? I think I can hear your mother shouting in the background to get off the internet because you're using too much of her monthly bandwidth limit...


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> There's no such thing as an easy fight, you talk like the classical "theoretical fighter" that the martial arts world is plagued with. Fighting is ugly, frightening and visceral. Throwing out sound bites like "train hard fight easy" speaks volumes about your practical experience. Keep your advice to yourself if this is the best you have.



Fighting is easier if you train hard. The only way to internalise VT is to train a lot; it is not a fast process. But once internalised the approach to the fight is both simple and resilient under pressure.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> LOL?



Yes lol. You need to be more convincing.


----------



## LFJ

SaulGoodman said:


> There's no such thing as an easy fight, you talk like the classical "theoretical fighter" that the martial arts world is plagued with. Fighting is ugly, frightening and visceral. Throwing out sound bites like "train hard fight easy" speaks volumes about your practical experience. Keep your advice to yourself if this is the best you have.



This is an aged military maxim... Another version is "Hard training - easy combat; easy training - hard combat". 

The quote is attributed to Alexander Suvorov who "_is one of the greatest generals in history and is one of the few who never lost a battle, being undefeated in over 60 large battles while frequently having the numerical disadvantage_".

Go tell him what volumes about practical experience his sound bite speaks!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> What?  You don't think those layers and layers of "abstract" thought and training are also going to go out the window under real pressure???    You don't think all the "abstract" principles from your entire dummy form are going to go out the window under real pressure???



What layers and layers?

Of course simple principles are more reliable than "sensitivity" at high speeds, never mind high stress levels.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> What layers and layers?
> 
> Of course simple principles are more reliable than "sensitivity" at high speeds, never mind high stress levels.



Just wanted to add "sensitivity" at high speeds are part of a muscle memory. You have it without knowing it probably yourself because I seriously doubt your VT is that different. Whenever your opponent makes another decision quickly you automatically adjust to handle it, whether it be to punch straight through or to move around finding new ways.

Your mind during all that "sensitivity" training is not on what you are suppose to do when you feel something, your reaction will be there no matter if you think about something else or not.

To say "sensitivity" is not reliable at high speeds is true to those that lose their mind during high stress levels, fact is those people will lose all training whether it is from VT or WC. Reason being you can't fight when your mind is in turmoil.

You are saying simple principles, these are not the regular principles of VT? Those have to be trained into your body prior to fighting. You can't think of your principles when fighting, you have to fight naturally. Principles are part of training you to fight a certain way naturally.


----------



## Juany118

SaulGoodman said:


> This is why training your art under "battlefield conditions" is so important.


That was the entire point of the post I had made previously where I discussed ways to cope with the stress.  The post you quote is more simply showing that every modern army has to cope with the issue and as such the tools/methods of coping are rather well documented.


----------



## yak sao

Phobius said:


> you can't fight when your mind is in turmoil.



Which makes SNT a vital part of the equation.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Just wanted to add "sensitivity" at high speeds are part of a muscle memory.



Sensitivity is defined by some as _ting-ging_, "listening to energy", the ability to feel and interpret your opponent's energy through contact. It has nothing to do with muscle memory, because it's not an action but a sensation.



> Whenever your opponent makes another decision quickly you automatically adjust to handle it, whether it be to punch straight through or to move around finding new ways.



That's done through spatial awareness and LSJC. It should be built into muscle memory, but has nothing to do with "sensitivity" as defined above.



> Your mind during all that "sensitivity" training is not on what you are suppose to do when you feel something, your reaction will be there no matter if you think about something else or not.
> 
> To say "sensitivity" is not reliable at high speeds is true to those that lose their mind during high stress levels, fact is those people will lose all training whether it is from VT or WC. Reason being you can't fight when your mind is in turmoil.



When the heart rate is elevated to the point of causing fine motor/sensory impairment, you can forget about sensing subtle tactile information and reacting appropriately.

Even if you are able to train to retain fine motor control, there's simply no time to be feeling arms that are throwing a barrage of punches at you.

Still, VT skills will be available because they are based on simple principles of movement that take advantage of more gross motor skills like... stepping and punching.



> You are saying simple principles, these are not the regular principles of VT? Those have to be trained into your body prior to fighting. You can't think of your principles when fighting, you have to fight naturally. Principles are part of training you to fight a certain way naturally.



The regular principles of VT are simple, are they not? Of course it takes hard training even for simple stuff to not break down under real pressure.

All the more complex stuff that relies on relaxation, arm contact, and sensing energy is not reliable at high speeds and stress levels. If even simple things like footwork and elbow control can fail, this type of stuff is pure fantasy.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Sensitivity is defined by some as _ting-ging_, "listening to energy", the ability to feel and interpret your opponent's energy through contact. It has nothing to do with muscle memory, because it's not an action but a sensation.



I thought this would be obvious. Muscle memory needs a trigger, the feel is the trigger. That ability to react will only occur if forward intent is present, without forward intent at least I am unable to connect it as a triggering point.



LFJ said:


> That's done through spatial awareness and LSJC. It should be built into muscle memory, but has nothing to do with "sensitivity" as defined above.



I do not disagree that spatial awareness is also one important thing.





LFJ said:


> When the heart rate is elevated to the point of causing fine motor/sensory impairment, you can forget about sensing subtle tactile information and reacting appropriately.
> 
> Even if you are able to train to retain fine motor control, there's simply no time to be feeling arms that are throwing a barrage of punches at you.
> 
> Still, VT skills will be available because they are based on simple principles of movement that take advantage of more gross motor skills like... stepping and punching.



You talk as if a system can only have one thing, there may be a barrage of punches. At least some will touch parts of the arm(s). Other skills are also necessary like stepping, footwork in general, positioning, body movements and so on. But all skills have their area of importance.

If your only target was to fight a boxer in a ring then perhaps I would call sensitivity one of the least used skills in most cases. But it is not the only scenario. Same feeling in your entire body is trained for BJJ artists. They will feel when and how the opponent moves and as soon as there is an opening without even seeing anything, they will be there attacking that opening.

Also even during adrenaline rush your senses are there, in some cases even enhanced. The problem is not your senses, it is when you become unfocused in your mind, as soon as your mind gets in the way filling your head with thoughts that is the time when you are in trouble. Fortunately this is something you can actually train yourself not to do. Of course there are those who think things like meditation have no part in martial arts but the key is to learn to control your mind so it wont get in your way when fighting.



LFJ said:


> The regular principles of VT are simple, are they not? Of course it takes hard training even for simple stuff to not break down under real pressure.



Not saying they are not, but interpreting them into each scenario causes your mind to be filled with thoughts of what you should do. That means you will always be fighting one second behind your opponent. If it is not already a part of your muscles then you have no use for it, it is in fact so embedded you do not know anything else. This is what makes it simple, but in truth what actually happens is that the concepts are not part of you when fighting, your training is and everything that has become the norm for you will be there automatically.

This is the risk of early sparring as well, people will fall back to those things they think is norm. Often boxing looking style, their newly trained structure and techniques/concepts go out the window because it is not trained nearly as long as they have had their idea that fighting is like boxing. If the spar as if boxer they despite constantly training their new thing will each time it is sparring bring back the old again. Some but not all may extend the time it actually takes before they can use what they were taught in actual combat.



LFJ said:


> All the more complex stuff that relies on relaxation, arm contact, and sensing energy is not reliable at high speeds and stress levels. If even simple things like footwork and elbow control can fail, this type of stuff is pure fantasy.



Learn to relax your mind, clear it of thought. Not only important in this case, also when you drive a car and are about to get hit by another car. At that instant in time when your brain realize the problem your mind should be a blank, this ironically leaves you the time to weigh your options and select best way of handling the crash that is incoming. Sadly part of how I realized the value of clear mind. 

So fantasy it is not, just because you can not do it. It is neither hard nor complex. But you do not train to do it since it is not part of your VT and as such it should be impossible for you. It simply is not part of your muscles and being as a whole.

Not even saying it is better in any way, it is just a tool that is useful in some situations, less so in others.


----------



## Juany118

Phobius said:


> I thought this would be obvious. Muscle memory needs a trigger, the feel is the trigger. That ability to react will only occur if forward intent is present, without forward intent at least I am unable to connect it as a triggering point.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not disagree that spatial awareness is also one important thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk as if a system can only have one thing, there may be a barrage of punches. At least some will touch parts of the arm(s). Other skills are also necessary like stepping, footwork in general, positioning, body movements and so on. But all skills have their area of importance.
> 
> If your only target was to fight a boxer in a ring then perhaps I would call sensitivity one of the least used skills in most cases. But it is not the only scenario. Same feeling in your entire body is trained for BJJ artists. They will feel when and how the opponent moves and as soon as there is an opening without even seeing anything, they will be there attacking that opening.
> 
> Also even during adrenaline rush your senses are there, in some cases even enhanced. The problem is not your senses, it is when you become unfocused in your mind, as soon as your mind gets in the way filling your head with thoughts that is the time when you are in trouble. Fortunately this is something you can actually train yourself not to do. Of course there are those who think things like meditation have no part in martial arts but the key is to learn to control your mind so it wont get in your way when fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying they are not, but interpreting them into each scenario causes your mind to be filled with thoughts of what you should do. That means you will always be fighting one second behind your opponent. If it is not already a part of your muscles then you have no use for it, it is in fact so embedded you do not know anything else. This is what makes it simple, but in truth what actually happens is that the concepts are not part of you when fighting, your training is and everything that has become the norm for you will be there automatically.
> 
> This is the risk of early sparring as well, people will fall back to those things they think is norm. Often boxing looking style, their newly trained structure and techniques/concepts go out the window because it is not trained nearly as long as they have had their idea that fighting is like boxing. If the spar as if boxer they despite constantly training their new thing will each time it is sparring bring back the old again. Some but not all may extend the time it actually takes before they can use what they were taught in actual combat.
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to relax your mind, clear it of thought. Not only important in this case, also when you drive a car and are about to get hit by another car. At that instant in time when your brain realize the problem your mind should be a blank, this ironically leaves you the time to weigh your options and select best way of handling the crash that is incoming. Sadly part of how I realized the value of clear mind.
> 
> So fantasy it is not, just because you can not do it. It is neither hard nor complex. But you do not train to do it since it is not part of your VT and as such it should be impossible for you. It simply is not part of your muscles and being as a whole.
> 
> Not even saying it is better in any way, it is just a tool that is useful in some situations, less so in others.



You are both kinda right and kinda wrong.  You are right in that senses are heightened with elevated heart rate when under the effect of adrenaline, even reflexes and control are enhanced. On average that is in the 115 to 145 BPM.  As you go above 145 however things start to degrade because your nervous system is simply becoming overwhelmed by the hormonal cascade brought on by fight or flight.

Where I think LFJ is wrong, if I am not misunderstanding him, is that this can't be dealt with, it can be.  This is where getting the fine motor control muscle memory comes in. If it didn't work the modern army would fall apart as soon as combat starts as firearms use in modern warfare is all about fine motor control.  Now what you have to remember here is that with fine motor skills it's not just enough to learn them like gross motor skills, it is NOT like riding a bike, the skills must be constantly practiced because fine motor control memory is highly perishable.

Second tactical breathing.  If you practice tactical breathing so it becomes second nature this actually will lower your heart rate under stress.  Your heart rate is increasing because your body is saying "crap it's fight or flight I need more oxygen!!!!!!!" Proper tactical breathing means that your body is getting more oxygen out of the gate and then, along with a good cardio program, your body uses oxygen more efficiently (by strength in the heart and lungs) so the heart rate stays lower.  This together with the muscle memory means your will be far more capable of using whatever your chosen art it effectively under the stress of a real hostile encounter.

Now I also suggest one additional thing, and it will sound weird.  One other effect of a high hr is that you will get literal tunnel vision, your field of view narrows.  The suggestion?  Buy a cheap Halloween mask and do some training with it.  This will limit your field of vision and force you to adopt scanning methods in order to have full situational address.  Seems weird but until you are used to scanning "natural" the mask is a useful tool as it basically forces you to do it.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Where I think LFJ is wrong, if I am not misunderstanding him, is that this can't be dealt with, it can be.  This is where getting the fine motor control muscle memory comes in. If it didn't work the modern army would fall apart as soon as combat starts as firearms use in modern warfare is all about fine motor control.  Now what you have to remember here is that with fine motor skills it's not just enough to learn them like gross motor skills, it is NOT like riding a bike, the skills must be constantly practiced because fine motor control memory is highly perishable.



Didn't say loss of fine motor skills can't be dealt with.

As I said toward the end of my previous post;_ Even if you are able to train to retain fine motor control, there's simply no time to be feeling arms that are throwing a barrage of punches at you.
_
Of course you can train to inoculate yourself against stress to an extent (breath control, as you explain, is an important part), but this addresses the loss of fine motor control, which is less important for fist fighting, since we don't need to do anything like flip off a safety (fine) before we can punch someone (gross).

But at high speeds, like I said, there's simply no time to be feeling and interpreting energies regardless of stress levels.

Phobius draws an analogy to BJJ where sensitivity is something practical. But ground fighting is an entirely different situation from fist fighting. In ground grappling you have the luxury of time to be patient, feel, and wait for the opportunity you need to apply your technique. In a standing fist fight, there is no such prolonged _chi-sau_-esque arm contact.

I can't count the number of people who have come from lineages where the fighting strategy was predicated on such contact and sensitivity and only ever seemed to work for them when they were playing _chi-sau_ with a likeminded classmate. In free fighting, none of that stuff worked anymore because there was no such contact to work from. So, all the muscle memory didn't matter because it needs a "trigger"– as a Phobius said– a trigger that never comes.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Didn't say loss of fine motor skills can't be dealt with.
> 
> As I said toward the end of my previous post;_ Even if you are able to train to retain fine motor control, there's simply no time to be feeling arms that are throwing a barrage of punches at you.
> _
> Of course you can train to inoculate yourself against stress to an extent (breath control, as you explain, is an important part), but this addresses the loss of fine motor control, which is less important for fist fighting, since we don't need to do anything like flip off a safety (fine) before we can punch someone (gross).
> 
> But at high speeds, like I said, there's simply no time to be feeling and interpreting energies regardless of stress levels.
> 
> Phobius draws an analogy to BJJ where sensitivity is something practical. But ground fighting is an entirely different situation from fist fighting. In ground grappling you have the luxury of time to be patient, feel, and wait for the opportunity you need to apply your technique. In a standing fist fight, there is no such prolonged _chi-sau_-esque arm contact.
> 
> I can't count the number of people who have come from lineages where the fighting strategy was predicated on such contact and sensitivity and only ever seemed to work for them when they were playing _chi-sau_ with a likeminded classmate. In free fighting, none of that stuff worked anymore because there was no such contact to work from. So, all the muscle memory didn't matter because it needs a "trigger"– as a Phobius said– a trigger that never comes.



Okay, that I get and sorry for misunderstanding.  My "trigger", as an example, isn't sensitivity, rather it's simply being able to read body language.  After almost 20 years I can judge fairly well when someone is going to be aggressive, the only thing "sensitivity" tells me is not whether to pull the trigger or not, rather what trigger to pull. 
1. I see defensive resistance and it's Chin Na with strikes only as necessary to bring Chin Na to bare. 
2. If it is active aggression I simply respond in kind until it creates flight or defensive resistance, then return to 1.

It is possible to use sensitivity even in an adrenaline dump, you just need to experience it enough times so that you can better control the effects.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Didn't say loss of fine motor skills can't be dealt with.
> 
> As I said toward the end of my previous post;_ Even if you are able to train to retain fine motor control, there's simply no time to be feeling arms that are throwing a barrage of punches at you.
> _
> Of course you can train to inoculate yourself against stress to an extent (breath control, as you explain, is an important part), but this addresses the loss of fine motor control, which is less important for fist fighting, since we don't need to do anything like flip off a safety (fine) before we can punch someone (gross).
> 
> But at high speeds, like I said, there's simply no time to be feeling and interpreting energies regardless of stress levels.
> 
> Phobius draws an analogy to BJJ where sensitivity is something practical. But ground fighting is an entirely different situation from fist fighting. In ground grappling you have the luxury of time to be patient, feel, and wait for the opportunity you need to apply your technique. In a standing fist fight, there is no such prolonged _chi-sau_-esque arm contact.
> 
> I can't count the number of people who have come from lineages where the fighting strategy was predicated on such contact and sensitivity and only ever seemed to work for them when they were playing _chi-sau_ with a likeminded classmate. In free fighting, none of that stuff worked anymore because there was no such contact to work from. So, all the muscle memory didn't matter because it needs a "trigger"– as a Phobius said– a trigger that never comes.


I find myself in agreement with this assessment.


----------



## Phobius

With trigger I did not mean triggering an attack. Rather meant trigger in its actual meaning such that each change triggers a new reaction. No matter how small, with the ability to sense that change get being a limitation.

Of course you need other senses such as sight to trigger action and reaction as well. Unless you want your first trigger to be a fist in the head.

Pull a trigger is not what a trigger is about. A trigger is something that has a predefined point when it will cause an action. You have triggers in computer systems. In your engine of your car. At the factory. In the electronic doors of your supermarket. Not only in guns.

Oh forgot to say that hearing is also a good sense.

Oh and saying it does not work is saying it does not work for you. It is easily tested and verified so I have gotten my own opinion which I consider facts to me.

But I do not know if it works for others so it could be that it may not. And you think BJJ senses are working in a slow environment? The little time you have to react to openings. BJJ is relaxed but when everything seems to be moving slowly for you it is very very fast yet relaxed for them. Change in body happens so fast. The slow part is that it does not happen all the time.

EDIT: some boxers do it to, sending out a jab and as soon as they sense resistance they react instantly. Not as refined but effective, then again they don't have sensitivity drills.

EDIT2: you can't train to react on contact. It is the changes you react on. You need forward intent. Also it is once again one of All tools. Not THE tool,  just A tool. We spend more focus on reacting to sight and footwork than on sensitivity where I train. But we do train it quite a bit still.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> And you think BJJ senses are working in a slow environment? The little time you have to react to openings. BJJ is relaxed but when everything seems to be moving slowly for you it is very very fast yet relaxed for them. Change in body happens so fast. The slow part is that it does not happen all the time.



The key difference is that in BJJ there is constant contact and you are able to use that contact, remain composed in a relatively safe position (although there is a lot going on and you are constantly making adjustments), and feel for the right opportunity to apply your technique. A standing fist fight doesn't happen like that at all.

As to the rest of your views on sensitivity, if you say it works for you, you must be quite special since many longtime teachers couldn't get it to work outside of _chi-sau_, but I'm not going to argue it with you.


----------



## WTchap

@LFJ 

_"Phobius draws an analogy to BJJ where sensitivity is something practical. But ground fighting is an entirely different situation from fist fighting. In ground grappling you have the luxury of time to be patient, feel, and wait for the opportunity you need to apply your technique."_

I can see where you're coming from, and it's true that ground work is a different game. But I'd add that when a BJJ player is being "patient, feeling and waiting for an opportunity", this is happening while they're under sustained attack. The opponent is always positioning, re-positioning and constantly searching for an arm, or working for a choke, etc., so you're also constantly adjusting to what you feel, in real time, as you try to work in your own offence. 

_"In a standing fist fight, there is no such prolonged chi-sau-esque arm contact. I can't count the number of people who have come from lineages where the fighting strategy was predicated on such contact and sensitivity and only ever seemed to work for them when they were playing chi-sau with a likeminded classmate."_

I largely agree with this. It is a curse of Wing Chun. The prolonged contact, and also the prolonged maintaining of a certain distance, along with both people working with shoulder-facing strategy, make for a good training tool (based on these set parameters), but a serious problem occurs when people expect to be able to apply this _outside_ of those 'ideal' training conditions, conditions that are dependent on two people playing the same game.

_"In free fighting, none of that stuff worked anymore because there was no such contact to work from. So, all the muscle memory didn't matter because it needs a "trigger" – as a Phobius said – a trigger that never comes."_

I'm a bit 'yes and no' on this. Yes, I agree, for the reasons I stated above; but no, I disagree in the sense that while prolonged contact doesn't exist (until distance closes to, say, a clinch) contact itself is there - but it's fleeting and so it's a 'touch and go' scenario. The problem is when people have trained prolonged contact and then expect to be able to _keep_ that contact under striking conditions.


----------



## LFJ

WTchap said:


> I can see where you're coming from, and it's true that ground work is a different game. But I'd add that when a BJJ player is being "patient, feeling and waiting for an opportunity", this is happening while they're under sustained attack. The opponent is always positioning, re-positioning and constantly searching for an arm, or working for a choke, etc., so you're also constantly adjusting to what you feel, in real time, as you try to work in your own offence.



Yup. I acknowledge the same in my last post;

"The key difference is that in BJJ there is constant contact and you are able to use that contact, remain composed in a relatively safe position (_although there is a lot going on and you are constantly making adjustments_), and feel for the right opportunity to apply your technique."



> I'm a bit 'yes and no' on this. Yes, I agree, for the reasons I stated above; but no, I disagree in the sense that while prolonged contact doesn't exist (until distance closes to, say, a clinch) contact itself is there - but it's fleeting and so it's a 'touch and go' scenario. The problem is when people have trained prolonged contact and then expect to be able to _keep_ that contact under striking conditions.



Yes, that and the expectance of sensing and interpreting energy as done in _chi-sau_ when contact instead lasts but a split second.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> The key difference is that in BJJ there is constant contact and you are able to use that contact, remain composed in a relatively safe position (although there is a lot going on and you are constantly making adjustments), and feel for the right opportunity to apply your technique. A standing fist fight doesn't happen like that at all.
> 
> As to the rest of your views on sensitivity, if you say it works for you, you must be quite special since many longtime teachers couldn't get it to work outside of _chi-sau_, but I'm not going to argue it with you.



Well I do not know about that, it is neither what I have heard nor felt myself. But I got to be honest with you, I would not rely on sensitivity against a good boxer. Fact is it is not something I would ever rely on as only tool, that is just begging to get hit. You need to have a good position, good structure, a clear path. Sensitivity is not gonna help you survive a punch or resist your opponent. It is gonna help you direct your hands in those cases where there is resistance, and I do not mean simply doing pak sau and then magically know what to do next from sensing.

I just train for more than sparring and fighting boxers. This is also why sensitivity is not where I currently train the most, not even close. But if I spend maybe 10% on that area that is something I consider quite a bit.

Just saying it does work in a fighting context, however it is not the same as saying it works for ALL fighting context. As I wrote, it is not the only tool to be used. It is just a tool like many others, one should not rely on a single sense.

Now I must ask you, you consider techniques like bong-sau and jum-sau and so on to be abstract movements to teach you punching only? There is no such movement in fighting? Given that contact and sensing is not part of your style. You have no ability to sense when your structure needs to shift, sort of like shifting a punch to bong-sau, prior to structural collapse?

So you are just strategically planning in advance how to react and hope that you see what happens around you in order to react properly? I seriously doubt you dont yourself actually feel what is happening and reacting to that sense when in close quarter.

EDIT AGAIN: I need to learn to write correctly so less edits. We dont just do chi-sau, nor do I feel chi-sau should be a prolonged game of having contact. It has a goal to find a good attack. If one can't be found that is because you are either not good enough and need to slow down or you are too good.

I think a curse of chi-sau is mastering it. When people master the chi-sau drill and have that as their focus the contact gets prolonged, it gets tougher and tougher to get the upper hand on your opponent and instead it just becomes a game of back and forth. Problem with that is that all beginners want to be like their sifus and start thinking that prolonged contact is the goal. Problem is that prolonged contact is a downside of them facing someone that is as good as them at keeping options locked down.

Well it is just a theory, there are probably many flaws with it and if offensive I am sorry, not intended to be offensive to anyone.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Now I must ask you, you consider techniques like bong-sau and jum-sau and so on to be abstract movements to teach you punching only? There is no such movement in fighting? Given that contact and sensing is not part of your style. You have no ability to sense when your structure needs to shift, sort of like shifting a punch to bong-sau, prior to structural collapse?
> 
> So you are just strategically planning in advance how to react and hope that you see what happens around you in order to react properly? I seriously doubt you dont yourself actually feel what is happening and reacting to that sense when in close quarter.



What I sense in a fight is my own structure and position. If either has been compromised, instinctual responses are set to rectify it; be it a helping action to continue an interrupted attack or a remedial action to recover position and again continue attack. I'm not trying to feel my opponent's energy and be reactive. It will already be too late. I don't shift a punch to _bong-sau_.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Phobius said:


> Well I do not know about that, it is neither what I have heard nor felt myself. But I got to be honest with you, I would not rely on sensitivity against a good boxer. Fact is it is not something I would ever rely on as only tool, that is just begging to get hit. You need to have a good position, good structure, a clear path. Sensitivity is not gonna help you survive a punch or resist your opponent. It is gonna help you direct your hands in those cases where there is resistance, and I do not mean simply doing pak sau and then magically know what to do next from sensing.
> 
> I just train for more than sparring and fighting boxers. This is also why sensitivity is not where I currently train the most, not even close. But if I spend maybe 10% on that area that is something I consider quite a bit.
> 
> Just saying it does work in a fighting context, however it is not the same as saying it works for ALL fighting context. As I wrote, it is not the only tool to be used. It is just a tool like many others, one should not rely on a single sense.
> 
> Now I must ask you, you consider techniques like bong-sau and jum-sau and so on to be abstract movements to teach you punching only? There is no such movement in fighting? Given that contact and sensing is not part of your style. You have no ability to sense when your structure needs to shift, sort of like shifting a punch to bong-sau, prior to structural collapse?
> 
> So you are just strategically planning in advance how to react and hope that you see what happens around you in order to react properly? I seriously doubt you dont yourself actually feel what is happening and reacting to that sense when in close quarter.
> 
> EDIT AGAIN: I need to learn to write correctly so less edits. We dont just do chi-sau, nor do I feel chi-sau should be a prolonged game of having contact. It has a goal to find a good attack. If one can't be found that is because you are either not good enough and need to slow down or you are too good.
> 
> I think a curse of chi-sau is mastering it. When people master the chi-sau drill and have that as their focus the contact gets prolonged, it gets tougher and tougher to get the upper hand on your opponent and instead it just becomes a game of back and forth. Problem with that is that all beginners want to be like their sifus and start thinking that prolonged contact is the goal. Problem is that prolonged contact is a downside of them facing someone that is as good as them at keeping options locked down.
> 
> Well it is just a theory, there are probably many flaws with it and if offensive I am sorry, not intended to be offensive to anyone.



Agree 100%, I've been guilty in the past of training way too much chi Sao. i think this can actually be detrimental to being able to really protect yourself in a real fight. Some even say chi Sao is wing chuns version of sparring! That long luxurious prolonged contact that you get when playing chi Sao is never there be it in real fighting or hard sparring. I tell my students that it's a bit like listening to a radio broadcast, in chi Sao we are getting a good clear signal whereas when we are working with fast,broken contact/timing there is MASSIVE amounts of interference meaning we can no longer hear that program. Going into a real situation expecting to stick and redirect violent intent effortlessly is a ticket to casualty IMO. Never thought I would agree with LFJ on anything but I believe I share his same views on this subject.


----------



## Nobody Important

Reading over some of these views I am quite surprised. It's refreshing to see that there are some reasonable and realistic views concerning Chi Sau coming from WC people. More often than not I hear the same old rhetoric spouting the necessity of Chi Sau's use in boxing, one which I could never agree on.

That being said, I would like to hear some views, for or against the following. If you believe Chi Sau to be conceptual, would it be an exercise more fitting of grappling & Kum Na than boxing. Thank you.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> If you believe Chi Sau to be conceptual, would it be an exercise more fitting of grappling & Kum Na than boxing. Thank you.



Depends on what your concept is. For me, what it is developing is the antithesis to grappling. I would say that seeing it more fitting to grappling is taking the prolonged arm contact too literally.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Depends on what your concept is. For me, what it is developing is the antithesis to grappling. I would say that seeing it more fitting to grappling is taking the prolonged arm contact too literally.


I understand what you are saying here. Personally I'm thinking less traditional platform based Chi Sau. More focusing on the concepts of leaking, running & binding, not unlike hand fighting or pummeling as in wrestling, as a more realistic & practical approach to Chi Sau application while under duress. More touch & go than actual sticking. Quick redirects in a clinch or guard position to gain positional advantage or lead into holds & locks. Of course this would be opposite & contradictory to what most traditionalists consider Chi Sau, but I believe the underlying concepts of leaking, running & binding would lend themselves nicely in modified form to grappling because of the prolonged contact involved in grappling. In a sense it would still be as you said an antithesis to grappling because it would be more defending in nature as a response to someone trying to wrap you up, especially on the ground. Though for it to work one would have to have a basic knowledge of grappling & transitioning.


----------



## SaulGoodman

I


Nobody Important said:


> I understand what you are saying here. Personally I'm thinking less traditional platform based Chi Sau. More focusing on the concepts of leaking, running & binding, not unlike hand fighting or pummeling as in wrestling, as a more realistic & practical approach to Chi Sau application while under duress. More touch & go than actual sticking. Quick redirects in a clinch or guard position to gain positional advantage or lead into holds & locks. Of course this would be opposite & contradictory to what most traditionalists consider Chi Sau, but I believe the underlying concepts of leaking, running & binding would lend themselves nicely in modified form to grappling because of the prolonged contact involved in grappling. In a sense it would still be as you said an antithesis to grappling because it would be more defending in nature as a response to someone trying to wrap you up, especially on the ground. Though for it to work one would have to have a basic knowledge of grappling & transitioning.



I have a wrestling background and teach pummeling/hand fighting as part of my curriculum. If you said to me you can either practice chi Sao OR pummelling/clinch fighting then I would always go for the latter as it has a much more direct application to real fighting IME. Chi Sao is part of wing chun training, I do train it but NOT to the exclusion of other things.


----------



## Phobius

Nobody Important said:


> I would like to hear some views, for or against the following. If you believe Chi Sau to be conceptual, would it be an exercise more fitting of grappling & Kum Na than boxing. Thank you.



It depends on how people do chi Sau. You can do it with very little contact and high level of contact. Leaving out which part I think is right to keep post neutral. 

I think chi Sau if maintaining contact would be good for grappling but I think more of it being preparing you for grappling. Learning to relax and listening to body when training a grappling art. Not a drill I would use to become a better grappler as there are better drills for that in each of those arts. 

Chi sao also learns you to use both arms individually which is never a bad thing.

Once again it comes down to how it is done during practice.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Reading over some of these views I am quite surprised. It's refreshing to see that there are some reasonable and realistic views concerning Chi Sau coming from WC people. More often than not I hear the same old rhetoric spouting the necessity of Chi Sau's use in boxing, one which I could never agree on.
> 
> .



I see Chi Sau as training for what is only a very brief part of any confrontation with an opponent.  It is for the transition point between punching and grappling, what the JKD guys call "trapping range."   Wing Chun "specializes" at this range because we do such close-quarters punching and are typically contacting the opponent's arms while doing so....controlling while hitting.   But modern fighters often go right past this range!  You see guys go from  boxing straight to wrestling on a regular basis.  For this reason a lot of the JKD guys have dropped Bruce Lee's "Phon Sau" or "trapping hands drills" from their curriculum as well as their version of Chi Sau, or at least train it very infrequently.    So Chi Sau is training the "transition zone." It is not about boxing or grappling either one.  Unfortunately a lot of Wing Chun people tend to overemphasize this phase of training and neglect other things.


----------



## SaulGoodman

The trouble with "trapping range" is that  it gets eaten up in a heartbeat if both protagonists are serious about taking each other out. There are some schools of thought that suggest trapping range is a manufactured range...


----------



## geezer

SaulGoodman said:


> The trouble with "trapping range" is that  it gets eaten up in a heartbeat if both protagonists are serious about taking each other out. There are some schools of thought that suggest trapping range is a manufactured range...




No, _this_ is a manufactured range, and a very nice one too:

http://st.hzcdn.com/simgs/6bb10d480e4db1ca_4-6235/traditional-gas-ranges-and-electric-ranges.jpg

IMO, _trapping _is something that can just happen as a by-product of good, aggressive VT/WC as you close-in. I've never been a fan of training trapping combinations _as an end in themselves_ like some of the JKD guys do. 

Rather than training to trap, I'd recommend training good VT/WC and traps will happen.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When your arm touch on your opponent's arm, there will be 2 possible outcomes.

Your opponent's arm tries to

1. remain that contact.
2. move away from that contact.

IMO, the WC Chi Shou has trained for the 1st outcome but not enough for the 2nd outcome. How to predict your opponent's arm moving path and take advantage on it can give you a lot of advantage in fighting.

For example, when you throw a hook punch at your opponent's head, 50% of the chance that he will dodge under your hook punch. So when you throw your hook punch, are you ready to react to his under arm dodging?


----------



## SaulGoodman

geezer said:


> No, _this_ is a manufactured range, and a very nice one too:
> 
> http://st.hzcdn.com/simgs/6bb10d480e4db1ca_4-6235/traditional-gas-ranges-and-electric-ranges.jpg
> 
> IMO, _trapping _is something that can just happen as a by-product of good, aggressive VT/WC as you close-in. I've never been a fan of training trapping combinations _as an end in themselves_ like some of the JKD guys do.
> 
> Rather than training to trap, I'd recommend training good VT/WC and traps will happen.



Not sure I agree there, in what arena have you pulled off classical.trapping techniques? Trapping range is gone in the blink of an eye between medium range punching and clinch, that's why you pretty much never see anything resembling hand trapping in the standup phase of mma. The back hand to backhand trapping drills that so many are fond of IS in a manufactured range as far as I'm concerned. Sure trapping can work and I have used it to some degree but I don't believe it's a high percentage thing and certainly don't go looking for it. And thanks for the sarcastic reply, nice.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Personally I'm thinking less traditional platform based Chi Sau. More focusing on the concepts of leaking, running & binding, not unlike hand fighting or pummeling as in wrestling



There is a good reason that hand fighting/grip fighting in grappling doesn't look anything like chi sau- the aims are misaligned/contradictory. Grip fighting is both a grappling drill and directly applicable to grappling competition. Chi sau is a striking drill but is not directly applicable to striking. It is difficult to see what benefit chi sau could bring to grappling that is lacking from actual grappling training?



> as a more realistic & practical approach to Chi Sau application while under duress. More touch & go than actual sticking. Quick redirects in a clinch or guard position to gain positional advantage or lead into holds & locks.



I think that it is less realistic and practical to directly apply chi sau to grappling (or striking), than to use it for the purpose for which it was designed. 

I think that learning grappling would be more effective than chi sau direct application if you wish to apply locks and holds to a resisting opponent.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the WC Chi Shou has trained for the 1st outcome



No, this is not what chi sau is for


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> There is a good reason that hand fighting/grip fighting in grappling doesn't look anything like chi sau- the aims are misaligned/contradictory. Grip fighting is both a grappling drill and directly applicable to grappling competition. Chi sau is a striking drill but is not directly applicable to striking. It is difficult to see what benefit chi sau could bring to grappling that is lacking from actual grappling training?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it is less realistic and practical to directly apply chi sau to grappling (or striking), than to use it for the purpose for which it was designed.
> 
> I think that learning grappling would be more effective than chi sau direct application if you wish to apply locks and holds to a resisting opponent.


I'm not in total disagreement with you though I believe their is benefit in the concepts of Chi Sau that directly overlap with grappling. Since grappling is prolonged contact & Chi Sau is about manipulation of pressure, I think conceptually they are well suited, but not in the classical sense. The platforms for Chi Sau will not translate to grappling. 

I used to play with a group of grapplers (BJJ, Kodokan Judo & freestyle). I wasn't very good at wrestling, but knew a lot of Kum Na methods & Chi Sau. The grapplers were surprised how difficult it was to finish me because of how I reacted to pressure. Though I would lose they were impressed & we traded methods. They liked how I responded to ground & pound (because of Chi Sau concepts) and how hard I was to control in the stand up game. They taught me how to grapple better & I taught them how to defend better, especially in stand up. With most things, open mindedness, approach & practicality go a long way.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Now I must ask you, you consider techniques like bong-sau and jum-sau and so on to be abstract movements to teach you punching only? There is no such movement in fighting? Given that contact and sensing is not part of your style. You have no ability to sense when your structure needs to shift, sort of like shifting a punch to bong-sau, prior to structural collapse?



They are for removing obstructions. If your punch doesn't reach the target, you can jut. If you need to open a punching line you can bong. Shifting a punch to bong sau prior to structural collapse is not something we would do.

Edit: jam sao is a punching idea


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Since grappling is prolonged contact & Chi Sau is about manipulation of pressure, I think conceptually they are well suited, but not in the classical sense



I don't believe chi sau to be about manipulation of pressure. I think that it is a mistake correcting and idea reinforcing drill for striking, and an attribute builder in terms of force and structure.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> They are for removing obstructions. If your punch doesn't reach the target, you can jut. If you need to open a punching line you can bong. Shifting a punch to bong sau prior to structural collapse is not something we would do.
> 
> Edit: jam sao is a punching idea



I see, thanks for the information. This is information that does not seem to equal the way of local WSLVT club. Then again you have already stated that not all WSLVT is the way you speak.

For us, fook sau (sp?) is abstract and yet still present, jam, jut and bong are not. Difference is jam is present in the punch but not as developed as in WSLVT lineage most likely. Given that WSLVT specialize in the punching part. Bong however I do not and would not move towards any opponent. To me it is a way to not break structure and not collapse.

Instead a bong sau is created from our punches or whatever movement arm is doing, by forward intent from opponent, or as way to deflect said intent by shifting position and as such bong sau is created from that forward intent of opponent by our own footwork.

I am terrible at explaining fighting in english words.

So this brings up a question of mine that you may have gotten previously, I just dont recall in that case what the answer was. How do you find a bong sau situation? Do you move outwards with a bong sau to reach opponent and make contact? Do you use it to confront incoming force and deflect it? How do you make decision on when bong sau is the proper structure to use?


----------



## Nobody Important

I believe what you're describing is blocking, though I could be assuming incorrectly. Sensitivity and redirection are necessary when sticking and can only be used when pressure is felt, otherwise it is something different. I'm OK with that interpretation if that's what works for you and is what you are comfortable with. Thank you for the response.


guy b. said:


> I don't believe chi sau to be about manipulation of pressure. I think that it is a mistake correcting and idea reinforcing drill for striking, and an attribute builder in terms of force and structure.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> I believe what you're describing is blocking, though I could be assuming incorrectly.



You are assuming incorrectly



Nobody Important said:


> Sensitivity and redirection are necessary when sticking and can only be used when pressure is felt, otherwise it is something different.



No sticking, no feeling



Nobody Important said:


> I'm OK with that interpretation if that's what works for you and is what you are comfortable with



??


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> I see, thanks for the information. This is information that does not seem to equal the way of local WSLVT club.



Who runs the local WSL VT club?



Phobius said:


> For us, fook sau (sp?) is abstract and yet still present, jam, jut and bong are not. Difference is jam is present in the punch



Not really sure what you mean?



Phobius said:


> Instead a bong sau is created from our punches or whatever movement arm is doing, by forward intent from opponent, or as way to deflect said intent by shifting position and as such bong sau is created from that forward intent of opponent by our own footwork.



Sounds like sensing/feeling



Phobius said:


> ow do you make decision on when bong sau is the proper structure to use?



Use when opponents arms are in the way. Decide by seeing.


----------



## Nobody Important

I don't believe that one can realistically, in mid stream, change from a punch to another technique as a means of recovery as effectively and efficiently as some proclaim. Especially without actually feeling & responding to actual pressure of some sort. Our eyes can mislead us and throw off our timing and distance.

In the midst of an aggressive exchange the mind will become focused on the immediate action called upon. Very hard in milliseconds to go from offense to defense and back again, especially when a wrench has been thrown in the mix to divert from the original task. Boxing is very quick and is an exclusive use of the hands. They have blocks and parries yet you rarely see single handed offensive/defensive movements within the same action. It's just not realistic because of the speed of a punch. You will see counters, but they start as one or the other, like a parry then jab. They do not start as a jab & think "oh I messed up, I need to turn this into a parry then jab because of xyz reason". The speed and timing required to pull off some of these actions being described, is IMO unrealistiic.
Chi Sau requires bridge contact prior to movement. If it's intercept & redirect without prior contact of the bridge it's not Chi Sau it's parrying or blocking which can then lead into trapping & Chi Sau.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> Who runs the local WSL VT club?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure what you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like sensing/feeling
> 
> 
> 
> Use when opponents arms are in the way. Decide by seeing.




You conciously try to use a bong Sao during a furious exchange of punches just by using a visual cue   you're joking right?


----------



## geezer

SaulGoodman said:


> Sure trapping can work and I have used it to some degree but I don't believe it's a high percentage thing and certainly don't go looking for it. And thanks for the sarcastic reply, nice.




I think we are on the same page here, Saul. Deliberately going for the trap never works for me anyway. But sometimes when I drive in punching, as one punch hits and drops to make room for the next, you find that you can lap or jut down your opponent's arms, crossing and trapping them for an instant. Same following a fak sau, etc. What you do then is up to you. I like to move in even closer, clinch and go to an elbow or throw. I don't know if that's proper VT or not (we'll have to ask Guy, i guess). But it works ...sometimes anyway.

Now about my snarky range post. Sorry. ..But it _is _a nice one!


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> Not really sure what you mean?



Just meant to say that Fook to me may be abstract at least in terms of punching. The others are not.

Jum Sau however can sometimes be embedded into punching. So it is present by elbow in the punch itself. 



guy b. said:


> Sounds like sensing/feeling



Yes, part of my other posts I write what acts as triggers, sensing changes of force in order to react quickly and without thought. 

Causing your movements to become natural responses. 



guy b. said:


> Use when opponents arms are in the way. Decide by seeing.



So in terms of seeing you use to get clear path upon visual trigger. Not how I do it. But another question for you. 

When doing bong Sau, do you move the arms with bong or is bong remaining still and your body moving to shift position?

Also do you use bong Sau to clash forward  forces with opponents?


----------



## Phobius

Nobody Important said:


> I don't believe that one can realistically, in mid stream, change from a punch to another technique as a means of recovery as effectively and efficiently as some proclaim. Especially without actually feeling & responding to actual pressure of some sort. Our eyes can mislead us and throw off our timing and distance.



I agree, which is why I am talking about preventing structural collapse is cause for rolling to new "technique" through feeling. 

It is trained as natural response to that sense of incoming force but trained with more refined sense of force and forward intent in drills to be easier, not easy, to use on greater forces and changes in actual application. 

Refined sensing in real fighting I believe is closer to myth but good for practice. Now prolonged contact is another type of sensing and one I consider more destructive at times to your training.


----------



## LFJ

_Bong-sau_ is not sticking, not feeling, and especially not allowing the opponent to make us turn... like their puppet on a string!

@2:29 Attack line is obstructed from above. Can't punch. Can't retract arm or will get hit. So, elbow uses _paak_ energy to ballistically displace the obstruction clearing a line to punch through, as @2:45. Opponent gets turned. We remain facing and punch, punch, punch!


----------



## guy b.

Here is bong:

Ving Tsun Kung Fu Philipp Bayer ASD


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> Here is bong:
> 
> Ving Tsun Kung Fu Philipp Bayer ASD



And you claim you have the superior veeeteeee.....


----------



## WTchap

LFJ said:


> _Bong-sau_ is not sticking, not feeling, and especially not allowing the opponent to make us turn... like their puppet on a string!
> 
> @2:29 Attack line is obstructed from above. Can't punch. Can't retract arm or will get hit. So, elbow uses _paak_ energy to ballistically displace the obstruction clearing a line to punch through, as @2:45. Opponent gets turned. We remain facing and punch, punch, punch!



It's a nice clip - PB always demos very well. There's no question, the man is very good at what he does. To me, however, it is a bit like watching Emin in some of this clips (he's equally skilled) - the disparity in skill between the teacher and the student is such that they can easily show how their method works brilliantly.

Rather like with Shawn Obasi. PB worked showed SO how this method works, and so did Emin. Both leaving a strong/positive impression on SO, who knew that both guys seriously outclassed him in skill/knowledge/abiliity to apply.

Do you have a good clip of Bong being used in an exchange between two more evenly matched guys? It would give a more representative use in terms of timing.

(Note, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with PB's timing , his timing and flow is sometimes damn near perfect, but he's _always_ one beat or so ahead of the guys he's playing with)


----------



## LFJ

That wasn't an exchange, only a demonstration of the action and effect, enough to explain the idea.


----------



## WTchap

LFJ said:


> That wasn't an exchange, only a demonstration of the action and effect, enough to explain the idea.



Understood. But if you have a clip showing an exchange between two evenly matched guys, it would show how the action and effect can work under stress. This is what I was getting at.


----------



## SaulGoodman

WTchap said:


> Understood. But if you have a clip showing an exchange between two evenly matched guys, it would show how the action and effect can work under stress. This is what I was getting at.



You won't see a clip of bong being used like this when both people are working at full speed. The only clips the WSLVT guys show to back up their superior fighting method are demos. All these clips prove is that they are good at demos, nothing more.


----------



## LFJ

You know how to use _paak-sau_, right? It works under stress, right? It's the same thing just with the elbow. Why would you think it would not work at full speed?


----------



## Nobody Important

FWIW I use Bong in the exact same manner though usually in conjunction with Lop to get a hold. I'm lost at what started this whole Bong Sau controversy. Seems pretty basic to me.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> I'm lost at what started this whole Bong Sau controversy. Seems pretty basic to me.



Somebody asked how we use bong


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> The only clips the WSLVT guys show to back up their superior fighting method are demos.



Do you provide clips of your free sparring? I don't remember seeing such a thing from anyone really.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> FWIW I use Bong in the exact same manner though usually in conjunction with Lop to get a hold.



_Bong_ should open a clear path to directly punch through at the same time. So, our _bong_ is in conjunction with a punch.
_
Laap_ is only used if _bong_ fails to displace the obstruction on its own. _Laap_ after _bong_ otherwise is to be avoided because _bong_ is already a remedial action to regain an attack line. Two remedial actions in a row when unnecessary is not direct or efficient.

Plus, _laap_ at an arm that is no longer there and you grasp at air while running off line and exposing yourself. So, the idea is always a direct punch. There's an old saying that "a strike is worth a thousand grabs". Grabs are difficult and rarely used in reality, whereas striking is always more reliable at speed.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> _Bong_ should open a clear path to directly punch through at the same time. So, our _bong_ is in conjunction with a punch.
> _
> Laap_ is only used if _bong_ fails to displace the obstruction on its own. _Laap_ after _bong_ otherwise is to be avoided because _bong_ is already a remedial action to regain an attack line. Two remedial actions in a row when unnecessary is not direct or efficient.
> 
> Plus, _laap_ at an arm that is no longer there and you grasp at air while running off line and exposing yourself. So, the idea is always a direct punch. There's an old saying that "a strike is worth a thousand grabs". Grabs are difficult and rarely used in reality, whereas striking is always more reliable at speed.


I don't do Bong & Lop with same hand. Bong doesn't always need to be forceful. I don't always use Lop afterwards, only when situation arises. I like to maintain control of one side of opponent if I can when hitting them. Good structure in conjunction with a bridge need not be forceful, it simply needs to be able to withstand the force applied to it. Grabbing should come naturally and not be forced. It's not hard to grab/wrap, you see it all the time in boxing, wrestling & MMA. The old adage "Wrestle a boxer, box a wrestler". Easy enough to do if using forward intent or initiating a clinch, and it doesn't have to be a prolonged grip , but can be if one so chooses.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> Here is bong:
> 
> Ving Tsun Kung Fu Philipp Bayer ASD


At 17 secs. A left Bong followed by a brief right grab. Exactly as I was saying.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I don't do Bong & Lop with same hand.



Of course not. Not sure how that would work anyway.



> Bong doesn't always need to be forceful.



If it is to accomplish its task it needs to be. But I understand other lineages give it multiple tasks. _Bong-sau_ to me is a remedial action. So, not one that should be overused. In my most recent free fighting I haven't even needed to use it.



> I like to maintain control of one side of opponent if I can when hitting them. Good structure in conjunction with a bridge need not be forceful, it simply needs to be able to withstand the force applied to it.



Did you say you do TWC? Or was that just Juan? You're both new members, so I'm not sure.

Anyway, that's a very different fighting strategy to WSLVT. Our _bong-sau_ doesn't receive force applied to it. It's _paak_ energy from the elbow.



> Grabbing should come naturally and not be forced. It's not hard to grab/wrap, you see it all the time in boxing, wrestling & MMA. The old adage "Wrestle a boxer, box a wrestler". Easy enough to do if using forward intent or initiating a clinch, and it doesn't have to be a prolonged grip , but can be if one so chooses.



_Laap-sau _can certainly be used, but at the right time as a remedial action, otherwise you risk grasping at air. That was all I wanted to say. In a high speed fist fight, I'd prefer to focus on striking without trying to grab anything unnecessarily.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> Here is bong:
> 
> Ving Tsun Kung Fu Philipp Bayer ASD



Hey, this is the best clip I've seen to address John Wang's "Rhino" guard. The guy with his hands clasped is essentially in the "Rhino" guard position that John advocates. It is a very strong, wedging position, but because the hands are locked, both hands can be jolted aside as shown creating a huge opening!

BTW, the forward pressing "soft bong" such as often used in WT can work against this too, except rather than displace the opponent's locked arms, it presses against and flows around the arms, putting the WT/VT guy in a similarly advantageous position. The difference has to do with whether you move your opponent, or if (because of his level of power) whether you use_ his _energy to move your body (like when working with the dummy). Either way you end up with an advantageous angle allowing you to strike your opponent.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Of course not. Not sure how that would work anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> If it is to accomplish its task it needs to be. But I understand other lineages give it multiple tasks. _Bong-sau_ to me is a remedial action. So, not one that should be overused. In my most recent free fighting I haven't even needed to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say you do TWC? Or was that just Juan? You're both new members, so I'm not sure.
> 
> Anyway, that's a very different fighting strategy to WSLVT. Our _bong-sau_ doesn't receive force applied to it. It's _paak_ energy from the elbow.
> 
> 
> 
> _Laap-sau _can certainly be used, but at the right time as a remedial action, otherwise you risk grasping at air. That was all I wanted to say. In a high speed fist fight, I'd prefer to focus on striking without trying to grab anything unnecessarily.


I understand, can see why you use it that way, simple & effective. We do have some other ways of using Bong , but most often used as you describe. High percentage probability is best.

I do Yuan Kay San.

Agree. But I am comfortable grappling & once inside will revert to that if feeling overwhelmed boxing. Actually I'll use whatever necessary to end the confrontation quickly, whether that be WC, hand full of dirt in the eye fu or run like hell, lol.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Hey, this is the best clip I've seen to address John Wang's "Rhino" guard. The guy with his hands clasped is essentially in the "Rhino" guard position that John advocates. It is a very strong, wedging position, but because the hands are locked, both hands can be jolted aside as shown creating a huge opening!



Ha, yeah! That's funny. We have some drills using this where the guy will try to wedge into us with this strong structure and we learn to cut the flanks as they are given, either by displacing actions to turn the guy, or by allowing them to turn themselves by overshooting while we remain facing our attack line.

Another "abstract" drill. It would be far from the best idea to try and fight with this "rhino guard".



> BTW, the forward pressing "soft bong" such as often used in WT can work against this too, except rather than displace the opponent's locked arms, it presses against and flows around the arms, putting the WT/VT guy in a similarly advantageous position. The difference has to do with whether you move your opponent, or if (because of his level of power) whether you use_ his _energy to move your body (like when working with the dummy). Either way you end up with an advantageous angle allowing you to strike your opponent.



While we wouldn't go force against force, we'd also not want to allow ourselves to be turned by the opponent's energy. The stronger they are with it, the more their own arms work as a lever to turn them on their axis as we remain facing and cut into the flank. So we need not worry about shifting or adjusting too many things unnecessarily. We'd prefer to face our line of attack and go forward.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> High percentage probability is best.



That's the philosophy of WSLVT, and why we focus so much on "the punch" and simple actions to aid in its successful delivery.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> The difference has to do with whether you move your opponent, or if (because of his level of power) whether you use_ his _energy to move your body (like when working with the dummy).



Oh, by the way, when moving around the dummy, for us, it isn't an idea of moving around an opponent's energy. The first _bong-sau_ is not sticking to a point and moving around it to ward off with _taan_ and strike with a low palm as a sort of application idea that many do.

Moving around the stationary dummy is teaching footwork and ideas of chasing a moving target. So we will actually disengage after the first _bong-sau_ and cut back in from the flank, turning not around an opponent, but just to face our attack line on an evading target. Two arms and a leg make contact to ensure simultaneity and whole body force behind a punch. Could be either arm punching. Don't know yet. Both make contact to ensure facing. It's not a literal application connected to the preceding _bong-sau_.

Entirely abstract ideas. Dummy arms don't represent human arms. They are just tools to refine position, alignment, and angles like a protractor. View the dummy as an attacker and you train actions that become evasions where you are the one trying to move around them, rather than being the aggressor, putting them on the run, cutting them off, and imposing your fight. The dummy is a training wheel though, not the opponent and the form is not a simulated fight or choreographed applications.


----------



## SaulGoodman

LFJ said:


> Oh, by the way, when moving around the dummy, for us, it isn't an idea of moving around an opponent's energy. The first _bong-sau_ is not sticking to a point and moving around it to ward off with _taan_ and strike with a low palm as a sort of application idea that many do.
> 
> Moving around the stationary dummy is teaching footwork and ideas of chasing a moving target. So we will actually disengage after the first _bong-sau_ and cut back in from the flank, turning not around an opponent, but just to face our attack line on an evading target. Two arms and a leg make contact to ensure simultaneity and whole body force behind a punch. Could be either arm punching. Don't know yet. Both make contact to ensure facing. It's not a literal application connected to the preceding _bong-sau_.
> 
> Entirely abstract ideas. Dummy arms don't represent human arms. They are just tools to refine position, alignment, and angles like a protractor. View the dummy as an attacker and you train actions that become evasions where you are the one trying to move around them, rather than being the aggressor, putting them on the run, cutting them off, and imposing your fight. The dummy is a training wheel though, not the opponent and the form is not a simulated fight or choreographed applications.



Do you deliberately court controversy by constantly making such sweeping statements? Rather than saying "the dummy arms don't represent human arms" simply saying "in my system dummy arms don't represent human arms" immediately puts a much friendlier spin on your views. These kind of statements just cause conflict and you and your fanboy constantly derail discussions with this approach. And btw LOTS of us here have been practicing the dummy for a long time and are intelligent enough and experienced enough to know that there are many, many ways to use it.


----------



## LFJ

I said "for us" right at the beginning of the post before getting into how it is used and viewed in my lineage. 

Quit trying to find something to whine about.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> Do you deliberately court controversy by constantly making such sweeping statements? Rather than saying "the dummy arms don't represent human arms" simply saying "in my system dummy arms don't represent human arms" immediately puts a much friendlier spin on your views. These kind of statements just cause conflict and you and your fanboy constantly derail discussions with this approach. And btw LOTS of us here have been practicing the dummy for a long time and are intelligent enough and experienced enough to know that there are many, many ways to use it.



This constant focus on language is so trivial. Obviously everyone speaks from their own experience. Please just block posters whose opinions you consistently don't like. In fact I thought you had done so already?

LFJ is correct, you seem just to like to look for problems


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> While we wouldn't go force against force, we'd also not want to allow ourselves to be turned by the opponent's energy. The stronger they are with it, the more their own arms work as a lever to turn them on their axis as we remain facing and cut into the flank. So we need not worry about shifting or adjusting too many things unnecessarily. We'd prefer to face our line of attack and go forward.



How would you do a bong sau if you notice it becomes force against force? Would you just surrender the move and leave the path you are on? This is one point where I would assume you allow your feet to move you rather than to attempt to move your opponent. Forcing your opponent sideways is first of all not easy in terms of punching, then again this was not a punching scenario. Secondly there is also a risk that the opponent just lets you pass and continues the assault because your bong sau seems to be used as a sideways punching at someones arms.

Think a difference being that my style would more allow the attack to, in worst case scenario, move forward and I would by shifting of position get a clearer path to my opponent while at the same time not have to worry in case I missread his attack since I am no longer in its path. This is of course just an example that is emphasizing, it is not an actual depiction of a realistic fighting scenario.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> How would you do a bong sau if you notice it becomes force against force?



I don't stick a _bong-sau_ out to receive force, and it is coupled with a punch that continues to clear the line made by the _bong_.



> Secondly there is also a risk that the opponent just lets you pass and continues the assault because your bong sau seems to be used as a sideways punching at someones arms.



It's not. It's forward. The rotation of the elbow is what causes the lateral displacement of the opponent's arm. There is no "sideways punching at someone's arm".



> Think a difference being that my style would more allow the attack to, in worst case scenario, move forward and I would by shifting of position get a clearer path to my opponent while at the same time not have to worry in case I missread his attack since I am no longer in its path. This is of course just an example that is emphasizing, it is not an actual depiction of a realistic fighting scenario.



I wouldn't prefer this approach because it only addresses your position. It really does nothing to stop the opponent from refacing and continuing attack. It doesn't break their structure, disrupt their balance or anything. It just moves you out of their line of attack, but they can still adjust too. You just have to hope you are faster than them, but you are already being passive to their attacking momentum.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I don't stick a _bong-sau_ out to receive force, and it is coupled with a punch that continues to clear the line made by the _bong_.
> 
> It's not. It's forward. The rotation of the elbow is what causes the lateral displacement of the opponent's arm. There is no "sideways punching at someone's arm".



I see, was worried you actually made an attack with a ready bong sau. Did not want to say anything but it would sound like a sure ticket to damaging your shoulder.

Now however you did say you have no sensing of contact or force. So in that case if your bong sau is triggering force on force, in that case the punch which I assume is your other hand might not find a clear path. Now you have two hands locked by a single arm of your opponent because the punch will face resistance as well on the same arm as the bong sau tries to shift. What part of your description am I missing here?





LFJ said:


> I wouldn't prefer this approach because it only addresses your position. It really does nothing to stop the opponent from refacing and continuing attack. It doesn't break their structure, disrupt their balance or anything. It just moves you out of their line of attack, but they can still adjust too. You just have to hope you are faster than them, but you are already being passive to their attacking momentum.



I agree on some points here, except the having to be faster. You see, I never said I must in all cases let them pass. Just that in cases where force gets reflected back into my body that force will shift my position to the side slightly. My intention is of course often to avoid being where the punch will be. Might not be pure WC, I do not make such claims as I said many times before, we are not purists, nor do I know given all the different interpretations of WC.

Also there is nothing passive, it is a forward intent. I do not simply step to the side and wait for them to pass. As soon as my punch can continue it will. A new angle causes a bong sau to disrupt their balance. It also allows ability to control their body from rotating to face me without breaking their own structure or retreating by a single step. (Of course they can always shift stance, everyone always can no matter what you do)

It does not just move us out of their line of attack, it is an attack by us at the same time. We have two arms, and we just allowed both their arms to be facing away from us. So once more this is not a passive movement. It is not a prolonged contact / chi sau game. It is simply using returning force to trigger a change of position. If the opponent does not resist the bong sau movement the effect may very well be same as what you do, if I have the correct interpretation of what you do.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Now however you did say you have no sensing of contact or force. So in that case if your bong sau is triggering force on force,



Triggering force on force?



> in that case the punch which I assume is your other hand might not find a clear path. Now you have two hands locked by a single arm of your opponent because the punch will face resistance as well on the same arm as the bong sau tries to shift. What part of your description am I missing here?



The punch itself is also designed to clear the path. Failing that is when a remedial action such as _laap-sau_ can be used. If the opponent is very tense it just serves as a lever to move their body.



> Also there is nothing passive, it is a forward intent. I do not simply step to the side and wait for them to pass. As soon as my punch can continue it will. A new angle causes a bong sau to disrupt their balance. It also allows ability to control their body from rotating to face me without breaking their own structure or retreating by a single step. (Of course they can always shift stance, everyone always can no matter what you do)



It is passive in the sense of being reactive to the opponent's force and allowing it to dictate a shift of your entire structure. That's something I would avoid, and would view as a gift if my opponent did.

The _bong-sau_, as I do it, must be abrupt. It is the sudden shock force that causes the break of structure and disruption of balance and facing. With that, it is difficult for the opponent to recover or counter as a punch is coming at the same moment as a unit with the _bong_.

Without causing a shocking disruption of their structure, balance, and facing, and immediately eating up space, they are still capable of recovering with a direct and center-chasing _jat-da _as soon as your _bong_ begins to fold and you start shifting. So, from my perspective, it is a passive and undesirable reaction.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Triggering force on force?



Not sure how to describe it, you make a move with force that is met by force.



LFJ said:


> The punch itself is also designed to clear the path. Failing that is when a remedial action such as _laap-sau_ can be used. If the opponent is very tense it just serves as a lever to move their body.



Not all force needs to be tense, but yes if it is tense you need to move their force. That force might be against your attempt to move it. If you resist it too hard that intent of theirs may just change to a shorter attack on same path. An elbow can sting and in such case not only have you not shifted them, instead their attack may force your bong sau arm and punch to the side instead. Force against force.



LFJ said:


> It is passive in the sense of being reactive to the opponent's force and allowing it to dictate a shift of your entire structure. That's something I would avoid, and would view as a gift if my opponent did.



Not being where the opponent thinks you should be is not passive. Not attacking is passive. It does not matter what you name it, it does not make it so. Have to in the deepest disagree, an assault can not be called passive because it is reactive. It is an illogical conclusion. Also a structure is not shifted because a position is changed. Structure and position are two individual things, unless you consider movement a weakness.



LFJ said:


> The _bong-sau_, as I do it, must be abrupt. It is the sudden shock force that causes the break of structure and disruption of balance and facing. With that, it is difficult for the opponent to recover or counter as a punch is coming at the same moment as a unit with the _bong_.



I call this chasing arms, you chase his arm with your bong sau. Given that you have no contact and plan ahead to use bong sau to attack his arm in order to push him to the side. Only trigger being your visual senses. Again there might be something I am missing... or perhaps you never use bong-sau in actual punching? Such case could perhaps force me to retract this statement.



LFJ said:


> Without causing a shocking disruption of their structure, balance, and facing, and immediately eating up space, they are still capable of recovering with a direct and center-chasing _jat-da _as soon as your _bong_ begins to fold and you start shifting. So, from my perspective, it is a passive and undesirable reaction.



In my view passive means you are continuing a fight keeping a neutral ground. He advances and you step back. He attacks and you move away / dodge. Passive is not what I was talking about.

And you would use jat sau on a bong sau? Is that not like asking to get hit by a backfist or elbow for you guys? I mean we are talking about the opponent punching hand doing a jat sau? Doing such a move would just trigger something else. Are we talking about the same jat sau that I am thinkning about, shocking hand or whatever else one might call it?


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Triggering force on force?
> 
> 
> 
> The punch itself is also designed to clear the path. Failing that is when a remedial action such as _laap-sau_ can be used. If the opponent is very tense it just serves as a lever to move their body.
> 
> 
> 
> It is passive in the sense of being reactive to the opponent's force and allowing it to dictate a shift of your entire structure. That's something I would avoid, and would view as a gift if my opponent did.
> 
> The _bong-sau_, as I do it, must be abrupt. It is the sudden shock force that causes the break of structure and disruption of balance and facing. With that, it is difficult for the opponent to recover or counter as a punch is coming at the same moment as a unit with the _bong_.
> 
> Without causing a shocking disruption of their structure, balance, and facing, and immediately eating up space, they are still capable of recovering with a direct and center-chasing _jat-da _as soon as your _bong_ begins to fold and you start shifting. So, from my Perspective, it is a passive and undesirable reaction.



Coming in late but I actually find this interesting.  I only learn from one WC Sifu obviously, but my job kinda lets me "pick the brains" of others in the area (hey Sifu I am a Cop and am looking for a pointer on this....).  Now one of them describes, it as a Tan rotates into a Bong because the opponent continues to direct their force against your Tan.  In essence the opponent creates the Bong, the essence of do not meet force with force..  Another says (as he demonstrated) "it doesn't matter. Yes, you can be forced into Bong from Tan but if you want to punch me I can lift and use Bong, or I can charge into you and make a Bong.  If that is the fastest way to address the attack, use it."  We did it fairly high speed and both applications worked.  His only qualifier was make sure you end that Bong fast as it leads your side open.

It really seems to be a matter mentality.  Me I tend to think the later attitude is more practical simply because if I am force to use WC at work it is because basically all of my tools failed (or I can't get to them due to the speed of the attack).  At that point I will use the techniques but in the quickest and dirtiest way possible because if someone is coming at me in that matter it means they are freaking crazy, high or legit want to kill/maim me because most people try to escape me, not beat me.

Edit: PS one of the reasons I like going to Bong straight off, and in the right circumstance of course, is that it can seriously disrupt their center.  I can then do a Lan with the same arm, pushing them back which will enable me to get to a tool (taser, baton, even gun if necessary).  This however is obviously not applicable to everyone.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Not all force needs to be tense, but yes if it is tense you need to move their force. That force might be against your attempt to move it. If you resist it too hard that intent of theirs may just change to a shorter attack on same path. An elbow can sting and in such case not only have you not shifted them, instead their attack may force your bong sau arm and punch to the side instead. Force against force.



Not sure what sort of thing you're imagining. _Bong_ either displaces the obstruction or it doesn't, but it doesn't stay there and get pushed around. It's quick and sudden _paak _energy then recovers to punching position.



> Not being where the opponent thinks you should be is not passive. Not attacking is passive. It does not matter what you name it, it does not make it so. Have to in the deepest disagree, an assault can not be called passive because it is reactive. It is an illogical conclusion.



It's passive if you're allowing the opponent's force to dictate that your arm folds and you get turned by it. It's certainly passive relative to my approach. It's fine if you disagree.



> Also a structure is not shifted because a position is changed. Structure and position are two individual things, unless you consider movement a weakness.



So you're teleporting to a new position or shifting?



> I call this chasing arms, you chase his arm with your bong sau. Given that you have no contact and plan ahead to use bong sau to attack his arm in order to push him to the side. Only trigger being your visual senses. Again there might be something I am missing... or perhaps you never use bong-sau in actual punching? Such case could perhaps force me to retract this statement.



Do you use _paak-sau_? Is it chasing arms?

_Bong-sau_ is only used as a remedial action when the path is obstructed from above. You can't punch directly and you can't retract the arm or you'll be hit. So, it is a direct _paak_-like action to clear the way for the punch. There's no chasing anything.



> And you would use jat sau on a bong sau? Is that not like asking to get hit by a backfist or elbow for you guys? I mean we are talking about the opponent punching hand doing a jat sau? Doing such a move would just trigger something else. Are we talking about the same jat sau that I am thinkning about, shocking hand or whatever else one might call it?



I don't know what _jat-sau _is to you. If you do it wrong, maybe.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> *The bong-sau, as I do it, must be abrupt.* It is the sudden shock force that causes the break of structure and disruption of balance and facing. With that, it is difficult for the opponent to recover or counter as a punch is coming at the same moment as a unit with the _bong_.
> 
> Without causing a shocking disruption of their structure, balance, and facing, and immediately eating up space, they are still capable of recovering with a direct and center-chasing _jat-da _as soon as your _bong_ begins to fold and you start shifting. So, from my perspective, it is a passive and undesirable reaction.



LFJ: What you have stated above really summarizes the difference in approach between your VT and mine. IMO the abrupt, _jolting_ bong sau can be very effective at disrupting your opponent's position and creating an opening. It is the easiest  and probably most reliable method to use in a fight.

The second method which uses a springy bong to receive and redirect the incoming force also turns your opponent, as you turn with him following his center ...like two inter-meshed gears rotating each other, and it also creates an opening. This method _also_ works. In fact I believe it works better against a more powerful opponent. It does however require more time to develop.

Incidentally, my sifu told me that he initially depended on the jolting bong-sau you described and used it with great success. It was later, during his brief period privately training with Grandmaster Yip Man that he was shown the second version. At that time GM Yip was getting older and weaker. Perhaps he was already suffering from his cancer, although as yet undiagnosed? I don't know, but regardless of the reason, GM Yip found that he could no longer make the jolting bong work reliably against strong and gifted students, so he turned to the "soft side" of VT. That is what he shared with my sifu and my sifu with me.

My sifu explained that if our system is truly based on efficiency and borrowing your opponent's force so that even a weaker person, if highly skilled may beat a stronger foe, then _this _must be considered the most advanced form of the craft. Any other method, by comparison is more like brawling.

Now these were my old sifu's sentiments, not necessarily my own._ I know that you will disagree_ and I respect that. I'm just putting this out there for the record, so that other members of the forum will know where I'm coming from. And, FWIW  this isn't a philosophy of VT/WC/WT just for the weak. I've witnessed large and powerful practitioners develop this skill and apply it. Emin is just one such individual.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Not sure what sort of thing you're imagining. _Bong_ either displaces the obstruction or it doesn't, but it doesn't stay there and get pushed around. It's quick and sudden _paak _energy then recovers to punching position.



Paak Sau is a punch ready to be fired. It is a punch and Paak at same time in theory.

Bong Sau as I do it is not, therefore Bong is chasing an arm and then resets unless I misunderstand your scenario. If you continue from Bong to attack with same arm then great. That is the part I might misunderstand, how you do it because you say you do not chase hands. And having a Bong going head to head with a punch is very bold if that is the case.

I am not saying you do it wrong. But if resistance is met I think it is clear we do it differently from that point. Just curious to understand your ways. It is interesting, the details in a Bong.



LFJ said:


> It's passive if you're allowing the opponent's force to dictate that your arm folds and you get turned by it. It's certainly passive relative to my approach. It's fine if you disagree.



OK, I would consider it reactive. Note that arm folds sounds like elbow collapsed, just so it is clear the angle of the arm should not change, it just rotates. The turn comes by opponent puts force into the Bong Sau which is kept at strong structure and maintained by stepping. Different approaches perhaps.



LFJ said:


> So you're teleporting to a new position or shifting?



It is a step, thought you meant break of structure. I consider it to be keeping with structure while moving to new position, of course in greater detail it is not. But movement and footwork is always and constantly ready. Standing still to me when punches come in is sort of like being a target. Fine if you are ballsy, but for me I enjoy improving my odds with every move of stay standing.




LFJ said:


> Do you use _paak-sau_? Is it chasing arms?



Paak sau is a punch waiting to happend. If there is no resistance then paak sau will continue forward to punch opponent. So no it does not chase hands, nor did I say you chase hands, just that not being able to continue punching with but rather to just use it to target an arm sounds like chasing arm. This is why I am asking what part I do not understand of what you do.

_


LFJ said:



Bong-sau is only used as a remedial action when the path is obstructed from above. You can't punch directly and you can't retract the arm or you'll be hit. So, it is a direct paak-like action to clear the way for the punch. There's no chasing anything.
		
Click to expand...

_
Ok, so this is maybe what I was missing. You are in contact with a person? Because you can not retract? Or simply covering your centerline? Well I can not say your way of doing it is wrong. It is working for you and I see no reason why it should not. After all we do similar thing when force is not too strong, we just do not push opponent to the side to clear path, it usually becomes a punishable move for ourselves. Have done that accidentally and gotten a few backfists sent my way.




LFJ said:


> I don't know what _jat-sau _is to you. If you do it wrong, maybe.



Well I was asking what jat sau is to you, because attempting to shock my arm by applying force in that direction would cause me to attack. If it is how I consider it to be. You may mean something else, I do not know which is why I asked you what it is to you since you said it.


----------



## geezer

Phobius said:


> Paak Sau is a punch ready to be fired. It is a punch and Paak at same time in theory. Bong Sau as I do it is not, therefore Bong is chasing an arm and then resets...



Bong sau, like pak-sau, can be performed as a punch that gets interrupted or interfered with. If your intent is always forward, and your arms are like springs your bong can deflect an incoming punch and snap back as a punch or fak sau.

Even faster and more efficiently, you can _hit with the other hand simultaneously_ with your bong sau. Until I learned this I was forced to do the cumbersome two-step bong-sau lap sau sequence we have all seen or practiced. That can work but it is not optimal according to VT/WC/WT concepts. Watch Emin below, then _try it _and see for yourself.











Before working on this, I thought of bong sau as either an aggressive jolt (like the WSL version) or as a passive evasion (my mis-understanding of LT's version). Now I think of it as sharing something from both of the above. 

Also, notice that when done as shown, there is no "Wrong Bong" either. Some schools (Gary Lam?) teach that bong sau can be correctly performed only to the outside gate, otherwise you have a "wrong bong' and can be hit. Not so. If you move continuously and aggressively as shown, it can be done to the inside or outside gate.

It is definitely _not_ a purely defensive technique. In fact I don't think anything in my VT is!


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Bong sau, like pak-sau, can be performed as a punch that gets interrupted or interfered with. If your intent is always forward, and your arms are like springs your bong can deflect an incoming punch and snap back as a punch or fak sau.



Question do you mean the following? I have been thinking this for some time regarding Tan Sau.


I can be going in with a punch.  If instead of striking my target, say the face/head, my arm incidentally intercepts the opponent's strike, my arm quite often will be in the Tan position in everyway and it functioned as such, only my hand is different, in the shape of a fist or palm strike, then I can Bong, moving the arm further off line and then either counter punch with the opposite hand or go from Bong into a strike (my preference because the opponent's other hand is coming so my opposite hand is likely already occupied addressing the new threat.)

Or are you more saying you can transition from a Bong into a strike quickly, or perhaps C. all of the above?


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> Question do you mean the following? I have been thinking this for some time regarding Tan Sau. I can be going in with a punch.  If instead of striking my target, say the face/head, my arm incidentally intercepts the opponent's strike, my arm quite often will be in the Tan position in everyway and it functioned as such, only my hand is different, in the shape of a fist or palm strike, then I can Bong, moving the arm further off line...



Sorry, but I'm a little confused by your example. Why would you go from a punch to a tan ...and then roll over to a bong sau? That's just going from one defensive movement to another. Inefficient. ...and BTW, don't worry about hand position. Arm and elbow position, _and energy_, are what really matter.

Consider, if your arm moves forward to punch, but intercepts your opponent's incoming strike on the way there are several possibilities:

--One is that your punch will wedge his aside and you will continue through to land your strike.

--Another is that you will encounter his punch coming across your bridge with sufficient strength to prevent you from wedging through, so depending on the direction of the opposing force, you either roll across into bong sau or compress and deflect the force aside with tan-sau. All the time you are still pressing forward, deflecting the oncoming force, releasing your hand, and _springing in with punches_ (lat sau jik chung).   

Here's another EBMAS clip with Sifu Emin explaining his take on tan-sau:











Now, I'm _not_ associated with Emin's EBMAS group. It's just that Emin and I come from the same lineages: LT's Wing Tsun and Rene Latosa's Escrima. Now, the fact is that I'm just a "hobbyist" and don't make videos. Emin is a pro and gifted martial artist, so I find his videos useful. Hope you do too.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> Incidentally, my sifu told me that he initially depended on the jolting bong-sau you described and used it with great success. It was later, during his brief period privately training with Grandmaster Yip Man that he was shown the second version. At that time GM Yip was getting older and weaker. Perhaps he was already suffering from his cancer, although as yet undiagnosed? I don't know, but regardless of the reason, GM Yip found that he could no longer make the jolting bong work reliably against strong and gifted students, so he turned to the "soft side" of VT. That is what he shared with my sifu and my sifu with me.
> 
> My sifu explained that if our system is truly based on efficiency and borrowing your opponent's force so that even a weaker person, if highly skilled may beat a stronger foe, then _this _must be considered the most advanced form of the craft. Any other method, by comparison is more like brawling.



Fair enough. It is good to identify differences so that we know where we are all coming from.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> IMO the abrupt, _jolting_ bong sau can be very effective at disrupting your opponent's position and creating an opening. It is the easiest  and probably most reliable method to use in a fight.



I like reliability when my physical wellbeing is on the line.



> The second method which uses a springy bong to receive and redirect the incoming force also turns your opponent, as you turn with him following his center ...like two inter-meshed gears rotating each other, and it also creates an opening.



I don't like the idea of allowing the opponent to turn me. I'd rather control my own movements and remain facing.

This kind of _bong_ rotating the opponent assumes they've committed their body to following their arm in a single punch. If instead they "delink" and continue chasing center while you have turned, that spells trouble for you.

Plus, this is not what Emin showed in the video you posted. The kind of _bong-sau_ he shows does nothing to affect the opponent's structure, balance, or facing. He even said "_I have not changed his direction at all_".

He rotates himself around the guy who remains totally unaffected by his _bong_, ending up in a position perpendicular to the guy's center and instead facing the camera.

This causes his punch to be going sideways across his torso, with his elbow raised to shoulder height. Not only is there no hip/elbow connection, none of his body mass is behind the punch as he's rotating and stepping around the side while his punch is coming from where his body used to be. Rotating left and punching right. As a result it has no support of any kind and will lack power, especially for a weaker individual.












Additionally, getting to the outside and throwing chain punches leaves plenty of space for the opponent to counter, especially when you've left him unaffected and free to move. 

If the attacker simply continues chasing center, he can easily cut Emin off, thwarting his whole hand thing with a refacing cover+punch, and catching him in a vulnerable position where he has no rear leg. Yes, his footwork is a big problem too. 

Even at higher speed, his body is rotating and moving sideways while stepping out, and because of this his body mass is going in a different direction from his attack, he has no lower body support behind it, and his flutter punches are all arms.

_Bong-sau_ with follow up punches as I do it is intended to destroy the opponent's structure, balance, and facing, and capture space while remaining square and attacking with full body mass _forward_, preventing easy recovery or counters, and packing a lot of power... But I would never needlessly do _bong-sau_ in this kind of situation anyway.

What is shown here just has too many problems with it.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> And having a Bong going head to head with a punch is very bold if that is the case.
> 
> I am not saying you do it wrong. But if resistance is met I think it is clear we do it differently from that point.



Doesn't have to be a punch. The path is simply obstructed from above. _Bong_ clears the way for a punch.



> Note that arm folds sounds like elbow collapsed, just so it is clear the angle of the arm should not change, it just rotates.



Your arm folds into _bong_ from an extended position as Emin demonstrates above.



> You are in contact with a person? Because you can not retract? Or simply covering your centerline?



Doesn't require pre-contact. The path is simply obstructed from above. Can't retract to get over it, or you'll be hit. Can't hit directly. So, _bong_ must clear the way for a punch. Remedial action to regain an attack line.



> After all we do similar thing when force is not too strong, we just do not push opponent to the side to clear path, it usually becomes a punishable move for ourselves.



Not sure how you can expect to feel forces in a fist fight and adjust your footwork fast enough and appropriately in response. Emin obviously had his plan going into the punch because it was a demo. 

No one is that fast, and reacting against forces felt on your arm that make you roll into this position or that, and step here or there with this foot or that is not realistic.

For me, it is all about positioning and reacting to changes in positioning. No being rolled around by external forces.

Also, our _bong_ doesn't push, just like _paak_ doesn't push.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> I like reliability when my physical wellbeing is on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like the idea of allowing the opponent to turn me. I'd rather control my own movements and remain facing.
> 
> This kind of _bong_ rotating the opponent assumes they've committed their body to following their arm in a single punch. If instead they "delink" and continue chasing center while you have turned, that spells trouble for you.
> 
> Plus, this is not what Emin showed in the video you posted. The kind of _bong-sau_ he shows does nothing to affect the opponent's structure, balance, or facing. He even said "_I have not changed his direction at all_".
> 
> He rotates himself around the guy who remains totally unaffected by his _bong_, ending up in a position perpendicular to the guy's center and instead facing the camera.
> 
> This causes his punch to be going sideways across his torso, with his elbow raised to shoulder height. Not only is there no hip/elbow connection, none of his body mass is behind the punch as he's rotating and stepping around the side while his punch is coming from where his body used to be. Rotating left and punching right. As a result it has no support of any kind and will lack power, especially for a weaker individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, getting to the outside and throwing chain punches leaves plenty of space for the opponent to counter, especially when you've left him unaffected and free to move.
> 
> If the attacker simply continues chasing center, he can easily cut Emin off, thwarting his whole hand thing with a refacing cover+punch, and catching him in a vulnerable position where he has no rear leg. Yes, his footwork is a big problem too.
> 
> Even at higher speed, his body is rotating and moving sideways while stepping out, and because of this his body mass is going in a different direction from his attack, he has no lower body support behind it, and his flutter punches are all arms.
> 
> _Bong-sau_ with follow up punches as I do it is intended to destroy the opponent's structure, balance, and facing, and capture space while remaining square and attacking with full body mass _forward_, preventing easy recovery or counters, and packing a lot of power... But I would never needlessly do _bong-sau_ in this kind of situation anyway.
> 
> What is shown here just has too many problems with it.




Good analysis


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> GM Yip found that he could no longer make the jolting bong work reliably against strong and gifted students, so he turned to the "soft side" of VT.



I'm having a really hard time believing that if he couldn't get his original _bong-sau_ to work on skilled students, somehow what is shown by Emin above would work on skilled students... 

A skilled student should be able to shut that down pretty instinctively, what with all the space afforded to them without affecting their structure, balance, or facing in any way. Simple LSJC.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> I'm having a really hard time believing that if he couldn't get his original _bong-sau_ to work on skilled students, somehow what is shown by Emin above would work on skilled students



Maybe you have seen footage on youtube of younger people practicing MA with revered old people whose bodies no longer work?


----------



## LFJ

guy b. said:


> Maybe you have seen footage on youtube of younger people practicing MA with revered old people whose bodies no longer work?



Force Flow!


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Doesn't have to be a punch. The path is simply obstructed from above. _Bong_ clears the way for a punch.



Ok, nothing more to add. It was just a question and you answered it. Have no issues with how you do it in that case.







LFJ said:


> Your arm folds into _bong_ from an extended position as Emin demonstrates above.



Picture below is what you call folding? I call that rotating, the bending/angle at the elbow is the same for the punch as the bong. Nothing changes except bong has rotated. Is this a matter of terminology only and we mean the same thing? (I mean if the arm was straight then yes it has to fold a bit to get a strong angle)








LFJ said:


> Doesn't require pre-contact. The path is simply obstructed from above. Can't retract to get over it, or you'll be hit. Can't hit directly. So, _bong_ must clear the way for a punch. Remedial action to regain an attack line.



Ok, got you. Had to ask to make sure I understand what you meant.





LFJ said:


> Not sure how you can expect to feel forces in a fist fight and adjust your footwork fast enough and appropriately in response. Emin obviously had his plan going into the punch because it was a demo.
> 
> No one is that fast, and reacting against forces felt on your arm that make you roll into this position or that, and step here or there with this foot or that is not realistic.



Actually it is not that hard, it is similar to having nowhere else to go. If your structure is good your body will have a natural reaction. This is what can be trained by aligning yourself in good structure and strong position, if pressure is added instead of resisting you have to move yourself automatically. If the force is not enough it will not push you out of the way. Same as if someone pushes you, if not strong enough you simply absorb in your structure. If stronger than your structure can resist it will cause you to take a step backwards.

EDIT: It is not like someone is fast enough when pushed quickly to read and analyze the pressure and understand if they need to take a step backwards or not, and yet that is exactly what we do without thinking. Our brain is very quick in utilizing senses, it is when having to utilize logic that we become slower in our thought process.



LFJ said:


> For me, it is all about positioning and reacting to changes in positioning. No being rolled around by external forces.
> 
> Also, our _bong_ doesn't push, just like _paak_ doesn't push.



Push, not push. I was simply referring to force moving them out of the way. In my view that is called pushing as well. Am I wrong?


----------



## Phobius

geezer said:


> Bong sau, like pak-sau, can be performed as a punch that gets interrupted or interfered with. If your intent is always forward, and your arms are like springs your bong can deflect an incoming punch and snap back as a punch or fak sau.
> 
> Even faster and more efficiently, you can _hit with the other hand simultaneously_ with your bong sau. Until I learned this I was forced to do the cumbersome two-step bong-sau lap sau sequence we have all seen or practiced. That can work but it is not optimal according to VT/WC/WT concepts. Watch Emin below, then _try it _and see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before working on this, I thought of bong sau as either an aggressive jolt (like the WSL version) or as a passive evasion (my mis-understanding of LT's version). Now I think of it as sharing something from both of the above.
> 
> Also, notice that when done as shown, there is no "Wrong Bong" either. Some schools (Gary Lam?) teach that bong sau can be correctly performed only to the outside gate, otherwise you have a "wrong bong' and can be hit. Not so. If you move continuously and aggressively as shown, it can be done to the inside or outside gate.
> 
> It is definitely _not_ a purely defensive technique. In fact I don't think anything in my VT is!



Actually with punch and do bong at same time I meant with same arm. That is what I was questioning. What you are talking about and videos showing seems rather similar to what I meant to say we do. 

Not had time to go through videos in detail yet, will take a look more at this post and see what may be different to what I do. However it looks rather similar to what I meant.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Picture below is what you call folding? I call that rotating, the bending/angle at the elbow is the same for the punch as the bong. Nothing changes except bong has rotated. Is this a matter of terminology only and we mean the same thing? (I mean if the arm was straight then yes it has to fold a bit to get a strong angle)



So then it folds. Emin said in the first video "_unless he's strong enough to suppress the forearm and bend my energy_". (Probably meant suppress the energy and bend my forearm.)

So it is the opponent's force dictating that your arm folds and your body rotates. That's what I'm calling passive, because you are allowing the opponent to move you.



> Actually it is not that hard, it is similar to having nowhere else to go. If your structure is good your body will have a natural reaction. This is what can be trained by aligning yourself in good structure and strong position, if pressure is added instead of resisting you have to move yourself automatically. If the force is not enough it will not push you out of the way. Same as if someone pushes you, if not strong enough you simply absorb in your structure. If stronger than your structure can resist it will cause you to take a step backwards.
> 
> EDIT: It is not like someone is fast enough when pushed quickly to read and analyze the pressure and understand if they need to take a step backwards or not, and yet that is exactly what we do without thinking. Our brain is very quick in utilizing senses, it is when having to utilize logic that we become slower in our thought process.



Sounds like a neat theory, but not realistic. We can see even in the demo at speed that Emin voluntarily moves to the side and steps out away from the opponent. There's no force rolling him around and dictating what foot to move where. 

That only happens in slow motion with prolonged contact. To think it will happen against a real attacker not just sticking one stiff punch out for you to press into and rotate around is not realistic. Do you realize how fast real punches shoot out and back?



> Push, not push. I was simply referring to force moving them out of the way. In my view that is called pushing as well. Am I wrong?



Push means to use steady force to move something away. _Bong_ is a sharp _paak_ energy. It moves forward and the rotation of the elbow causes the lateral displacement of the opponent's arm, opening the way for a direct punch. It's not moving to the side, pushing, or rotating to follow the arm. It's not about the arm. It's about taking space to punch the guy.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Sounds like a neat theory, but not realistic. We can see even in the demo at speed that Emin voluntarily moves to the side and steps out away from the opponent. There's no force rolling him around and dictating what foot to move where.
> 
> That only happens in slow motion with prolonged contact. To think it will happen against a real attacker not just sticking one stiff punch out for you to press into and rotate around is not realistic. Do you realize how fast real punches shoot out and back?



That is up to everyone, we train it and it works for us. Well some of us do not have it as a natural move and can not do it at all without an extended amount of contact. As for the rest of us, yes it works. Then again you won't believe me anyway so matters not. (And extended contact is not a good way to learn to do this in my view, but some people either figure it out eventually or never figures it out. I am not a sifu personality and therefore have decided that unless they ask for help I will not push my opinions onto them)

We do realize how fast real punches shoot out, that is why I do not believe it is possible to use bong sau as you do paak or as you describe against a punch to clear path because the decision would have to be made so quickly from visual feedback that you most likely already got punched in the face. Or it will be like poker, you deciding to make a bong sau before you even know exactly what it is coming at you.

It is not like someone holds an arm extended towards you and then decide to punch with it and as such using bong sau based on visual feedback on a quick punch would require a lot of practise in order to be able to react fast enough.

I guess we both have same problem with the others approach. By training to do it, it becomes possible but without training it will feel impossible.

Not sure you can agree on that, but since your way works for you I have no reason to think you would be lying. There would be no gain in lying for you except save face. Saving face on a forum to me sounds very stupid.


----------



## LFJ

When did I say I'm using a _bong-sau_ as a primary action against a punch?


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Sorry, but I'm a little confused by your example. Why would you go from a punch to a tan ...and then roll over to a bong sau? That's just going from one defensive movement to another. Inefficient. ...and BTW, don't worry about hand position. Arm and elbow position, _and energy_, are what really matter.



It is incidental.  I am punching, my intent is to punch but my opponent is punching to.  Because of the range I am usually at while punching, if those strikes collide my arm is simply very often naturally in a Tan position, with the exception of the shape of the hand obviously. I didn't want to Tan, it simply happened. Does that make more sense?  By Tan meaning the angle of the elbow etc.  My Sifu really doesn't say "Tans are used to block this kind of strike" he simply says "this is the shape of your arm when you Tan."

As for rolling what became a Tan into a Bong, I have experienced when stuff like that happened that your opponent, if untrained will sometimes just try to push through you.  Spiraling into a Bong keeps that energy moving away while you use any other attacks. 

Now this is only what I use against bigger heavier opponents because I am a light weight and regardless of structure there are limits to how easily I can crash through unless I continue to redirect the force.  When I play through incidents like this in my head I always play that worse case scenario in my brain.


----------



## Juany118

Juany118 said:


> It is incidental.  I am punching, my intent is to punch but my opponent is punching to.  Because of the range I am usually at while punching, if those strikes collide my arm is simply very often naturally in a Tan position, with the exception of the shape of the hand obviously. I didn't want to Tan, it simply happened. Does that make more sense?  By Tan meaning the angle of the elbow etc.  My Sifu really doesn't say "Tans are used to block this kind of strike" he simply says "this is the shape of your arm when you Tan."
> 
> As for rolling what became a Tan into a Bong, I have experienced when stuff like that happened that your opponent, if untrained will sometimes just try to push through you.  Spiraling into a Bong keeps that energy moving away while you use any other attacks.
> 
> Now this is only what I use against bigger heavier opponents because I am a light weight and regardless of structure there are limits to how easily I can crash through unless I continue to redirect the force.  When I play through incidents like this in my head I always play that worse case scenario in my brain.



Geezer


Late edit...I have also successfully crashed through as you stated, I just wanted to clarify that what I am speaking of is that bigger stronger opponent that tries to "bully" their way forward.  I don't "plan" defenses.  I know some people who say, "Pak this kinda of strike, Tan that one, Bong this other one" etc but that is not me.  Its hard to explain but the short form is that the synergy of my body's current position and the actions of the opponent dictate what I do and then that action cascades into our new body position dictating what attack I do, whether it is continuing to press forward with WC attacks or use other techniques to disengage to get to a tool.  This later is often where I sometimes run into confusion speaking with other people who study WC.  I do practice it as an art unto itself BUT I also practice it to simply be a bridge of sorts as follows...

Encounter suspect> suspect attacks> no time for me to get to tools and still defend myself so WC> have opportunity via WC to generate distance> access tool> game is changed.  

Now when the game is changed the guy may be getting tased (I don't use pepper spray against active aggression as you can fight through it) or I have my baton out and now I switch to Inosanto Kali mode.  Hopefully the situation doesn't justify my gun.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I'm having a really hard time believing that if he couldn't get his original _bong-sau_ to work on skilled students, somehow what is shown by Emin above would work on skilled students...
> 
> A skilled student should be able to shut that down pretty instinctively, what with all the space afforded to them _*without affecting their structure, balance, or facing *_in any way. Simple LSJC.



First, a disclaimer: I am not an EBMAS student and don't do things _exactly_ as Emin does. I don't have my own videos and so use his videos because they are among the closest I can find on Youtube.

That said, if you look again at the gif you so kindly provided, you will notice that Emin's bong is totally disrupting his opponent's structure, balance, and facing (to use your own words) ...watch how he staggers to the side. Because of the forward pressure of Emin's bong and the barrage of punches that immediately follow, his opponent cannot recover and face Emin's center.

On the other hand, I find the following comment regarding the cross-body punch more on the mark:



LFJ said:


> ...This causes his punch to be going sideways across his torso, with his elbow raised to shoulder height. Not only is there no hip/elbow connection, none of his body mass is behind the punch as he's rotating and stepping around the side while his punch is coming from where his body used to be. Rotating left and punching right. As a result it has no support of any kind and will lack power, especially for a weaker individual.



I would agree with you that turning one way and punching the other way _across your body  _significantly reduces your range and power, which is especially problematic for a person like myself who does not have Emin's size and power. This appears to be pretty obvious, so the assumption is that either Emin is pretty stupid for teaching this, or his students, many of whom have studied a lot of other fighting arts, are pretty stupid for swallowing this.
_*
News Flash: *_Contrary to what some may believe, Emin is a very intelligent dude.

....So, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I have worked with this cross-body punch and found that if you really understand what is going on, you can put your body weight into it. This is because in our lineage the torso must be flexible and "springy" just like the arms, only much stronger. If you *step in *with the technique and flex your waist a bit, then rebound or spring back a little, your body weight does go into your punch. It's a small movement and hard to see _but easily felt_ ...both by you and your opponent.

In conclusion, don't jump to conclusions based on Youtube clips of posed demos. There is definitely more going on here than than meets the eye.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...So then *it folds*. Emin said in the first video "_unless he's strong enough to suppress the forearm and bend my energy_". (Probably meant suppress the energy and bend my forearm.) So it is the opponent's force dictating that* your arm folds *and your body rotates. That's what I'm calling passive, because you are allowing the opponent to move you.



Not exactly. Since we are communicating by the written word without actual physical demonstration, we must be especially careful with our terms. The bong does not _fold,_ if by fold you mean "bend and collapse". Perhaps better to say it bows and flexes when receiving force. A bow flexes and then returns force. Likewise the bong returns force and controls the position of your opponent so he cannot return to  face your center.

Yes your _footwork_ does allow you to sidestep his attack _(yau pin, yap ching)_, but you do not allow space to develop, releasing pressure. This would defy our concept of maintaining forward intent which is inherent in _loi lau hoi sung lat sau jik chung._




LFJ said:


> Push means to use steady force to move something away. _Bong_ is a sharp _paak_ energy. It moves forward and the rotation of the elbow causes the lateral displacement of the opponent's arm, opening the way for a direct punch. It's not moving to the side, pushing, or rotating to follow the arm. It's not about the arm. It's about taking space to punch the guy.



You are correct in equating _bong_ with _pak. _Bong often functions like a pak-sau. When you meet incoming force on the palm side of your wu-sau, you pak ...with a jolt. When the same force comes across your bridge, your arm rolls and jolts forward with a bong. Same idea. In this sense _bong and pak can be seen as using opposite sides of the arm to do the same thing._

On the other hand (pardon the pun) _bong and tan are also opposite sides of the same technique_. A tan-sau does not jolt so much as spread, compress and deflect to the same side as the arm. Similarly bong-sau bows, compresses and deflects to the opposite side. This is the energy we train in our chi-sau. Depending on the situation, both versions have their place in fighting. A _jolting bong_ clears the path for a strike.  A flexing bong can deflect a very forceful strike, and if you close in, it can control an opponent's arm and structure.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> That said, if you look again at the gif you so kindly provided, you will notice that Emin's bong is totally disrupting his opponent's structure, balance, and facing (to use your own words) ...watch how he staggers to the side. Because of the forward pressure of Emin's bong and the barrage of punches that immediately follow, his opponent cannot recover and face Emin's center.



I hate to do this to you, but that's not what's happening at all.

Here it is in slow motion. His _bong-sau_ is actually initiated before contact, and in fact barely even makes contact.

What causes the attacker to stumble a bit is a little _laap_ he sneaks in there with his left hand. The _bong-sau_ was entirely useless.







Here is a slow motion capture of the second time he showed it. Again, we see clearly that he initiates the _bong-sau_ before contact is made and the _bong-sau_ has 0 effect on the attacker.

Again, we also see a little _laap_ snuck in there, but in this case it barely does anything either. The attacker maintains balance, structure, and facing (only turns his head away in anticipation for the demo punches).






And lastly, here we look at _bong-sau_ on the inside as shown in the first video.

Again, it has 0 effect on the attacker's balance, structure, or facing. The attacker pulls his own head away anticipating the scary demo punches.

Emin is stepping out and leaning away from his attack. That means no power and vulnerable position for him.

The attacker's punching arm is still in play. It needs only bring the elbow back and into the center (_jat_) which would thwart Emin's attack while a center-chasing punch from the other hand (_jat-da_) would take him right over, given that he's already leaning back and weighting one leg 100%, and has no rear leg to the attacker's chasing angle. A rear _paak _from the punching arm plus punch on the inside would immediately kill it too because his _bong_ is already collapsed down leaving the avenue open, but the demo dummy is just posing one punch.

The attacker can keep chasing center and walk right through him, because as I said, the attacker's balance, structure, and facing has not been affected at all. This would be instinctually shut down for any decent fighter with LLHS, LSJC training.






What all this means, is that in reality there is no _bong-sau_ bowing to incoming force or rolling around pressure. It is all of his own volition; the useless _bong_ and his bad footwork.



> In conclusion, don't jump to conclusions based on Youtube clips of posed demos. There is definitely more going on here than than meets the eye.



Like a sneaky _laap_ that made you think the _bong_ did anything...?

In conclusion, Emin is unable to replicate the theory he just described at speed even in a demo against a single, known punch. You can forget about it working in an actual fight.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I hate to do this to you, but that's not what's happening at all.
> 
> Here it is in slow motion. His _bong-sau_ is actually initiated before contact,



The only thing I will say is regarding this, not commenting on the video.  While traditionally a Bong spirals out of a Tan that is not the only way to use it.  You can actually use it effectively to crash into an opponent if you "have a plan." More than once I have addressed an opponent with a Bong first, as they attack from close range, because it deflects their blow and, for me at least, I end in a good position for a Lan, so I can make distance and go to tools.

Now again this is not something most people need do in self defense, they arent concerned about making distance to go for tools like I am.  I am just mentioning it because to say "Hong in initiated before contact..." and other such things I disagree with.  WC is, at least imo, a tool box and you use each tools as is needed in your process.


----------



## LFJ

I'm not saying _bong-sau_ can't be initiated before contact. Mine doesn't rely on contact at all. 

I'm responding to the theory that their _bong_ is formed by the opponent's incoming force suppressing their forearm causing it to bow which in turn causes them to rotate around it. 

But at speed, it doesn't actually happen. Each time he initiates before contact and steps of his own volition.

That means he can't replicate his theory at speed even in a demo.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I'm not saying _bong-sau_ can't be initiated before contact. Mine doesn't rely on contact at all.
> 
> I'm responding to the theory that their _bong_ is formed by the opponent's incoming force suppressing their forearm causing it to bow which in turn causes them to rotate around it.
> 
> But at speed, it doesn't actually happen. Each time he initiates before contact and steps of his own volition.
> 
> That means he can't replicate his theory at speed even in a demo.



Okay, now I understand.  Just made my statement because I have spoken to some who say bong-sau is a result of tan-sau, and other such shenanigans.  

That said I actually do see one point in the first GIF.  I am on my phone so not 100% certain but it does look like he starts his "spiral" to the opponent's left before contact in anticipation.  However this is why I hate YouTube.  In training it is VERY aboard not to anticipate.  It sucks but in terms of martial arts all to often the claim isn't proved or disproved until you are either bragging at the bar after cause you won or silent at the bar because you go your *** kicked.

I will admit that after each spiral out, in slow motion, you can see he is learning back from his waist.  That is begging for trouble, but again, this is a YouTube video so it's "iffy" evidence of success or failure.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> The bong does not _fold,_ if by fold you mean "bend and collapse". Perhaps better to say it bows and flexes when receiving force. A bow flexes and then returns force. Likewise the bong returns force and controls the position of your opponent so he cannot return to  face your center.



But as we've seen, at least as Emin does it at speed, his _bong_ doesn't bow from receiving force and doesn't return force or control position. None of the above, in fact.



> Yes your _footwork_ does allow you to sidestep his attack _(yau pin, yap ching)_, but you do not allow space to develop, releasing pressure. This would defy our concept of maintaining forward intent which is inherent in _loi lau hoi sung lat sau jik chung._



Again, as we've seen when Emin does it he's not taking space from the attacker. In fact, especially clear in the inside _bong_ gif above he's stepping out and leaning back away from the attack. In each gif the attacker has plenty of recovery space.

Emin is supposed to be one of, if not _the_ top fighter in the LTWT lineage. If he can't replicate the theory even in a demo against a single punch he knows is coming, but you guys (you and Phobius) say it works, then you guys must be something special.



> You are correct in equating _bong_ with _pak. _Bong often functions like a pak-sau. When you meet incoming force on the palm side of your wu-sau, you pak ...with a jolt. When the same force comes across your bridge, your arm rolls and jolts forward with a bong. Same idea. In this sense _bong and pak can be seen as using opposite sides of the arm to do the same thing._



Your _paak_ is a jolt from _wu-sau_ after meeting incoming force on the palm? Sounds like a shove.

To me, _paak_, as the name implies is a sharp slap with the palm from no pre-contact. _Bong_ is the same sharp slapping action but with the proximal end of the forearm, again from no pre-contact.

Just depends on your position, and I wouldn't do this as a primary action against a punch where a counter punch should suffice.

Emin does _bong_, _laap_, then punch. Of course, it was done very fast, but the opponent can move fast too. So, two remedial actions as a primary response to a single punch before returning fire is not simple, direct, or efficient and takes too long, as fast as it was, because you have to consider the opponent can still move both arms just as fast. Another punch would cut right into all of that.

Better would be to recover his lost _man-sau_ with another punch straight from _wu-sau_ that intercepts the line. No need for all the convoluted "Wing Chun" moves.



> On the other hand (pardon the pun) _bong and tan are also opposite sides of the same technique_. A tan-sau does not jolt so much as spread, compress and deflect to the same side as the arm. Similarly bong-sau bows, compresses and deflects to the opposite side. This is the energy we train in our chi-sau.



I mean you guys no offense, but it sounds born of _chi-sau_. No such contact and compression and springing back happens in a fist fight. I'm not sure how you can look at this and still believe it.

I mean, if your top guy can't even replicate it in a demo given 3 tries against a punch he knows is coming... Might it just be a neat theory you reckon you could get to work for real? If you claim it actually works for you in free fighting, again, you gotta be something special!


----------



## SaulGoodman

LFJ said:


> But as we've seen, at least as Emin does it at speed, his _bong_ doesn't bow from receiving force and doesn't return force or control position. None of the above, in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as we've seen when Emin does it he's not taking space from the attacker. In fact, especially clear in the inside _bong_ gif above he's stepping out and leaning back away from the attack. In each gif the attacker has plenty of recovery space.
> 
> Emin is supposed to be one of, if not _the_ top fighter in the LTWT lineage. If he can't replicate the theory even in a demo against a single punch he knows is coming, but you guys (you and Phobius) say it works, then you guys must be something special.
> 
> 
> 
> Your _paak_ is a jolt from _wu-sau_ after meeting incoming force on the palm? Sounds like a shove.
> 
> To me, _paak_, as the name implies is a sharp slap with the palm from no pre-contact. _Bong_ is the same sharp slapping action but with the proximal end of the forearm, again from no pre-contact.
> 
> Just depends on your position, and I wouldn't do this as a primary action against a punch where a counter punch should suffice.
> 
> Emin does _bong_, _laap_, then punch. Of course, it was done very fast, but the opponent can move fast too. So, two remedial actions as a primary response to a single punch before returning fire is not simple, direct, or efficient and takes too long, as fast as it was, because you have to consider the opponent can still move both arms just as fast. Another punch would cut right into all of that.
> 
> Better would be to recover his lost _man-sau_ with another punch straight from _wu-sau_ that intercepts the line. No need for all the convoluted "Wing Chun" moves.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean you guys no offense, but it sounds born of _chi-sau_. No such contact and compression and springing back happens in a fist fight. I'm not sure how you can look at this and still believe it.
> 
> I mean, if your top guy can't even replicate it in a demo given 3 tries against a punch he knows is coming... Might it just be a neat theory you reckon you could get to work for real? If you claim it actually works for you in free fighting, again, you gotta be something special!



I'm sure Emin would be quaking in his boots if he was ever in your presence ...


----------



## Vajramusti

SaulGoodman said:


> I'm sure Emin would be quaking in his boots if he was ever in your presence ...


----------



## LFJ

"_You don't have to be scared to get your a55 kicked._" 

But regardless, even assuming Emin is a great natural fighter, that doesn't mean the theory he expounds is realistic.

He clearly did something entirely other than what he described seconds earlier. But if he can still beat people, good for him. If people are scared of him, good for him.

Teaching unrealistic theories to ordinary folks though, bad for them.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> I'm sure Emin would be quaking in his boots if he was ever in your presence ...



This is a bit of an idiot response and does nothing to tackle the excellent and detailed criticism of his movements made by LFJ.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*What if Wing Chun remained a concept... *

The Bong Shou can be used in jacket wrestling nicely.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> In conclusion, Emin is unable to replicate the theory he just described at speed even in a demo against a single, known punch. You can forget about it working in an actual fight.



Just to summarize, Emin is not replicating a sense based movement against an opponent during a demonstration in a video recording staged and intended to convey a message? Problem with doing that move based on feeling alone would mean that if his student would not hit more powerful than Emin's structure can take, the outcome might as well be another movement not intended to be demonstrated.

As such a demo is not a reliable source to base judgement on if something works. Just like we do not consider demos to be worthy evidence that techniques work in fighting. Because the situation does not allow you to do certain moves and other moves can be done which would never work in real fighting context. Emin does not want to reshoot the entire video and will therefore make sure everything becomes as he wants.

Emin is a very powerful fighter. Not necessary that bong sau would be a natural movement for him in that scenario described against his colleague.

Still it does not matter. I have tried it several times, it works. I have others that have tried it as well and does not work for them. Do not know why that is or what is the difference, but I guess there are different ways to do it and some are harder to learn to become natural movement than others.

Doing things based on visual queue is not a bad thing and I actually took some time to think and test and noticed that sometimes I automatically identify that a movement is coming in a certain way and trigger a bong sau myself without feeling it. It depends on what kind of situation and how force is angled towards me.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I hate to do this to you, but that's not what's happening at all.
> 
> Here it is in slow motion. His _bong-sau_ is actually initiated before contact, and in fact barely even makes contact.
> 
> What causes the attacker to stumble a bit is a little _laap_ he sneaks in there with his left hand. The _bong-sau_ was entirely useless.



You _hate to do this to me_? Do what? _Discuss_ a technique? No problem! You do have a good eye to pick up the variations in that demo, especially when the video resolution is fairly poor. Anyway, IMO you make some valid points, and others that I find less valid.

_*First*_, does Emin anticipate the punch and start forming his bong of his own volition? _Possibly _-- it's hard to see clearly. But that can happen in a demo when you know exactly what is coming and what you are trying to show. Either way, it doesn't really reflect on the concept he's presenting.
_*
Secondly*_, regarding that _ sneaky little laap sau _you noticed. Well, I can't speak for Emin --remember I'm not an EBMAS guy --but before EBMAS, Emin and I were both LT-WT practitioners. In that system, they did not teach using bong simultaneously with that cross-body punch you find so problematic. Instead, standard WT _uses_ that sneaky little lap. It _is _sneaky because it is a small, fast, transitional movement that opens the way for a solid, same-side (not cross-body) punch.  In order to work, it must be a small, fast, and efficient movement. You may have a problem with that, but I don't.

Emin's personal contribution seems to be combining the function of the lap-sau with the cross-body punch making it (ideally) a single offensive movement. This has obvious merit from the point of view of efficiency, but perhaps in practice, sometimes the lap is still necessary. Emin is a pragmatist. Whatever he says about a technique, he will adjust  it as needed to make it work. If that means shifting form a punch to a bit of that "sneaky lap" why not. It has to be instinctual for somebody of Emin's level. Whatever adjustments he makes,_ he does make his stuff work_. WSL was known for that too, I believe.

_*Finally*_, regarding your comment about the_ lap,_ rather than the bong-sau making his opponent stumble ...well, yeah,_ that's the whole point of a flexible bong and footwork._ When you apply a forceful bong against a strong and well rooted opponent, he will resist your force, driving back into you, often closing off your line of attack, and possibly taking centerline to use against you.

A flexible bong and evasive footwork will feel to your opponent like an open door. They do not elicit resistance. In fact _they tend to encourage commitment _to an attack which makes it easier to move in and around the incoming strike as Emin does (regardless of precisely how he does it). This is the primary methodology of the WT system. you may not like it, you may not feel that it's as effective and reliable as your method, but you would be seriously mistaken to believe that it doesn't work! I believe that's what Saul was getting at earlier (in post 209).

So LFJ, thanks again for the gifs. They made this  discussion so much clearer. And, honestly I do not mean to discount your objections. I myself find a direct, jolting bong very practical and reliable. Just one thing. Don't view this discussion as a game of "Gotcha!". Different WC/VT/WT people have different perspectives. Why not accept that and focus on a cost-benefit analysis of approaches_ instead of trying to prove everybody else wrong._ Seriously!


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Just to summarize, Emin is not replicating a sense based movement against an opponent during a demonstration in a video recording staged and intended to convey a message? Problem with doing that move based on feeling alone would mean that if his student would not hit more powerful than Emin's structure can take, the outcome might as well be another movement not intended to be demonstrated.



If it can't be demonstrated at real speed, then it can't be drilled realistically either.

That means it is a theory that you just have to hope will function in a fight.



> I have tried it several times, it works. I have others that have tried it as well and does not work for them.



So it has worked for you several times but hasn't worked for others. Doesn't sound very reliable.

Most people would probably do better focusing on tactics of higher success rates. After all, when physical wellbeing is at stake, pulling off a nifty energy trick isn't going to score you more points.



> Doing things based on visual queue is not a bad thing and I actually took some time to think and test and noticed that sometimes I automatically identify that a movement is coming in a certain way and trigger a bong sau myself without feeling it. It depends on what kind of situation and how force is angled towards me.



The most likely thing to happen in a violent fist fight is that you see a threat and respond or you sense that your own position or structure has been compromised and respond to recover position.

It will not have anything to do with interpreting the opponent's energy or allowing your body to rotate around it. Things happen _way too fast_ for that.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> You _hate to do this to me_? Do what? _Discuss_ a technique? No problem!



Well, that was an example of your theory in motion. (The best one you got?) But upon closer analysis we found that none of what you or he described actually happened when he went to do it at speed. I don't hope to upset anyone by pointing this out. I know some people can be sensitive and resist criticism.



> *First*, does Emin anticipate the punch and start forming his bong of his own volition? _Possibly _-- it's hard to see clearly. But that can happen in a demo when you know exactly what is coming and what you are trying to show. Either way, it doesn't really reflect on the concept he's presenting.



I think if you watch his arm, you will clearly see it initiating a _bong-sau_ prior to contact.

How does this not reflect on the concept he's presenting? It totally nullifies it since the whole idea theoretically starts with the _bong-sau_ being formed by the opponent's pressure on the forearm. 

But if that premise is not true, then the rest of the theory is not worth discussing.



> *Secondly*, regarding that _ sneaky little laap sau _you noticed. Well, I can't speak for Emin --remember I'm not an EBMAS guy --but before EBMAS, Emin and I were both LT-WT practitioners. In that system, they did not teach using bong simultaneously with that cross-body punch you find so problematic. Instead, standard WT _uses_ that sneaky little lap. It _is _sneaky because it is a small, fast, transitional movement that opens the way for a solid, same-side (not cross-body) punch.  In order to work, it must be a small, fast, and efficient movement. You may have a problem with that, but I don't.



I don't have such a problem with how the _laap_ was done, except that it could have disrupted the attacker's balance and facing more. The problem is more combining it with a _bong _that actually served no purpose.

He does right _bong_, left _laap_, left punch. While faster than we could see at full speed, the opponent's hands can move just as fast and could potentially cut right into that where the right hand is out of play for an instant. They still have another free hand, you know?

If he wanted to use _laap-sau_, I think it would be more direct and efficient to _laap_ while recycling the intercepted lead hand into a direct punch. This way he'd remain square on for a more powerful punch, intensified by the_ laap _which would jerk the attacker into the punch while making _them_ turn, not requiring him to step out and lean away from his own punches, leaving the attacker plenty of recovery space. It's also returning fire faster. Although we're talking split seconds, we have to consider the opponent can move just as fast too.



> *Finally*, regarding your comment about the_ lap,_ rather than the bong-sau making his opponent stumble ...well, yeah,_ that's the whole point of a flexible bong and footwork._



Well, you said it was the forward pressure from his _bong_ that did the trick...



> When you apply a forceful bong against a strong and well rooted opponent, he will resist your force, driving back into you, often closing off your line of attack, and possibly taking centerline to use against you.



The _bong_ as I do it only makes very instantaneous contact. There is no sticking and pressing. So, there is nothing for the opponent to resist and use muscle against, especially if they are in the middle of punching. It happens too fast.

Plus, the stronger the opponent is with it, the more his arm acts as a lever to his body. His arm will bounce away more ballistically, turning his body with it. An effect seen in this clip posted earlier. It's an instantaneous shock, not steady pressure he can resist and drive back into.

That's how a tiny man like YM could do it. It's not force against force or sticking and pressing. The elbow rotation is like a spinning top. The effect is very powerful on a lever to the opponent's body without pressing force.



> A flexible bong and evasive footwork will feel to your opponent like an open door. They do not elicit resistance.



They also don't appear to affect the opponent's balance, structure, or facing. So, there is really nothing to stop them from refacing and continuing to chase center with the next hand. That's a major problem I see with it. You said it also turns the opponent like gears, but I don't see that happening.



> Just one thing. Don't view this discussion as a game of "Gotcha!". Different WC/VT/WT people have different perspectives. Why not accept that and focus on a cost-benefit analysis of approaches_ instead of trying to prove everybody else wrong._ Seriously!



I think if we are to take something positive from this, it would be to recognize that when done at full speed, what is most likely to happen is a very instantaneous contact, and that what works is control of our own positioning and striking.

That's what worked for Emin there and is what is most likely to occur in a real fight too. I don't think his positioning method was a very good one, but I'm sure what he did there would work against most bozos in a self-defense situation. It's the speed and aggression that accomplishes it. The yielding, bowing, rotating thing doesn't seem realistic or at least not reliable. But managing one's own positioning and striking will work.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> If it can't be demonstrated at real speed, then it can't be drilled realistically either.
> 
> That means it is a theory that you just have to hope will function in a fight.



This is only true if the drill you are doing must result in a bong sau, if you put such a requirement on the drill then yes it is not doable. There is no guarantee that a bong is the most natural response. Instead you train good structure and foundation until there is no other natural movement other than what you are doing.

Sparring will tell you if you did something not optimal, in that case you improve your structure and correct your flaws and retest later.



LFJ said:


> So it has worked for you several times but hasn't worked for others. Doesn't sound very reliable.
> 
> Most people would probably do better focusing on tactics of higher success rates. After all, when physical wellbeing is at stake, pulling off a nifty energy trick isn't going to score you more points.



It is not an energy trick, it is just working for me. This has not even anything to do about energy, it is about eating up force into your structure and training how to avoid building up more tension than you can handle. What do you do when someone is about to break your structure? Train how to react and that is it. It is the most logical, most self explainatory and sadly not the quickest path. Natural movement is those moves you do by instinct, sort of like how you need to train not to flinch.

I do not care what works for others or why it does not. If your friend can not punch does that mean you stop punching altogether? Or do you even think that means your punching is bad because you punch straight on the centerline and a clear majority of the world does not and cant generate power doing it like that?

The obvious answer is this, they have not trained it well enough. Nor did I say I was the only person that got it to work, just saying there are some who can not grasp it. Just like there are people that can not react on visual input there are probably those that could not sense a truck running them over.

So speaking of reliable, the only reliable thing for me to do is use what tools work for me. If I start using tools just because they work for others then I will end up using stuff not working for me as well. That is not logical nor is it very wise.



LFJ said:


> The most likely thing to happen in a violent fist fight is that you see a threat and respond or you sense that your own position or structure has been compromised and respond to recover position.
> 
> It will not have anything to do with interpreting the opponent's energy or allowing your body to rotate around it. Things happen _way too fast_ for that.



Well what is wrong with your reasoning? You just said what sensing energy is, "you sense that your own position or structure has been compromised and respond to recover position".

You feel in your body how you structure takes the energy and when it can not handle it anymore and need to respond. How you respond is what you train. In order to train this reliably you need to learn to sense changes in movement to figure out how to best respond when structure is about to be compromised.

This is the difference between the drills and fighting. It takes a lot more, such as you say compromising structure, for someone to feel what is happening upon an instant contact. Perhaps if you are a grandmaster and has a white beard that could reach the floor then you might feel a lot more from a single contact point. I am not that good at sensing, not even close. But during drills I have to train on the change of force to make sure my natural movements become correct.

So calling it energy trick is one thing, but as I said before. I am sure even you do it without thinking.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You just said what sensing energy is, "you sense that your own position or structure has been compromised and respond to recover position".
> 
> You feel in your body how you structure takes the energy and when it can not handle it anymore and need to respond. How you respond is what you train.



That's not at all what I mean. There is no sensing the opponent's energy and responding when your structure can't handle it anymore. Fist fights are way too fast for such things. It's not like _chi-sau_. Contact is instantaneous. You must move freely and strike.

Sensing changes in your own structure and positioning is nothing but bodily awareness. Lead hand loses the line. Rear hand instinctually takes over. That kind of thing. It's all too fast to attend to anything but your own position and continuing attack. No bowing and rotating this way or that around pressure like _chi-sau_.

We see it in Emin's videos done at speed. He had no time to establish contact and rotate this way or that based on what the opponent's energy induced. He had to move fast, get to a position, and counterattack. That's what happens in reality.

But if you insist you've done it in a fight and it works, again, you're certainly something special. Better than the top fighter in your lineage. Good for you!


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> But if you insist you've done it in a fight and it works, again, you're certainly something special. Better than the top fighter in your lineage. Good for you!



You got it all wrong. You are the one insisting that a top fighter (not in my lineage) is lying or has no idea what he is doing.

I am the one saying he can do this as well but in a video demo recording he has to adjust so a bong sau happens. You say something is proof and deny the logic in not wanting to do retakes of video recording.

And once more. You expect that a scenario must be exactly this way because he did so. For someone dealing with everything being abstract you have a very one way street in terms of applications. 

I for instance do not think Emin would do a natural rolling on a punch coming straight in.

Besides you would never accept anything in demo as proof. Even if he did it as you expected it could have been after retakes and timing. Nothing can be proven unless you can do it yourself.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You expect that a scenario must be exactly this way because he did so. For someone dealing with everything being abstract you have a very one way street in terms of applications.



What he described is not abstract and not my application...

I'm just going by what he said. He gave details on how this and that is going to happen, then said now watch it at full speed... and none of it happened.



> Besides you would never accept anything in demo as proof. Even if he did it as you expected it could have been after retakes and timing. Nothing can be proven unless you can do it yourself.



Not true. I don't care if it's after retakes and whatever. If he could do it at full speed that would convince me that it can be done at full speed, at least against a single, known punch.

As it stands, after 3 tries he still couldn't do it even in a demo. So, we shouldn't even be dreaming about it working in a fight. It hasn't passed the first test outside of _chi-sau_.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> What he described is not abstract and not my application...
> 
> I'm just going by what he said. He gave details on how this and that is going to happen, then said now watch it at full speed... and none of it happened.



First of all he was not talking about only unconscious bong sau, he also said there is active. Both are valid bong sau. I am not really clear on if he is demonstrating bong sau or only intending to demonstrate unconscious bong sau as he calls it. In addition he seems to jump to discussing punching as follow up to bong sau as well.

Second of all this is a demo. I did not say it was abstract demo, I was saying that one dealing with abstracts should understand more why a demo is not a reliable source. The demo is made to be instructional to students. As such it can be that he willingly prevented the risk that he would not react with a bong sau because his opponent would not apply enough force.

This can happen quite often when training as well with your sifu, he wants to demonstrate something related to a specific move but the move was not natural instead he forces it just to make sure his point can be demonstrated. Reason? He has nothing to prove, just something to teach.





LFJ said:


> Not true. I don't care if it's after retakes and whatever. If he could do it at full speed that would convince me that it can be done at full speed, at least against a single, known punch.
> 
> As it stands, after 3 tries he still couldn't do it even in a demo. So, we shouldn't even be dreaming about it working in a fight. It hasn't passed the first test outside of _chi-sau_.



Once more saying this was not a video intended to prove it works, it was a demonstrational and instructional video to teach students some details about bong sau. You want to apply this as proof but in fact it can simply be that he took no risk of opponent not punching with enough force to trigger a bong sau or because his mind is not clear but instead fully focused on what he is talking about to the camera.

One is clear in mind when fighting, not when doing an instructional video and need to follow a script, at least mental one, on what to say in order to not repeat yourself.

At the same time bong sau is not proven on video to be working, and quite frankly it matters not to me. I do not believe in any videos as proof. Instead I would advice you to ask yourself first "do you want it proven?" If yes, then train hard and then test to see if it works. If it does not, you either A) Trained badly, or B) it might not work for you.

EDIT: I am not trying to say you are wrong, I am trying to make you understand that the world is not black and white, it is a grey place. There are more truths than a single one. We should not trust YouTube blindly. 

As for logics we should at least consider the fact that a very experienced and well versed fighter with his own schools might actually have felt something working has he describes it, if he says it works. Not because he could not have lied, but because people might laugh at him if he said stuff that was so easily proven false.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> This is a bit of an idiot response and does nothing to tackle the excellent and detailed criticism of his movements made by LFJ.


You do like a bit of "excellent criticism" . Except when it's aimed at you...


----------



## yak sao

Having trained with Emin, I saw him demonstrate things like this countless times and had him demo on me countless times.
One thing he would do to demonstrate structure was to take the largest most muscular guy in class and  have the guy try to break through his structure. Emin always held his structure. I never saw anyone break his structure, whether he was demonstrating tan, bong, wu or whatever.
So I would imagine Emin was quite accommodating in this video for sake of demonstration ,  as it was demonstrating bong sau  and not structure.


----------



## geezer

An observation about the "jolting" bong in WSL-VT _as described by LFJ_ is that it is directed at the incoming punch, _not forward at the opponent_ and then rolled into a deflecting bong when contacting an incoming punch as in the WT/Ebmas version. 

Think about that a moment. LFJ's bong is It's formed of his own volition and then is directed at jolting the incoming arm aside. No problem, I can see how that works, yet compared with the bong as used in WT/EBMAS et al., what LFJ describes sounds like _chasing hands. ...something he makes a big deal out of in other lineages. _Just a thought.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> You do like a bit of "excellent criticism" . Except when it's aimed at you...



I relish the opportunity to talk about VT if you have anything to contribute


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> what LFJ describes sounds like _chasing hands. ...something he makes a big deal out of in other lineages. _Just a thought.



Bong is a clearing/corrective action, used only when the attacking line is not free and/or position is compromised. It is not a primary action and so is not chasing hands. When the way is free to hit, you hit.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> Bong is a clearing/corrective action, used only when the attacking line is not free and/or position is compromised. It is not a primary action and so is not chasing hands. When the way is free to hit, you hit.



So when you _visually perceive_ that "the way" is or will be blocked by an incoming punch, you throw a jolting bong at his punching arm to free the way and compromise his structure. ....A corrective action that attacks his arm on the basis of it appearing to be in your way.

Sorry, my eyes aren't that good. I like to back them up with what I feel with my bridges. Yeah, I know, this is a type of thinking that comes from messing around too much in chi-sau. My bad.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> So when you _visually perceive_ that "the way" is or will be blocked by an incoming punch, you throw a jolting bong at his punching arm to free the way and compromise his structure. ....A corrective action that attacks his arm on the basis of it appearing to be in your way.
> 
> Sorry, my eyes aren't that good. I like to back them up with what I feel with my bridges. Yeah, I know, this is a type of thinking that comes from messing around too much in chi-sau. My bad.



Why the obsession with throwing a bong at a punch?


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> Why the obsession with throwing a bong at a punch?



Why indeed? Not something we normally do in our VT. Just something LFJ was rather keen on judging from his posts. From our perspective, that would be a "subjective response". Our preferred mode is developing "objective responses", i.e. based on actual force received over visual cues.

However in my experience all exchanges actually contain a mix of objective and subjective response ...so no biggie. I can respect what you do. Carry on.


----------



## SaulGoodman

geezer said:


> An observation about the "jolting" bong in WSL-VT _as described by LFJ_ is that it is directed at the incoming punch, _not forward at the opponent_ and then rolled into a deflecting bong when contacting an incoming punch as in the WT/Ebmas version.
> 
> Think about that a moment. LFJ's bong is It's formed of his own volition and then is directed at jolting the incoming arm aside. No problem, I can see how that works, yet compared with the bong as used in WT/EBMAS et al., what LFJ describes sounds like _chasing hands. ...something he makes a big deal out of in other lineages. _Just a thought.


But Geezer, it's a "remedial" thing


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> I relish the opportunity to talk about VT if you have anything to contribute



I will just modify the above statement to reflect what you actually mean :

"I relish the opportunity to shoot down /conflict/berate/ gain one upmanship on ANY of your views which I perceive to be contrary to my prejudiced and narrow minded view of what real "VEETEEE" is".

I would rather go have root canal treatment, there is pain involved but at least I get something productive out of it..,.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> I would rather go have root canal treatment



If it is so painful for you to interact, then why do so? Seems like a strange choice.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> If it is so painful for you to interact, then why do so? Seems like a strange choice.



I could be wrong.  But it seems to me that Saul is saying it is painful to interact with YOU, not interact in general.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I could be wrong.  But it seems to me that Saul is saying it is painful to interact with YOU, not interact in general.



But I am about the only person he interacts with, and his entire repertoire of conversation is me and LFJ. Seems an odd choice for someone who finds it so difficult.


----------



## Phobius

Why do I get a feeling the discussion on this topic has come to an end?


----------



## SaulGoodman

KPM said:


> I could be wrong.  But it seems to me that Saul is saying it is painful to interact with YOU, not interact in general.


Got it in one brother


----------



## Dirty Dog

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*
Please return to the original topic and keep the conversation polite and professional.


----------



## Juany118

Something just dawned on me regarding the OP.  When did Wing Chun stop being a "conceptual art"?  Does not the very fact that we are discussing the different methods of various Wing Chun styles, all of which (if I am not mistaken) lay claim to the Yip Man Lineage, indicate that WC is still a conceptual MA?


----------



## yak sao

Juany118 said:


> Something just dawned on me regarding the OP.  When did Wing Chun stop being a "conceptual art"?  Does not the very fact that we are discussing the different methods of various Wing Chun styles, all of which (if I am not mistaken) lay claim to the Yip Man Lineage, indicate that WC is still a conceptual MA?



Oh sure, 12 pages later and after we get fussed at by one of the mods and now you think of it.


----------



## Juany118

yak sao said:


> Oh sure, 12 pages later and after we get fussed at by one of the mods and now you think of it.



Well it took those pages of debate to make the point I guess lol


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Something just dawned on me regarding the OP.  When did Wing Chun stop being a "conceptual art"?  Does not the very fact that we are discussing the different methods of various Wing Chun styles, all of which (if I am not mistaken) lay claim to the Yip Man Lineage, indicate that WC is still a conceptual MA?


Unfortunately most of the discussion has been centered around a singular and narrow minded approach to the use of bong sau. Discussion on "proper" use of one technique does not a concept make. Bong is a "broken wing" technique, it is the use of forearm/elbow. Position , height, angle, gate, force used etc. is not as important as the concept of what is "bong" IMO. I see bong in barring, hacking, standing, covering, pressing etc. Some will disagree & say that isn't bong it's Lan, Gai, Jan etc., that's fine. But a concept is not bound by rigid parameters limited to a specifically named technique it is defined by the outcome of the action performed. WC has too much vernacular to define slightly different movements of similarly formed shapes. This gives the impression of different "technique" and as a result the perception of specific use, when in reality an elbow is an elbow. Different angles of the elbow work better against different incoming movements, but in it's simplest form, it is still just an elbow. You can dress it up and define it with whatever energy, theory etc. you want, but it does not change the fact that you are using the elbow to strike, block, clear etc. There are 3 families of movements. These are Tan, Bong & Fook. Nearly all other positions have their root in one of these "bridging" concepts. Why would a variation of the physical position take on a new conceptual meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense that the concept be the same and it's application be different. After all the concept of a punch doesn't become something else like a grab simply because the angle was changed, it's still a punch. It can only morph into something else when the intention is changed, when that happens it is no longer the same concept but a new one, like grab. Blunt impact and seizing are not the same concept. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Unfortunately most of the discussion has been centered around a singular and narrow minded approach to the use of bong sau. Discussion on "proper" use of one technique does not a concept make. Bong is a "broken wing" technique, it is the use of forearm/elbow. Position , height, angle, gate, force used etc. is not as important as the concept of what is "bong" IMO. I see bong in barring, hacking, standing, covering, pressing etc. Some will disagree & say that isn't bong it's Lan, Gai, Jan etc., that's fine. But a concept is not bound by rigid parameters limited to a specifically named technique it is defined by the outcome of the action performed. WC has too much vernacular to define slightly different movements of similarly formed shapes. This gives the impression of different "technique" and as a result the perception of specific use, when in reality an elbow is an elbow. Different angles of the elbow work better against different incoming movements, but in it's simplest form, it is still just an elbow. You can dress it up and define it with whatever energy, theory etc. you want, but it does not change the fact that you are using the elbow to strike, block, clear etc. There are 3 families of movements. These are Tan, Bong & Fook. Nearly all other positions have their root in one of these "bridging" concepts. Why would a variation of the physical position take on a new conceptual meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense that the concept be the same and it's application be different. After all the concept of a punch doesn't become something else like a grab simply because the angle was changed, it's still a punch. It can only morph into something else when the intention is changed, when that happens it is no longer the same concept but a new one, like grab. Blunt impact and seizing are not the same concept. Just my 2 cents.



Well as far as the angle only of a Tan or a Bong, different angles will almost universally be better or worse.  It is simply geometry.  What makes them powerful is the angle.  Too obtuse and you are moved, to acute and it will move.  However I do agree with you in general that there are many ways to use them.  That said changing their use still qualifies as a concept.  The Bong argument is actually what woke me up to this.  The fact people were digging their heals in on what was and what was not a "correct" Bong, shows that their are different concepts.  You attitude is simply one concept of many because remember ultimately a concept is an abstract idea that is then taken to a new place, or remains static.


----------



## yak sao

Juany118 said:


> ultimately a concept is an abstract idea that is then taken to a new place, or remains static.



The forms were purposely designed as abstract. What I derive from training the SNT today is different than what I derived from it 20 years ago.
If we lock ourselves into thinking that "this move is for this" and "that move is for that" then we will never get it.
The forms, and ultimately, WC, is there not to teach us what moves to do, but to teach us how to move.


----------



## Juany118

yak sao said:


> The forms were purposely designed as abstract. What I derive from training the SNT today is different than what I derived from it 20 years ago.
> If we lock ourselves into thinking that "this move is for this" and "that move is for that" then we will never get it.
> The forms, and ultimately, WC, is there not to teach us what moves to do, but to teach us how to move.



Indeed and that is my point regarding WC being a concept. I think the problem is this, people on both extremes of this debate sometimes find themselves in an age old trap.  Once you see "your" way as the "right" way, and "their" way as the "wrong" way, the idea of conceptualization longer exists because, at least imo, both represent a Dogma of sorts.


----------



## Callen

yak sao said:


> The forms were purposely designed as abstract.


This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?


----------



## geezer

Callen said:


> This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?



Chicken or the egg. Either way, you guys are right. The forms are best understood as abstract.


----------



## KPM

Callen said:


> This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?



Many southern fists styles have forms that are essentially a choreographed "shadow boxing" routine....done as if you are fighting an imaginary opponent.  But Wing Chun's forms have always been more like "textbooks"....done as a catalogue of techniques and concepts.  So I would say that the Wing Chun forms were "purposely" designed to be conceptual or "abstract" from the beginning.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Well as far as the angle only of a Tan or a Bong, different angles will almost universally be better or worse.  It is simply geometry.  What makes them powerful is the angle.  Too obtuse and you are moved, to acute and it will move.  However I do agree with you in general that there are many ways to use them.  That said changing their use still qualifies as a concept.  The Bong argument is actually what woke me up to this.  The fact people were digging their heals in on what was and what was not a "correct" Bong, shows that their are different concepts.  You attitude is simply one concept of many because remember ultimately a concept is an abstract idea that is then taken to a new place, or remains static.


I'm not outright disagreeing with what you have to say but for one thing. You said changing the use still qualifies as a concept. I disagree, that is interpretation. The concept of bong doesn't change simply because of how one applies or interprets it's use, in the end it is still bong. The concept of bong did not change, your interpretation of its use changed. This does not make bong different, as it was abstract to begin with.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Many southern fists styles have forms that are essentially a choreographed "shadow boxing" routine....done as if you are fighting an imaginary opponent.  But Wing Chun's forms have always been more like "textbooks"....done as a catalogue of techniques and concepts.  So I would say that the Wing Chun forms were "purposely" designed to be conceptual or "abstract" from the beginning.


It's interesting that many systems both north and south have forms like this (abstract like WC) as beginner sets. Let's take time to think about that for a moment.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?


To a beginner, a concrete form is much more valuable than an abstract form.

A

- hook punch followed by a back fist (punching combo),
- roundhouse kick followed by a side kick (kicking combo),
- groin kick followed by a face punch (kicking, punching combo),
- shoulder lock followed by an elbow lock (joint locking combo),
- hip throw followed by an inner hook throw (throwing combo),
- side mount followed by a full mount (ground skill combo),
- ...

can teach a beginner much more than just to stand there and move your arm without moving your body. Through the combo sequence training, a beginner can learn "how to use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move". Any abstract form can't teach you that.

Also the "power generation" issue should be addressed during day 1.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To a beginner, a concrete form is much more valuable than an abstract form.
> 
> A
> 
> - hook punch followed by a back fist (punching combo),
> - roundhouse kick followed by a side kick (kicking combo),
> - groin kick followed by a face punch (kicking, punching combo),
> - shoulder lock followed by an elbow lock (joint locking combo),
> - hip throw followed by an inner hook throw (throwing combo),
> - side mount followed by a full mount (ground skill combo),
> - ...
> 
> can teach a beginner much more than just to stand there and move your arm without moving your body. Through the combo sequence training, a beginner can learn "how to use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move". Any abstract form can't teach you that.
> 
> Also the "power generation" issue should be addressed during day 1.



You have a good point which is why most lineages have other kinds of training to address these needs. For example, in the system I train there are sets of two man drilling sequences called "lat sau" that train in a much more literal way (using attacks and defenses) than the forms.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> An observation about the "jolting" bong in WSL-VT _as described by LFJ_ is that it is directed at the incoming punch, _not forward at the opponent_ and then rolled into a deflecting bong when contacting an incoming punch as in the WT/Ebmas version.



Not true at all. 

I repeatedly told Phobius it's not a primary action applied against a punch, and that it is indeed a _forward_ action. It's the rotation of the elbow that laterally displaces the obstruction, not a sideways attack at an arm.



geezer said:


> So when you _visually perceive_ that "the way" is or will be blocked by an incoming punch, you throw a jolting bong at his punching arm to free the way and compromise his structure. ....A corrective action that attacks his arm on the basis of it appearing to be in your way.



As Guy said, you guys do seem obsessed with throwing a _bong_ at a punch, like you can't let go of the idea.

I think because your heads are so filled with application ideas. You need it to be this against that to make sense of it.



guy b. said:


> Why the obsession with throwing a bong at a punch?
> 
> 
> geezer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why indeed? Not something we normally do in our VT. Just something LFJ was rather keen on judging from his posts.
Click to expand...


Judging from what posts?!

The multiple posts I had to make telling Phobius that _bong-sau_ is not a primary action thrown at an incoming punch?? And you and he still don't get it...

If there's an incoming punch, my response should generally be to counter punch. Never _bong-sau_! If at range and in position to use my arms without raising my elbow, I would not _bong_. _Bong-sau_ is only remedial, so it's not used very often in fighting. There is absolutely no necessity to use _bong-sau_ in the scenario discussed and demoed by Emin and I would not.

My _bong-sau_ is a remedial action to retake space. Everything is about taking space and attacking forward. I don't care what an opponent's arm is doing. The arm is not a target. _Bong_ is just opening space for the punch it is coupled with. Two arms work as a unit. Both are directed forward and both help capture an attack line while hitting. That's it.

Look, this probably doesn't make sense to you, but everything is about controlling my own position and structures in a fight. 

I'm not concerned with blocking, feeling, and controlling arms, or applying this move vs that move. My only concern is capturing space and attacking. It's a behavior reflex. The stimulus is my own bodily and spatial awareness. I'm not throwing a reactive _bong-sau_ at a punch I see.

If you must think in terms of 1:1 application ideas, you won't understand it. I don't know what else to tell you.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Through the combo sequence training, a beginner can learn "how to use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move". Any abstract form can't teach you that.



An abstract form teaches principles of movement and attack, not 1-2 combos. VT is not and doesn't want to be 1-2 stop, 1-2-3 stop.

Dealing with set combos is detrimental to learning how to instinctually sustain attack against an opponent free to react in many ways and interrupt you and counter.

Sustained attack against a moving opponent cannot happen with set combos.


----------



## Callen

LFJ said:


> Not true at all.
> 
> I repeatedly told Phobius it's not a primary action applied against a punch, and that it is indeed a _forward_ action. It's the rotation of the elbow that laterally displaces the obstruction, not a sideways attack at an arm.
> 
> 
> 
> As Guy said, you guys do seem obsessed with throwing a _bong_ at a punch, like you can't let go of the idea.
> 
> I think because your heads are so filled with application ideas. You need it to be this against that to make sense of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Judging from what posts?!
> 
> The multiple posts I had to make telling Phobius that _bong-sau_ is not a primary action thrown at an incoming punch?? And you and he still don't get it...
> 
> If there's an incoming punch, my response should generally be to counter punch. Never _bong-sau_! If at range and in position to use my arms without raising my elbow, I would not _bong_. _Bong-sau_ is only remedial, so it's not used very often in fighting. There is absolutely no necessity to use _bong-sau_ in the scenario discussed and demoed by Emin and I would not.
> 
> My _bong-sau_ is a remedial action to retake space. Everything is about taking space and attacking forward. I don't care what an opponent's arm is doing. The arm is not a target. _Bong_ is just opening space for the punch it is coupled with. Two arms work as a unit. Both are directed forward and both help capture an attack line while hitting. That's it.
> 
> Look, this probably doesn't make sense to you, but everything is about controlling my own position and structures in a fight.
> 
> I'm not concerned with blocking, feeling, and controlling arms, or applying this move vs that move. My only concern is capturing space and attacking. It's a behavior reflex. The stimulus is my own bodily and spatial awareness. I'm not throwing a reactive _bong-sau_ at a punch I see.
> 
> If you must think in terms of 1:1 application ideas, you won't understand it. I don't know what else to tell you.



I feel certain that what LFJ is attempting to describe using words, would make much more sense to most in an actual real life example.

We often get into trouble when discussing theory and application because there's so many ways our words can be interpreted (and quite honestly confusing at times). Being shown a theory or application can change the way we look at everything because most of the time, it either works for us or it doesn't. Since that's not happening here, a little more patience is required to understand the perspectives that are being thrown around.

LFJ is illustrating the principals of directness and forward pressure (also forward intent) that are commonly found in WSLVT. For those that are utilizing a different style (or lineage) of Wing Chun that doesn't share these principals, they may not seem natural. But that's ok... it's just another way of looking at the same ideas. In fact, all the doors eventually lead to the same place.

The Bong can be very illusive at times, even after years training. Many practitioners use it differently, and that's ok too. It's simply a tool that should be used as part of the whole. The way you implement and understand your Wing Chun in general will dictate how you employ all the tools, regardless if it's the Bong, or Pak, Tan, Lan etc that you're dissecting.

It's perfectly possible and acceptable to utilize _your_ Wing Chun correctly based on different principals and theory than someone else. It's absolutely the nature of Wing Chun. After all, most of you just agreed that it was abstract in thought.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Unfortunately most of the discussion has been centered around a singular and narrow minded approach to the use of bong sau. Discussion on "proper" use of one technique does not a concept make. Bong is a "broken wing" technique, it is the use of forearm/elbow. Position , height, angle, gate, force used etc. is not as important as the concept of what is "bong" IMO. I see bong in barring, hacking, standing, covering, pressing etc. Some will disagree & say that isn't bong it's Lan, Gai, Jan etc., that's fine.



This is not how conceptual base is covered in VT. Concept of bong, concept of tan and so on is useless without the strategic conceptual framework of VT. Some of these shapes (and more) are found in other Chinese MA, but it is not the VT way to approach them in isolation like this. Approaching it this way is very much what is seen in some other Southern Chinese MA, but in VT it is the overarching approach to the fight that is the important bit and what makes it VT



Nobody Important said:


> Why would a variation of the physical position take on a new conceptual meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense that the concept be the same and it's application be different. After all the concept of a punch doesn't become something else like a grab simply because the angle was changed, it's still a punch. It can only morph into something else when the intention is changed, when that happens it is no longer the same concept but a new one, like grab. Blunt impact and seizing are not the same concept



VT isn't an application based approach to fighting, but neither is it based on extremely open concepts like "grab", "punch", "sink", "rise" or whatever. The VT conceptual base is strategy focused and is not very open to individual interpretation.


----------



## LFJ

guy b. said:


> ...in VT it is the overarching approach to the fight that is the important bit and what makes it VT.



This is the point I was trying to make in my last post to geezer.

But discussing it with people who keep looking for 1:1 applications seems kind of impossible.

Can't see the forest for the trees. If you don't understanding strategy, you're left thinking in terms of this vs that.

Many Wing Chun lineages seem to have all the "hands" and possible application ideas for them, but lack any sort of overall fighting strategy. That's probably the largest flaw when it comes down to it.


----------



## Callen

LFJ said:


> Many Wing Chun lineages seem to have all the "hands" and possible application ideas for them, but lack any sort of overall fighting strategy. That's probably the largest flaw when it comes down to it.



Nah, it doesn't have to be viewed as a flaw. Different lineages have different ways of looking at the system. It's just a fact.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I'm not outright disagreeing with what you have to say but for one thing. You said changing the use still qualifies as a concept. I disagree, that is interpretation. The concept of bong doesn't change simply because of how one applies or interprets it's use, in the end it is still bong. The concept of bong did not change, your interpretation of its use changed. This does not make bong different, as it was abstract to begin with.



I think we are trying to say the same thing  then just is different ways.  You are trying to say, if I understand rightly, that the argument over the Bong shouldn't exist because beyond some very basic principles a Bong has very little in the way of rules, is abstract,  Ergo it is a concept.

I am focusing on the argument itself, rather than the Bong, to say the same thing.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> This is not how conceptual base is covered in VT. Concept of bong, concept of tan and so on is useless without the strategic conceptual framework of VT. Some of these shapes (and more) are found in other Chinese MA, but it is not the VT way to approach them in isolation like this. Approaching it this way is very much what is seen in some other Southern Chinese MA, but in VT it is the overarching approach to the fight that is the important bit and what makes it VT
> 
> 
> 
> VT isn't an application based approach to fighting, but neither is it based on extremely open concepts like "grab", "punch", "sink", "rise" or whatever. The VT conceptual base is strategy focused and is not very open to individual interpretation.


My bad I forgot VT is conceptually unique, was created in a vacuum and theoretically different from all other martial arts. Not to mention so abstract and ambigious that it cannot be discussed in words, understood with action or correct if not compliant with the closed minded dogma you spew. I'll try harder next time great master. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. *bows deeply*


----------



## LFJ

Callen said:


> Nah, it doesn't have to be viewed as a flaw. Different lineages have different ways of looking at the system. It's just a fact.



It's a flaw when it's not functional for lack of strategy.


----------



## Nobody Important

I find it very humbling to be in the presence of individuals who possess a devine branch of VT that contains absolutely no deficiencies or flaws of any sort. An unmatched method of perfect absolution that was invented by the gods and bestowed upon mortal man. A method that was passed on to only one man who has disseminated to a chosen few. A few who have decided to benefit us all with the great wisdom they possess and correct our erroneous beliefs. Thank you pure ones for shining a light on our ignorance. How can we ever repay you.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Not true at all.
> 
> I repeatedly told Phobius it's not a primary action applied against a punch, and that it is indeed a _forward_ action. It's the rotation of the elbow that laterally displaces the obstruction, not a sideways attack at an arm.
> 
> As Guy said, you guys do seem obsessed with throwing a _bong_ at a punch, like you can't let go of the idea.
> 
> I think because your heads are so filled with application ideas. You need it to be this against that to make sense of it.



Arrogant and yet I feel the need to explain. Since we can not talk about concepts or principles without getting into a discussion of interpretation, we need to find a scenario or as you call it 'application' in order to discuss and understand how you interpretate concepts and principles.

Application and scenario are different things however. Application means that you learn this technique to deal with this kind of technique. Scenario is more of "If there is a punch and you deal with it by doing this movement/technique/whatever you want to call it, what would you do?"

Now you say you do not think in application, well we dont either. We were talking about examples, which I assume you forgot. After all it was quite a lot of pages back since we started talking about this and it is easily forgotten.

Heck you think Emin was showing application? He was doing a demo to explain important things to consider. He did not mean for people to consider his points only in a specific application that he was demoing.





LFJ said:


> Judging from what posts?!
> 
> The multiple posts I had to make telling Phobius that _bong-sau_ is not a primary action thrown at an incoming punch?? And you and he still don't get it...



Well this I take on me, I was thinking you were talking about doing a bong sau towards a punch. It got me cringing when thinking about frontal collision so I had to discuss this with you to understand how you do that. I guess you were either not clear as you were in the quote, or I misunderstood you.



LFJ said:


> If there's an incoming punch, my response should generally be to counter punch. Never _bong-sau_! If at range and in position to use my arms without raising my elbow, I would not _bong_. _Bong-sau_ is only remedial, so it's not used very often in fighting. There is absolutely no necessity to use _bong-sau_ in the scenario discussed and demoed by Emin and I would not.
> 
> My _bong-sau_ is a remedial action to retake space. Everything is about taking space and attacking forward. I don't care what an opponent's arm is doing. The arm is not a target. _Bong_ is just opening space for the punch it is coupled with. Two arms work as a unit. Both are directed forward and both help capture an attack line while hitting. That's it.



What space is there to retake if opponent is guarding himself? Or is this only for situations then when opponent is stretching out his arms? I mean since you say you do not use a bong sau on punches. Not often I see people stretching out their hands during a fight unless when punching or trying to grab.



LFJ said:


> Look, this probably doesn't make sense to you, but everything is about controlling my own position and structures in a fight.
> 
> I'm not concerned with blocking, feeling, and controlling arms, or applying this move vs that move. My only concern is capturing space and attacking. It's a behavior reflex. The stimulus is my own bodily and spatial awareness. I'm not throwing a reactive _bong-sau_ at a punch I see.
> 
> If you must think in terms of 1:1 application ideas, you won't understand it. I don't know what else to tell you.



So to clarify, bong sau is against static arm? Meaning since if there is no arm you cannot do a bong sau given that such a move is like sacrificing your own arm for nothing. Or once more misstaken? I mean you want to retake space but bong sau actually does require something to do it against.


----------



## guy b.

Callen said:


> Nah, it doesn't have to be viewed as a flaw. Different lineages have different ways of looking at the system. It's just a fact.



It can be viewed as a flaw if it introduces contradictory understanding or otherwise breaks the system


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> So to clarify, bong sau is against static arm? Meaning since if there is no arm you cannot do a bong sau given that such a move is like sacrificing your own arm for nothing. Or once more misstaken? I mean you want to retake space but bong sau actually does require something to do it against



Bong clears the way for the punch. If the way is clear then just punch


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> VT is conceptually unique, was created in a vacuum and theoretically different from all other martial arts



VT is quite different from many other Southern Chinese systems. It bears little or no relation in terms of its approach to the fight to many of the systems it is often compared to. Obviously it wasn't created in a vacuum and we can speculate about where it came from, but can't know for sure. If it evolved from these others then a fundamental strategic change was made at some point for some reason. More likely it came from elsewhere.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> What space is there to retake if opponent is guarding himself? Or is this only for situations then when opponent is stretching out his arms? I mean since you say you do not use a bong sau on punches. Not often I see people stretching out their hands during a fight unless when punching or trying to grab.



You're still focusing on the opponent's position and not on your own.

I never said I don't use a _bong-sau_ "on punches". I said I don't use it as a primary action against an incoming punch.



> So to clarify, bong sau is against static arm? Meaning since if there is no arm you cannot do a bong sau given that such a move is like sacrificing your own arm for nothing. Or once more misstaken? I mean you want to retake space but bong sau actually does require something to do it against.



I don't care what it's "against". It's just clearing the way for the punch it's coupled with. It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need for a remedial action to regain an attack line.

If you don't understand, just never mind.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I don't care what it's "against". It's just clearing the way for the punch it's coupled with. It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need for a remedial action to regain an attack line.



I have to disagree with this last bit, if I did not misunderstand you.

Nothing any fighter does, once a fight has started, is concerned with only our position and the need for remedial action, because a bong can be used for far more than just clearing the way for a punch.  As a matter of fact the chances are it will clear the way for a punch is quite slim because in all the real fights I have been in I have yet to run into a skilled fighter who basically keeps their arm out there so the bong or tan accomplishes this.  A skilled fighter says "strike did not connect.  Bring it back!!!"


That said a fight is about...

*First*: a synergy of both participants. What position we are in in direct relation to what the opponent is doing.  Using your own position alone is either fighting an opponent that is fighting in the exact same manner you have (such as training in class) or Shadow boxing.  Unless of course you are fighting an opponent that is so lacking in skill that you can in essence control what they do.  I train to fight in the real world and so these three dynamics are cast from my mind.

*Second*: having a goal?
      -To keep taking the fight to the opponent in order to, for lack of a better term, beat them into submission?
      -Take them down to the ground in order to control them?
      -Gain distance so you can get to a tool, or if necessary even flee because the opponents "friends" have shown up?

To be overly concerned about your current position is to miss half of the fight and to have no plan.  Lacking these two things usually ends in defeat.

Like I said I may have misunderstood the point you were trying to make, if I did could you elaborate?  If I didn't the above stands.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Nothing any fighter does, once a fight has started, is concerned with only our position and the need for remedial action, because a bong can be used for far more than just clearing the way for a punch.  As a matter of fact the chances are it will clear the way for a punch is quite slim because in all the real fights I have been in I have yet to run into a skilled fighter who basically keeps their arm out there so the bong or tan accomplishes this.  A skilled fighter says "strike did not connect.  Bring it back!!!"



_Bong-sau_ as I do it is a very sudden "_paak_" action from the elbow. Doesn't require prolonged contact. I don't do the stick and rotate thing.



> What position we are in in direct relation to what the opponent is doing.



Of course. Having an attack line obstructed is just that. Spatial awareness allows us to react to changes in position. It is not choosing this technique to deal with that technique. It's all about managing position.



> To be overly concerned about your current position is to miss half of the fight and to have no plan.



I don't know what you're calling "overly concerned". Having spatial awareness and acting to sustain attack by spatial domination or to regain advantageous position to do so is how fights are won with VT. 

It's part of an overall strategy that uses behavior reflexes, as opposed to 1:1 applications or unrealistically trying to interpret the opponent's energy through prolonged arm contact that doesn't occur.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> _Bong-sau_ as I do it is a very sudden "_paak_" action from the elbow. Doesn't require prolonged contact. I don't do the stick and rotate thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Having an attack line obstructed is just that. Spatial awareness allows us to react to changes in position. It is not choosing this technique to deal with that technique. It's all about managing position.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're calling "overly concerned". Having spatial awareness and acting to sustain attack by spatial domination or to regain advantageous position to do so is how fights are won with VT.
> 
> It's part of an overall strategy that uses behavior reflexes, as opposed to 1:1 applications or unrealistically trying to interpret the opponent's energy through prolonged arm contact that doesn't occur.




You said "It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need." That is what led me where I went with my First point.  This statement and then you response above, seem to be exclusive of one another.

Additionally I am confused then.  In response to a request for clarification of "so bong is against a static punch" you simply said "bong is to open the path for a punch".  As you did not actually answer the question asked directly, that is also why I said "if I understand correctly." Now some schools of thought believe a bong should only roll out of a Tan as energy is still incoming.  So the answer to this question seemed especially relevant.

As for you last bit I see it as only being half right.  Is it useless to tell your opponent's exact strike (unless they are doing wide strikes like hooks and "round" attacks which kinda feed right into our more centric style)?  Yes.  But you should be able to tell if the next attack is coming from the right, left, high or low.  

This is where I, at times, find a Bong a damn good in general defense. Now my though it that the only important bit of the Bong that is vital is the angle of the elbow to provide it the structural strength.  When you use it you can easily keep it on the center line, vs say a Tan.  This means that the limb itself is more readily available for transitioning into other techniques.  I really think the Bong is underestimated by some.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> You said "It's not dependent upon what exactly the opponent is doing, but on our own position and need." That is what led me where I went with my First point.  This statement and then you response above, seem to be *exclusive of one another*.
> 
> Additionally I am confused then.  In response to a request for clarification of "so bong is against a static punch" you simply said "bong is to open the path for a punch".  As you did not actually answer the question asked directly, that is also why I said "if I understand correctly."



?

I've only repeated the exact same thing!

Doesn't matter what it is. The path is obstructed from above. _Bong-sau_ clears the way for the punch it's coupled with. Simple as that.

I don't know why people are unable to wrap their heads around spatial awareness and acting to rectify position, or why they are so obsessed with defining a specific technique for it to be "applied against".

Too much 1:1 application thinking...


----------



## Callen

LFJ said:


> It's a flaw when it's not functional for lack of strategy.


I can see a lack of strategy being the flaw of a practitioner, but not so much the fault of lineage. I doubt any style or lineage really started out with poor fighting strategies. Many practitioners misunderstand the system, that's the rub.



guy b. said:


> It can be viewed as a flaw if it introduces contradictory understanding or otherwise breaks the system


Again not the flaw of any lineage, but a flaw of the practitioner's understanding of the system.


----------



## LFJ

What if the practitioner who has a flawed understanding of the system is the head of a lineage and teaches their flawed understanding...?

That's a very real problem, but we can't point it out here or people start to get butthurt because they might be following such a lineage.


----------



## Callen

LFJ said:


> What if the practitioner who has a flawed understanding of the system is the head of a lineage and teaches their flawed understanding...?
> 
> That's a very real problem, but we can't point it out here or people start to get butthurt because they might be following such a lineage.



I understand your points very clearly. I would say, go by the way of Wu De. We can be tactful and position ourselves with others in a positive way, in-turn making a point much more readily heard and accepted. Go the respectful route always. How would your Sifu like you to respond to pointing out the flaws of others? I know that Wong Shun Leung would have wanted me to respond with respect and represent our lineage with the utmost pride. He would see no purpose in finding issues with other peoples' Wing Chun. In fact, he frowned upon it.

The practitioner with flawed understanding that teaches others is indeed an issue in our community. A never ending, debatable topic... But they're still just practitioners, regardless of their title or position. No lineage is responsible, some people get it and some don't. There's no way everyone is going to understand, and it's really not a big deal. Keep doing what you're doing and focus on your own Wing Chun. When you have the opportunity to share ideas with a student from another lineage, do so. At the end of the day, it's all about action anyway.


----------



## guy b.

Callen said:


> I understand your points very clearly. I would say, go by the way of Wu De. We can be tactful and position ourselves with others in a positive way, in-turn making a point much more readily heard and accepted. Go the respectful route always. How would your Sifu like you to respond to pointing out the flaws of others? I know that Wong Shun Leung would have wanted me to respond with respect and represent our lineage with the utmost pride. He would see no purpose in finding issues with other peoples' Wing Chun. In fact, he frowned upon it.
> 
> The practitioner with flawed understanding that teaches others is indeed an issue in our community. A never ending, debatable topic... But they're still just practitioners, regardless of their title or position. No lineage is responsible, some people get it and some don't. There's no way everyone is going to understand, and it's really not a big deal. Keep doing what you're doing and focus on your own Wing Chun. When you have the opportunity to share ideas with a student from another lineage, do so. At the end of the day, it's all about action anyway.



I think hard to share ideas on a forum without people getting angry. My experience of it at least


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> ?
> 
> I've only repeated the exact same thing!
> 
> Doesn't matter what it is. The path is obstructed from above. _Bong-sau_ clears the way for the punch it's coupled with. Simple as that.
> 
> I don't know why people are unable to wrap their heads around spatial awareness and acting to rectify position, or why they are so obsessed with defining a specific technique for it to be "applied against".
> 
> Too much 1:1 application thinking...



The below is simply based on general fighting experience, no particular art.

Spatial awareness is about being aware not only of how you are positioned in 3 dimensional space but how your opponent is positioned in same said space.  Have you compromised their balance/center?  Are (again not strictly 1:1) you and your opponent positioned in such a way that he is most likely to go low, high, come from the left of the right or even just try a straight up "bum rush?" These are all things a person who has practice in real fighting can determine.  If you have repeated the exact same thing...that what your enemy is doing is unimportant, that your positioning is all that is important and yet spatial awareness of your opponent is important, then you have consistently contradicted yourself.

You seem to see fighting in real life as it is taught in theory in class. There is theory, then training, then practical application.  Sparring = training btw because usually you are sparring in training against people following the same theory as yourself.

"Open up the center so you can strike until the enemy is down." Irl fighting this does NOT happen against fighters that are even just experienced in "street fighting" and not formally trained.  They understand instinctively when their center is open.  You may get a couple attacks in but then they cover, clinch, get distance whatever and then the fight is one again.  What you describe is only truly effective against someone who is engaging in feral attacks with no thought or if your skill/technique and "killer instinct" are simply overwhelming when compared to your opponent.

I agree on one thinking straight up 1:1 is bad.  When I say this I mean "Pak that kind of attack, tan this, bong that." However with experience this is how a fight should go...

1. Your first move is always a strike.  Fights start with the other guy pushing, chesting bumping, something to size you up.  You don't know what their first attack is going to be, how they will orient.  Once they make any contact or enter your personal space (if legal) strike.

After that however you can actually read the opponent.  Not in specific detail, aka 1:1 but in terms of will they go high or low, come from the left or right, based on their immediately previous action and your reaction to it. This is dictated by your position relative to theirs. 

All you need to do is think  "knees, elbows and shoulders."  Did your previous action stop the left?  The right is coming.  Is he bladed so that the right side is closest to you and is the right "up" then it's going to be a straight shot or a tight hook.  Is that right low?  Look for a body shot.  

Is he starting to square up on you?  Look for a rush/clinch. So now it's not about going through his attacks, it's about trying to circle to his blind side.  

Is he carrying more weight on the back leg and not leaning in like a boxer?  The guy has kicking in his arsenal etc. 

Now the above is a GROSS generalization I am just demonstrating that it need not be 1:1. You don't need to know exactly what they are going to do in order to prepare a specific counter.  You simply need situational awareness, learn to read body language and those points that, on ALL fighters, give you a clue as to what is likely happening next. 

If you can't do the above then you can't adapt.  On the street you never know how to your opponent is going to fight until it starts and if all you are worried about is opening a center, that irl can only be opened briefly against all but the lesser skilled of opponents, you are screwed because when that door closes, and believe me it will, what next?  Try to continuously reopen that door?  That is fighting's equivalent to banging your head against a wall.  The wall MIGHT given in, it might not.  Even if the wall does give you are coming out the worse for wear.

The problem is the modern variations on most traditional martial arts are based on theory and training.  The original forms that were often more conceptual, like WC, were conceptual because in the 18th, 19th and even early-mid 20th centuries the practitioners fought real fights, often against different styles.  As such adaptation, upon a consistent foundation, was built in.  However when modern variations are created they all too often create the training based on theory, but as society now frowns upon no holds barred challenge matches the practical application, that proves or disproves the new theories, is lacking.

This isn't to say modern iterations have no benefit, they do, but the practitioner needs to understand that the practical application of the theory and training of their art needs to have practical application added to it.  Too few schools do this, so the practitioner may have to branch out.  Make friends with people who study other arts and will let you spar with them.  There are actually some good video channels that focus less on pure martial art forms and more on the combative side.  

I only say the above btw because you keep saying "too much 1:1 thinking".  I have been in more than my fair share of rl fights and it simply isn't as black and white as you seem to be making it.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> ?
> 
> I've only repeated the exact same thing!
> 
> Doesn't matter what it is. The path is obstructed from above. _Bong-sau_ clears the way for the punch it's coupled with. Simple as that.
> 
> I don't know why people are unable to wrap their heads around spatial awareness and acting to rectify position, or why they are so obsessed with defining a specific technique for it to be "applied against".
> 
> Too much 1:1 application thinking...



Think I explained this before. On a forum you can not talk in abstract terms if you want a discussion. You need to provide an example for better understanding in many cases.

1:1 application is not what anyone is talking about. A scenario is what is being asked.

You however do not seem willing to discuss anything because when someone says "would you do bong-sau towards a punch" you reply with "we are not thinking in terms of application". But what you refuse to understand is that noone is talking about application, people are simply asking a very easy question of whether or not one of those scenarios where you might be using bong-sau is on a punch.

When avoiding the question altogether, writing non-coherent responses such as it not being about opponent position but focus on your own and then writing that spatial awareness is very crucial together with your own position. Those two messages are contradicting each other. Another thing you do now is saying you are not doing application, that is good but it was never part of the question. If people ask would you do bong-sau against a punch, it is you who are thinking in terms of application. Me asking the question is just thinking, do you think that is a valid scenario in any situation according to your principles? 

You talk about retaking space, this means there needs to be something holding that space. I might be wrong but right now only thing I can think of is three options. 
1. A static arm (guard or whatnot), meaning it is not moving at least in any speed dangerous in terms of attacking. 
2. A punching/attacking arm, moving at a speed that make it a threat. 
3. Nothing in the way but opponent having the possibility to punch if he/she decides to.

In option 1, personally I do not see this as a frequent scenario. And option 3 I would never consider moving forward with a bong sau being a very wise choice if you fight. This leaves option 2 which was why it was asked.

Not because of application, besides a 1:1 application would require information on what specific type of punch it is. Just saying a punch would not make it a 1:1 application because there are for non-WC multiple ways to attack and punch.

So all in all, you are being vague. Perhaps this is on purpose because you have no desire to answer questions on what you do.


----------



## Juany118

Callen said:


> I understand your points very clearly. I would say, go by the way of Wu De. We can be tactful and position ourselves with others in a positive way, in-turn making a point much more readily heard and accepted. Go the respectful route always. How would your Sifu like you to respond to pointing out the flaws of others? I know that Wong Shun Leung would have wanted me to respond with respect and represent our lineage with the utmost pride. He would see no purpose in finding issues with other peoples' Wing Chun. In fact, he frowned upon it.
> 
> The practitioner with flawed understanding that teaches others is indeed an issue in our community. A never ending, debatable topic... But they're still just practitioners, regardless of their title or position. No lineage is responsible, some people get it and some don't. There's no way everyone is going to understand, and it's really not a big deal. Keep doing what you're doing and focus on your own Wing Chun. When you have the opportunity to share ideas with a student from another lineage, do so. At the end of the day, it's all about action anyway.



I think there is a dynamic though that makes things more complicated though as I note in my more lengthy post above.  Often, if your only experience is in a particular class, you may see a practitioner as being "wrong".  All to often we see techniques as s dogma of sorts.  We are training and sparring against people following the same theory and training and so we think "yes this works!!!"  Now luckily, most of the time, when that rare case comes along when a practitioner has to defend themselves irl they are confronted by someone ill prepared for a skilled defense, they assumed they were going after a "soft target."

When I comment I am commenting as someone who deals with individuals who assume I know what I am doing.  They see the blue shirt and silver shield, the tools on my belt.  They aren't going to take a damn thing for granted and they are going to fight like a S.O.B because they either want to overwhelm me before I get to a tool or break me all fueled by the fear that only the threat of your freedom being taken away can bring.  So I will admit that some of the things I do might make a "purist" say "that isn't really WC".  Example, there are purists who say a bong should only spiral out of a tan if there is still energy incoming.  If I use a bong on it's own, because based on relative positions it's easier to transition into a lan, to gain distance and not continue an attack, so I can pull a tool to be a force multiplier (baton, taser, gun), I wasn't doing "real" WC.

So sometimes it's not about sharing different theories of WC alone, its about sharing these ideas in the context of different rl applications.  Now the problem is if someone's experience is, for the most part, in theory and training and not practical application, they fall back on the two they know best and this can create a language barrier of sorts.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> This is the point I was trying to make in my last post to geezer.
> 
> But discussing it with people who keep looking for 1:1 applications seems kind of impossible.
> 
> Can't see the forest for the trees. If you don't understanding strategy, you're left thinking in terms of this vs that.
> 
> Many Wing Chun lineages seem to have all the "hands" and possible application ideas for them, but lack any sort of overall fighting strategy. That's probably the largest flaw when it comes down to it.



Just to be clear: I have _never_ advocated "1:1 applications" for techniques. Furthermore, I _do_ advocate strategic thinking including maintaining forward intent, capturing space, and disrupting your opponent's structure, not just displacing his arms. _Callen_ made a great point suggesting that some times we end up in battles over words, and that if we VT/WC people could actually get together and share approaches, seeing and feeling what the other guy does, some of us could probably find a lot to agree on.

...or perhaps not. Either way there is no benefit in immediately assuming that everybody else has got it wrong.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Juany118 said:


> The below is simply based on general fighting experience, no particular art.
> 
> Spatial awareness is about being aware not only of how you are positioned in 3 dimensional space but how your opponent is positioned in same said space.  Have you compromised their balance/center?  Are (again not strictly 1:1) you and your opponent positioned in such a way that he is most likely to go low, high, come from the left of the right or even just try a straight up "bum rush?" These are all things a person who has practice in real fighting can determine.  If you have repeated the exact same thing...that what your enemy is doing is unimportant, that your positioning is all that is important and yet spatial awareness of your opponent is important, then you have consistently contradicted yourself.
> 
> You seem to see fighting in real life as it is taught in theory in class. There is theory, then training, then practical application.  Sparring = training btw because usually you are sparring in training against people following the same theory as yourself.
> 
> "Open up the center so you can strike until the enemy is down." Irl fighting this does NOT happen against fighters that are even just experienced in "street fighting" and not formally trained.  They understand instinctively when their center is open.  You may get a couple attacks in but then they cover, clinch, get distance whatever and then the fight is one again.  What you describe is only truly effective against someone who is engaging in feral attacks with no thought or if your skill/technique and "killer instinct" are simply overwhelming when compared to your opponent.
> 
> I agree on one thinking straight up 1:1 is bad.  When I say this I mean "Pak that kind of attack, tan this, bong that." However with experience this is how a fight should go...
> 
> 1. Your first move is always a strike.  Fights start with the other guy pushing, chesting bumping, something to size you up.  You don't know what their first attack is going to be, how they will orient.  Once they make any contact or enter your personal space (if legal) strike.
> 
> After that however you can actually read the opponent.  Not in specific detail, aka 1:1 but in terms of will they go high or low, come from the left or right, based on their immediately previous action and your reaction to it. This is dictated by your position relative to theirs.
> 
> All you need to do is think  "knees, elbows and shoulders."  Did your previous action stop the left?  The right is coming.  Is he bladed so that the right side is closest to you and is the right "up" then it's going to be a straight shot or a tight hook.  Is that right low?  Look for a body shot.
> 
> Is he starting to square up on you?  Look for a rush/clinch. So now it's not about going through his attacks, it's about trying to circle to his blind side.
> 
> Is he carrying more weight on the back leg and not leaning in like a boxer?  The guy has kicking in his arsenal etc.
> 
> Now the above is a GROSS generalization I am just demonstrating that it need not be 1:1. You don't need to know exactly what they are going to do in order to prepare a specific counter.  You simply need situational awareness, learn to read body language and those points that, on ALL fighters, give you a clue as to what is likely happening next.
> 
> If you can't do the above then you can't adapt.  On the street you never know how to your opponent is going to fight until it starts and if all you are worried about is opening a center, that irl can only be opened briefly against all but the lesser skilled of opponents, you are screwed because when that door closes, and believe me it will, what next?  Try to continuously reopen that door?  That is fighting's equivalent to banging your head against a wall.  The wall MIGHT given in, it might not.  Even if the wall does give you are coming out the worse for wear.
> 
> The problem is the modern variations on most traditional martial arts are based on theory and training.  The original forms that were often more conceptual, like WC, were conceptual because in the 18th, 19th and even early-mid 20th centuries the practitioners fought real fights, often against different styles.  As such adaptation, upon a consistent foundation, was built in.  However when modern variations are created they all too often create the training based on theory, but as society now frowns upon no holds barred challenge matches the practical application, that proves or disproves the new theories, is lacking.
> 
> This isn't to say modern iterations have no benefit, they do, but the practitioner needs to understand that the practical application of the theory and training of their art needs to have practical application added to it.  Too few schools do this, so the practitioner may have to branch out.  Make friends with people who study other arts and will let you spar with them.  There are actually some good video channels that focus less on pure martial art forms and more on the combative side.
> 
> I only say the above btw because you keep saying "too much 1:1 thinking".  I have been in more than my fair share of rl fights and it simply isn't as black and white as you seem to be making it.



Great post, empirical information from people who have "been there" is invaluable. Especially for the theorists who think fighting is easy..,,


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> VT is quite different from many other Southern Chinese systems. It bears little or no relation in terms of its approach to the fight to many of the systems it is often compared to. Obviously it wasn't created in a vacuum and we can speculate about where it came from, but can't know for sure. If it evolved from these others then a fundamental strategic change was made at some point for some reason. More likely it came from elsewhere.


I love the cherry picking! The fact that you actually believe it to be unique amongst all the other arts surrounding it, and believe it to possess a strategy that is fundamentally different as compared to all other arts surrounding it, suggests you truly believe it to have been created in a vacuum. Your unwillingness to accept how others perceive the art, apply it methods or view it conceptually, suggests that you believe it to have been created in a vacuum. The strict adherence to the belief that VT methodology is vastly superior to all other approaches suggests you truly believe it to have been created in a vacuum. The fact that you believe the art at a fundamental level is vastly different and incomparable to anything other than VT, suggests you believe it to have been created in a vacuum. The fact that you believe WSL was the only student of YM to fully comprehend VT suggests you believe that what WSL passed on was created in a vacuum and came directly from YP , who we can only deduce was actually the creator of VT which was passed on to only WSL.

So let's see if I can piece this together.

In the mid 1900's YP created VT based upon a dream while in an opium induced stupor. Needing to make a buck, to buy more opium, he decided to teach this VT. Seeing it's popularity grow he decided to pass on it's secrets to only one gate keeper, WSL. Now his minions have taken to martial arts forums to spread the truth like Jehovah's Witnesses. Did I figure it out? Can I be in the club now?


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Just to be clear: I have _never_ advocated "1:1 applications" for techniques. Furthermore, I _do_ advocate strategic thinking including maintaining forward intent, capturing space, and disrupting your opponent's structure, not just displacing his arms. _Callen_ made a great point suggesting that some times we end up in battles over words, and that if we VT/WC people could actually get together and share approaches, seeing and feeling what the other guy does, some of us could probably find a lot to agree on.
> 
> ...or perhaps not. Either way there is no benefit in immediately assuming that everybody else has got it wrong.



I don't think anyone has advocated a 1:1 application for techniques.  The more I read his posts and the responses to them, it seems that if you simply disagree with him he goes to the "1:1 applications don't work" as a reflexive defense regardless of what was actually said.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> If you have repeated the exact same thing...that what your enemy is doing is unimportant, that your positioning is all that is important and yet spatial awareness of your opponent is important, then you have consistently contradicted yourself.



Jeezus...

Attack line is obstructed from above. By what exactly doesn't matter. Demanding that I define exactly what the opponent is using is asking for a 1:1 application.

As I already explained multiple times... I can't attack directly. I can't retract my arm to go over or I'll be hit. I can't use an auxiliary action like _paak_ or _jat_ because the obstruction is from above and if I retract to _paak_ I'll be hit. So, _Bong_ must be used as a remedial action to clear the line for attack and regain position.

It will not be used as a primary action against any sort of attack where I have position and range to directly counter strike or use auxiliary actions without raising elbows. It's not an application against any specific attack. It's a remedial action in response to disadvantageous position perceived through spatial awareness.

If that's to "vague" for you guys, then just forget it.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Jeezus...
> 
> Attack line is obstructed from above. By what exactly doesn't matter. Demanding that I define exactly what the opponent is using is asking for a 1:1 application.
> 
> As I already explained multiple times... I can't attack directly. I can't retract my arm to go over or I'll be hit. I can't use an auxiliary action like _paak_ or _jat_ because the obstruction is from above and if I retract to _paak_ I'll be hit. So, _Bong_ must be used as a remedial action to clear the line for attack and regain position.
> 
> It will not be used as a primary action against any sort of attack where I have position and range to directly counter strike or use auxiliary actions without raising elbows. It's not an application against any specific attack. It's a remedial action in response to disadvantageous position perceived through spatial awareness.
> 
> If that's to "vague" for you guys, then just forget it.


 First no one and I mean no one has said **** all about what you call a 1:1 application.

Secondly if you don't mean what I have quoted...from back to back posts, then maybe it would benefit us all if you stopped with clearly reflexive responses and stop and consider your wording.

Throughout your posts there is a condescending tone and perhaps these posts that are causing so much issue are based on the fact that you are responding "down" to us.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Jeezus...
> 
> Attack line is obstructed from above. By what exactly doesn't matter. Demanding that I define exactly what the opponent is using is asking for a 1:1 application.
> 
> As I already explained multiple times... I can't attack directly. I can't retract my arm to go over or I'll be hit. I can't use an auxiliary action like _paak_ or _jat_ because the obstruction is from above and if I retract to _paak_ I'll be hit. So, _Bong_ must be used as a remedial action to clear the line for attack and regain position.
> 
> It will not be used as a primary action against any sort of attack where I have position and range to directly counter strike or use auxiliary actions without raising elbows. It's not an application against any specific attack. It's a remedial action in response to disadvantageous position perceived through spatial awareness.
> 
> If that's to "vague" for you guys, then just forget it.


I believe I actually understand this and find myself agreeing with LFJ here. After sorting through all the banter, basically what LFJ is saying is obstruction/incoming force is above your bridge on your line of attack. This needs to be cleared/dealt with to regain line of attack. There are many movements that could potentially clear/neutralize the obstruction/force, but at a cost. In this hypothetical scenario bong is best choice. I can agree with that assessment. It's the safest and simplest choice if I'm understanding this strange conversation correctly.


----------



## LFJ

Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.

People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a _bong-sau_ at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application... 

I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a _bong-sau_ or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.
> 
> People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a _bong-sau_ at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application...
> 
> I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a _bong-sau_ or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.



First-please show where anyone has mentioned a specific 1:1.

Second please show where people have asked what specific attack you would throw a bong at.

Geezer, I, and as far as I see Nobody, have never asked anything similar to number two.  We simply felt your previous statements regarding the bong were dismissive to say the least.  There is a difference.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.
> 
> People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a _bong-sau_ at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application...
> 
> I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a _bong-sau_ or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.


I understand what you are saying and yes very basic. I think the confusion is stemming from a lack of understanding or simple verbiage as to how you fill that space without "feeling". I get where your coming from, but you may need to dumb it down a bit when trying to explain it. Not everyone is on the same page when it comes to describing strategy, theory etc. Best explained where ambiguity of how a concept, strategy, technique etc. is least likely to take precedence.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> First-please show where anyone has mentioned a specific 1:1.
> 
> Second please show where people have asked what specific attack you would throw a bong at.
> 
> Geezer, I, and as far as I see Nobody, have never asked anything similar to number two.  We simply felt your previous statements regarding the bong were dismissive to say the least.  There is a difference.


I think that terminology has a lot to due with the confusion, as much as the dismissiveness. I think we all have slightly different interpretations of various descriptors in the context of the conversation. If we are not on the same page concerning the terminology used we will misinterpret.


----------



## LFJ

There was video provided showing how _bong-sau_ is done and its effect, and my explanation of when it would be used is I think as clear and dumbed down as it can get.

I don't know how many times I had to repeat in this thread that it's not a primary action thrown out at a punch, yet somehow Phobius and Geezer kept going there.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I think that terminology has a lot to due with the confusion, as much as the dismissiveness. I think we all have slightly different interpretations of various descriptors in the context of the conversation. If we are not on the same page concerning the terminology used we will misinterpret.



And I get that.  That, hence why, when I joined in, I asked this like "if I did not misunderstand you."

Instead, even with that clear request for clarification I got the same stuff regurgitated to me with what amounted to an "you must be an idiot."

Hence why I appreciate your generosity but I fear it may be misplaced.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> There was video provided showing how _bong-sau_ is done and its effect, and my explanation of when it would be used is I think as clear and dumbed down as it can get.
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to repeat in this thread that it's not a primary action thrown out at a punch, yet somehow Phobius and Geezer kept going there.



Nobody is claiming it is a primary action thrown out at a punch. The only one who has said anything in those terms are you.

I have just asked, you would you use bong-sau similar to laap movement on an incoming punch? It started out as a very simple yes and no question. Then you started talking about 1:1 application and whatnot. But I did raise another question and that is what you think is the primary thing to you occupying the space you want to clear. A punch, a static arm, or nothing but a clear path for your opponent?



LFJ said:


> Right, and it's coupled with a punch that also clears the line as it hits to the target should any obstruction remain or attempt to reenter that space. I did not think what I was explaining was all that hard to follow.



It is not hard to follow, neither are the questions that are being asked.



LFJ said:


> People just keep asking what specific technique I'd be throwing a _bong-sau_ at, then saying this isn't asking for the other side of a 1:1 application...



Noone has asked what specific technique you'd be throwing a bong sau at. The question at least as far as I am aware has never come up. This also makes the whole point of 1:1 application flawed as explained earlier.



LFJ said:


> I respond to changes in position through spatial awareness to take or regain space while attacking. I don't reactively throw out a _bong-sau_ or anything else as an application against specific techniques, so I can't answer that question. It could be any number of things, and it doesn't matter.



Responding with bong-sau to changes in position is to reactively throw out a bong-sau. It is the very meaning of that sentence and there are no other ways to do it unless your arm follows a will of its own and just happend to do exactly what was expected. Problem however is if you do something reactively then you would most likely know either by A) sparring and own experience, or B) through use of thought and consider if it would be an option for you.

As for throwing out due to changes in position it means you do not care what your opponent is doing with his arms? Or with spatial awareness you mean only reacting to his arms? Because it can also mean him changing position with his body movement as well.

I mean this should not ever have been such a complicated discussion, and the questions are not in any way unclear or difficult. Nor would you answering the questions give away some big secret about your strategy or anything else for that matter. They were simply intended to remove any unclarity in order to continue discussion. Instead the questions themselves have become the discussion.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> The fact that you actually believe it to be unique amongst all the other arts surrounding it, and believe it to possess a strategy that is fundamentally different as compared to all other arts surrounding it, suggests you truly believe it to have been created in a vacuum.



I don't know of any other systems with the same strategic approach to fight. Some people have other interpretations of the system and that is up to them. When I investigate these other ideas generally I find that they are incoherent and/or contradictory. This leads me to believe that they are misunderstandings of the system (probability argument). It is quite possible that other people besides WSL also understood the system, I have not met any though. I don't know where it came from, all we can do is speculate about that.


----------



## Callen

guy b said:


> It is quite possible that other people besides WSL also understood the system, I have not met any though.



For certain there are other Yip Man students who understood the system. It's also important to remember that WSL changed what he was taught by YM to some degree. WSL's Wing Chun was largely derived in-part due to his own interpretations of the system.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> It is not hard to follow, neither are the questions that are being asked.



If it's not hard to follow, you wouldn't keep asking the same questions that have been repeatedly answered.

I've put things in the simplest terms possible. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> If it's not hard to follow, you wouldn't keep asking the same questions that have been repeatedly answered.
> 
> I've put things in the simplest terms possible. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.



You have not answered. Only avoided it.

A simple term on a yes/no question is yes or no.

I am not even interested in the answer anymore. Lost my interest in the discussion but I do not approve that you falsify what has been written or asked. Nor do I find your way of writing respectful.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You have not answered. Only avoided it.
> 
> A simple term on a yes/no question is yes or no.



Are you retarded or something? I've said NO in at least a dozen posts now. WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## LFJ

Callen said:


> It's also important to remember that WSL changed what he was taught by YM to some degree. WSL's Wing Chun was largely derived in-part due to his own interpretations of the system.



The man himself said he didn't make any changes and taught exactly what YM taught him, which is a system of clearly defined strategy and tactics with a coherent training methodology. So, where are you getting this idea, and what parts specifically do you think he reinterpreted?


----------



## Phobius

Well first of all,  reported. Second of all, if no this means you consider it's use only against static arm. In terms of saving your shoulder in a real  fight it sounds wise. 

Personally I have not met people occupying space with an extended static arm but then again I have far from met all people.


----------



## LFJ

You're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about and can't understand simple explanations. So, like I said, just forget it.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Are you retarded or something? I've said NO in at least a dozen posts now. WTF is wrong with you?



LFJ, please take a deep breath, slo-o-owly release it .....now repeat after me Aauuuooommmmmmm.... and again .....there now are you feeling calmer? Good.

I think part of your frustration is the continued verbal disconnect we all have been having. For example, when you describe your use of bong as a _remedial_ technique. I believe I have been taking that somewhat differently from what you intended. And certainly, if you think (incorrectly) that I have been advocating a 1:1 technique to application approach, then I have not been making my position clear to you. Oh well, it's just a forum right? ...Aaauuuooommmmmmm....  

Next, maybe you better straighten out _Callen_ (from your perspective). The comment quoted below doesn't seem to agree with what you and Guy have been saying all this time. Or maybe it does. I'll await your response.



Callen said:


> For certain there are other Yip Man students who understood the system. It's also important to remember that *WSL changed what he was taught by YM to some degree.* WSL's Wing Chun was largely derived in-part due to his own interpretations of the system.


.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's note:*

Please keep this discussion civil.  While some leeway is granted when it comes to attacking a particular message, attacking the one bearing the message is forbidden.


----------



## LFJ

Remedial means used only to correct something, like lost position. So, when at range and in position to punch directly, or use auxiliary actions like _paak_ or _jat _(always helping a punch) without raising the elbow, _bong_ will not be used. So, no, again, it will not just be thrown at an incoming punch.

However, when the attack line is obstructed from above and inside range where none of the above is possible, _bong-sau_ is necessary to clear the line for punching. What exactly the obstruction is doesn't matter. A static arm could be trying to grab or bar me. A moving arm could be striking or pushing. It could be any number of things. I don't know and don't care. _Bong_ simply clears the line for the punch its coupled with. It's directed forward, and the rotation of the elbow works like a spinning top to cause a ballistic lateral displacement of the obstruction. It's not force against force and does nothing to your own shoulder if done correctly.

That's the last time I'm repeating this. If you want more information, read my previous posts where I _already explained every detail of it_.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Remedial means used only to correct something, like lost position. So, when at range and in position to punch directly, or use auxiliary actions like _paak_ or _jat _(always helping a punch) without raising the elbow, _bong_ will not be used. So, no, again, it will not just be thrown at an incoming punch.
> 
> *....That's the last time I'm repeating this.* If you want more information, read my previous posts where I _already explained every detail of it_.



Yeah,_ I did catch that_, I was using the term _remedial_ as an example of how mis-understood terms can lead to unnecessary disputes. As can obnoxious and arrogant attitudes. Let's cut each other a little slack, OK?



Now, how about what _Callen_ said as quoted above? Are you and Guy _still_ of the opinion that GM Yip Man only taught _one unchanged version _of VT/WC throughout his long career as a sifu, and that WSL-VT, as evidenced by it's unique systemic coherence and functionality, is by the argument of "probability" most likely the only unadulterated, pure Yip Man VT taught today?

And further, do you still believe that _WSL did not vary or change his VT_ during his career, and that PB-WSL-VT is the only unadulterated and completely coherent version of WSL-VT that you have encountered so far?

...If you don't wan't to get into a debate (as I certainly don't) a simple "yes" or "no" ...perhaps with a few words clarification or correction should suffice.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> Personally I have not met people occupying space with an extended static arm but then again I have far from met all people.


The beauty and value of the WC system is the "occupying space with an extended static arm" which is different from the boxing approach. The reason is simple. If you extend your arms in your opponent's striking path, his fist has to meet with your arm first before it cab meet your face.

1. You can use your arms to guard your head.
2. You can also use your arms to guard the space in front of you.

IMO, 2 > 1


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> I don't know of any other systems with the same strategic approach to fight. Some people have other interpretations of the system and that is up to them. When I investigate these other ideas generally I find that they are incoherent and/or contradictory. This leads me to believe that they are misunderstandings of the system (probability argument). It is quite possible that other people besides WSL also understood the system, I have not met any though. I don't know where it came from, all we can do is speculate about that.


Guy I appreciate the reply, I respectfully disagree with your observation but can respect your stance. I apologize for my sarcasm, it's not a good show of martial virtue. I would like to start over.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Remedial means used only to correct something, like lost position. So, when at range and in position to punch directly, or use auxiliary actions like _paak_ or _jat _(always helping a punch) without raising the elbow, _bong_ will not be used. So, no, again, it will not just be thrown at an incoming punch.
> 
> However, when the attack line is obstructed from above and inside range where none of the above is possible, _bong-sau_ is necessary to clear the line for punching. What exactly the obstruction is doesn't matter. A static arm could be trying to grab or bar me. A moving arm could be striking or pushing. It could be any number of things. I don't know and don't care. _Bong_ simply clears the line for the punch its coupled with. It's directed forward, and the rotation of the elbow works like a spinning top to cause a ballistic lateral displacement of the obstruction. It's not force against force and does nothing to your own shoulder if done correctly.
> 
> That's the last time I'm repeating this. If you want more information, read my previous posts where I _already explained every detail of it_.


LFJ, I find this interesting and would like to get some further information. For the sake of argument, let's say the bong you are describing is a vertical movement ( keeping descriptions generic & generalized). 

Is that the only manner in which bong is used in your system, vertically?

In my lineage, bong has several angles and is used both vertically & horizontally, for much the same purpose as you describe. It is also not limited to the obstruction/incoming force being above the bridge, but can be used if this obstruction/incoming force is below the bridge.

Does your system approach this concept in the same manner or do you change the remedial bridging movement when the obstruction is under your bridge?

 In short I am asking about the versatility of the bong you are using. Is it one dimensional or does it have multiple remedial actions?


----------



## geezer

Nobody Important said:


> LFJ, I find this interesting and would like to get some further information. For the sake of argument, let's say the bong you are describing is a vertical movement ( keeping descriptions generic & generalized).
> 
> Is that the only manner in which bong is used in your system, vertically?




N.I. you guys use bong _vertically?_ ....as a lifting movement vaguely like an upward rising block? Please elaborate and clarify.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> N.I. you guys use bong _vertically?_ ....as a lifting movement vaguely like an upward rising block? Please elaborate and clarify.


Lol, yes & no. We have several variations of bong, as it is one of our 3 main bridging concepts, Tan & Fook being the other 2.

For us, bong is essentially use of the forearm/elbow. We use it to hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull.

Many will call these actions as Gai Jou, Lan Sau, Jong Bong, Dai Bong etc. In my lineage we believe that all bridges stem from the 3 families Tan, Bong & Fook. Changing the angle of the bridge for us doesn't create a new bridge, it changes its energy. For example going from Cover (inside) to Hack (outside). The shape of the bridge isn't really any different, only the angle of use is changed, so still Bong, only Bong with different energy.

Changing the angle of the bridge allows us to economically change positions while simultaneously filling a gap, receiving force or clearing obstructions.

Kind of hard to explain without physical demonstration, but is actually very simple.

I hope that helps in some small way. 

To answer your question directly, yes we have 2 bongs that are vertical, like a rising block. They are remedial like LFJ described, one for high coverage (under bridge) like a rising block for outer gate & one high (Jong Bong) for middle/centerline.

We do not enter into a physical altercation like Chi Sau is approached. When fists are flying the simplest method of bridging/blocking is used to deflect incoming force to clear a path for our assault. These bridging shapes are used defensively & offensively to cover ourselves from attack while at the same time deflecting incoming forces so we can attack. Again kind of hard to explain, but simple in application.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> N.I. you guys use bong _vertically?_ ....as a lifting movement vaguely like an upward rising block? Please elaborate and clarify.


You can use it to break apart a "tight clinch". You can also use it to set up an "arm wrap".


----------



## Phobius

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The beauty and value of the WC system is the "occupying space with an extended static arm" which is different from the boxing approach. The reason is simple. If you extend your arms in your opponent's striking path, his fist has to meet with your arm first before it cab meet your face.
> 
> 1. You can use your arms to guard your head.
> 2. You can also use your arms to guard the space in front of you.
> 
> IMO, 2 > 1



Well I admit the statement was actually kind of incorrect by me. I did karate once and when I did some were using extended static arm as guard to occupy space. Also we have a lot of students that do the standard WC guard when fighting. I believe it is not used to occupy space but rather to force themselves mentally to keep with the WC way of fighting.

Problem is that in my view having the arm extended is giving it to the opponent and often it also telegraphs which arm you are gonna punch with when going in.

But to clarify also I do not only mean extended static arm, realize that part was unclear. I mean a guard that occupy space in such a way as described by LFJ might be target for a bong-sau. In karate the guard was often quite low and in WC the guard is uncommited so moving forward with a bong-sau would be sacrificing your own arm.

A soft arm while extended will not be affected as desired by the bong say. Instead it will bend by the elbow and perhaps continue as a backfist or some other movement, hard to say actually because it depends on incoming force. Problem is also that there is a second arm that may also react to the bong-sau. In such a case the move may be stopped dead in its tracks.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> so moving forward with a bong-sau would be sacrificing your own arm.


If you use your

- right Bong Shou to lift your opponent's left arm.
- left Bong Shou to lift your opponent's right arm.

You are not sacrificing your arms at all. His whole body will be opened for your attack. I assume the WC Bong Shou can be considered as the long fist "upward palm lift block". It has it's value.


----------



## Callen

geezer said:


> Next, maybe you better straighten out _Callen_ (from your perspective). The comment quoted below doesn't seem to agree with what you and Guy have been saying all this time.


Yikes, I feel like I might be fueling a fire here. My comment was meant to inspire thought, not to contradict anyone. Covering the topic of WSL's version of Wing Chun (VT) is probably not something that can be explained in a simple post. It's lengthy and requires a lot of historical references. LFJ did in fact respond to what I said though:



LFJ said:


> The man himself said he didn't make any changes and taught exactly what YM taught him, which is a system of clearly defined strategy and tactics with a coherent training methodology. So, where are you getting this idea, and what parts specifically do you think he reinterpreted?



LFJ is correct in his response, WSL was recorded as saying that he more or less taught the same method that he learned from YM. Here's a quote from WSL below:

_"Basically I teach the same method I learned from Yip Man but I would say that I teach it in a more systematic way. At the same time, though, I’m still very intuitive in my teaching." - Wong Shun Leung_

But as it is with all high-level practitioners, he knew how to make certain aspects of the system his own. Whether intentional or not, his intuitive way of teaching influenced the outcome. David Peterson once told the story of how WSL would speak to his students about not becoming a slave to Wing Chun. His quote follows:

_"Wong Sifu is constantly warning his students against the dangers of blindly following an instructor, copying every move he or she makes and accepting everything that they say as gospel. 'You must become the master of your system, not its slave' is his often repeated motto. Using art as an example yet again, Wong Sifu says, “…Kung Fu is like painting a picture. When you learn to paint from your teacher you cannot be exactly the same as he or she because there are differences in age and experience, and so there must be personal differences." - Sifu David Peterson
_
I don't really want to sling any mud here. I was only attempting to point out that it was inevitable that WSL's version of Wing Chun (VT) would turn out slightly different from that of YM because if his own interpretations of the system. There are quite a few first hand accounts from early students (or even live-in students like David Peterson) illustrating how WSL had his own flavor of the system.

On the topic of other YM students that understood the system; Leung Seung, Lok Yiu and Chu Shong Tin all made their mark and have proven contributions towards the combat skill of Wing Chun.


----------



## Phobius

Callen said:


> LFJ is correct in his response, WSL was recorded as saying that he more or less taught the same method that he learned from YM. Here's a quote from him below:
> 
> _"Basically I teach the same method I learned from Yip Man but I would say that I teach it in a more systematic way. At the same time, though, I’m still very intuitive in my teaching." - Wong Shun Leung_



Problem with that quote is that I do not read it as him saying he made no changes. All he said is "Basically" that means that on the more basic level everything is the same, that there might be differences but it is not intended to change the basics. Then he follows up by saying he has changed the way he teaches it to a more systematic way.

Not wanting to start a fight but that quote seems far from saying that there were no changes made whatsoever.


----------



## Nobody Important

Phobius said:


> Well I admit the statement was actually kind of incorrect by me. I did karate once and when I did some were using extended static arm as guard to occupy space. Also we have a lot of students that do the standard WC guard when fighting. I believe it is not used to occupy space but rather to force themselves mentally to keep with the WC way of fighting.
> 
> Problem is that in my view having the arm extended is giving it to the opponent and often it also telegraphs which arm you are gonna punch with when going in.
> 
> But to clarify also I do not only mean extended static arm, realize that part was unclear. I mean a guard that occupy space in such a way as described by LFJ might be target for a bong-sau. In karate the guard was often quite low and in WC the guard is uncommited so moving forward with a bong-sau would be sacrificing your own arm.
> 
> A soft arm while extended will not be affected as desired by the bong say. Instead it will bend by the elbow and perhaps continue as a backfist or some other movement, hard to say actually because it depends on incoming force. Problem is also that there is a second arm that may also react to the bong-sau. In such a case the move may be stopped dead in its tracks.


It's very hard to reply to comments when what if scenarios are factored into the conversation. It's also very hard to respond during an attack if the mind is scattered and thinking "I can't approach in this manner, because he might do this". In a fight it is impossible to tell what the other person is thinking or know how they will respond.

In discussions best to focus on concrete scenarios such as, opponent attacks with moves x,y,z then ask how do you respond. Leave out the what if they do this or that stuff. At that point it becomes too hypothetical and abstract.

I'm not singling you out Phobius, or disagreeing with your post, just using it as an example to illustrate how discussions can take a turn into complicated dialogue that is off course from the original statement/question/answer presented.


----------



## Phobius

Nobody Important said:


> It's very hard to reply to comments when what if scenarios are factored into the conversation. It's also very hard to respond during an attack if the mind is scattered and thinking "I can't approach in this manner, because he might do this". In a fight it is impossible to tell what the other person is thinking or know how they will respond.
> 
> In discussions best to focus on concrete scenarios such as, opponent attacks with moves x,y,z then ask how do you respond. Leave out the what if they do this or that stuff. At that point it becomes too hypothetical and abstract.
> 
> I'm not singling you out Phobius, or disagreeing with your post, just using it as an example to illustrate how discussions can take a turn into complicated dialogue that is off course from the original statement/question/answer presented.



I get your point but hard or not it was my point that I made, from a subject I brought up. That I decided to clarify, based on feedback from Kung Fu Wang.

Problem is that there is no x,y,z moves in any discussion for WC/VT/WT. We can not even explain the punch in detail to even find a starting point. Now as to my reply I was not trying to be abstract, just simply stating that if you touch a lower arm of a man sau that hand is not committed and may therefore roll with the contact and slide back instantly like for example a backfist movement. Of course this once more depends on the angle of the incoming bong and where it is heading. So you see, when we start thinking about it as x,y,z moves it is complicated. Instead if we just think "Ok the man sau arm may be soft and non-committed, what would a rolling into a backfist mean upon contact? How would that possible interfere with how I visioned a bong-sau?" Then you may reply with whatever thought that came up.

I may be incorrect but this is how I do it. Whenever I try to focus on x,y,z moves then I never get past the first point, what kind of punch was it?!

EDIT: Also to clarify, I do not need people to agree with me. Kung Fu Wang made a reply that shows he did not share my understanding. This means his experience differs from my own. In my belief we are both correct since we both have experience of it. Discussion ends because nothing more can be said.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> I was not trying to be abstract,


- You should not use right Bong Shou to deal with a right punch. 
- If both you and your opponent have right leg forward (uniform stance), your leading right hand will have to contact your opponent's right arm before it can contact his left arm
- ...

Those are just simple examples that discussion should not be "abstract".


----------



## Nobody Important

Phobius said:


> I get your point but hard or not it was my point that I made, from a subject I brought up. That I decided to clarify, based on feedback from Kung Fu Wang.
> 
> Problem is that there is no x,y,z moves in any discussion for WC/VT/WT. We can not even explain the punch in detail to even find a starting point. Now as to my reply I was not trying to be abstract, just simply stating that if you touch a lower arm of a man sau that hand is not committed and may therefore roll with the contact and slide back instantly like for example a backfist movement. Of course this once more depends on the angle of the incoming bong and where it is heading. So you see, when we start thinking about it as x,y,z moves it is complicated. Instead if we just think "Ok the man sau arm may be soft and non-committed, what would a rolling into a backfist mean upon contact? How would that possible interfere with how I visioned a bong-sau?" Then you may reply with whatever thought that came up.
> 
> I may be incorrect but this is how I do it. Whenever I try to focus on x,y,z moves then I never get past the first point, what kind of punch was it?!


I understand what you're saying but the thought of what if this what if that , for me is over analytical. In a real life situation you don't have time to analyze outcomes, you simply need to respond.

For example: The attacker is facing me, slightly to my left. He throws a straight right at the left side of my head followed by a left uppercut to my midsection. How do I respond?

I would most likely use a left thrusting palm to the right side of his head. This thrusting palm acts as a Pak Sau to divert his right straight punch & as a strike to the right side of his head at the same time as it is above his forearm.  I would follow up with a right side punch to his face or chest while simultaneously rotating to my right. This would automatically create distance on the inside line causing his left uppercut to miss. After that, chain punches, run away whatever.

I could also just simply rotate to my right as I throw an arrow punch at his solar plexus. Avoiding both the straight right and left uppercut but sacrificing my position.

How would you respond to the same attack?


----------



## Phobius

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - You should not use right Bong Shou to deal with a right punch.
> - If both you and your opponent have right leg forward (uniform stance), your leading right hand will have to contact your opponent's right arm before it can contact his left arm
> - ...
> 
> Those are just simple examples that discussion should not be "abstract".



Yes I  was thinking about own experience with right bong sau against left arm of opponent. 

But to say what next move must be is impossible, because it requires more information. What I do is say what is my point of what can happen next. Then you can argue,  comment, disagree or something else.
In this case my experience is that a non committed arm is not affected much by a bong sau. It will move with or around it but nothing says it has to or even is more likely to clear a path.

Now your experience may be different and if it is I trust you and think it might be because you,  me and our opponents are all different.


----------



## Phobius

Nobody Important said:


> I understand what you're saying but the thought of what if this what if that , for me is over analytical. In a real life situation you don't have time to analyze outcomes, you simply need to respond.
> 
> For example: The attacker is facing me, slightly to my left. He throws a straight right at the left side of my head followed by a left uppercut to my midsection. How do I respond?
> 
> I would most likely use a left thrusting palm to the right side of his head. This thrusting palm acts as a Pak Sau to divert his right straight punch & as a strike to the right side of his head at the same time as it is above his forearm.  I would follow up with a right side punch to his face or chest while simultaneously rotating to my right. This would automatically create distance on the inside line causing his left uppercut to miss. After that, chain punches, run away whatever.
> 
> How would you respond to the same attack?



We are not in a fight, we are discussing on a forum.

It is my experience that if anyone needs to analyze during a fight that person is being hit.

But if I don't want to analyze situations on a forum then I would not be able to find new things that I might have missed. In that case why be on the forums? I learn all else a lot more during training. I train when not on the forum mostly.

Also on a phone heading to bed. Will read about the scenario tomorrow earliest.


----------



## Nobody Important

Phobius said:


> We are not in a fight, we are discussing on a forum.
> 
> It is my experience that if anyone needs to analyze during a fight that person is being hit.
> 
> But if I don't want to analyze situations on a forum then I would not be able to find new things that I might have missed. In that case why be on the forums? I learn all else a lot more during training. I train when not on the forum mostly.
> 
> Also on a phone heading to bed. Will read about the scenario tomorrow earliest.


I understand it's a forum. Only trying to emphasize that it is hard to converse and clarify when there is a continual what if....? thrown in. I'm not saying you do or did this. I was simply making a generalized statement & used your post as an example. Sorry if that caused confusion.

No need to reply to my post, again just an example of a simple discussion expressing approach.

Thank you.


----------



## geezer

Callen said:


> ...I was only attempting to point out that it was inevitable that WSL's version of Wing Chun (VT) would turn out slightly different from that of YM because if his own interpretations of the system. There are quite a few first hand accounts from early students (or even live-in students like David Peterson) illustrating how WSL had his own flavor of the system.
> 
> On the topic of other YM students that understood the system; Leung Seung, Lok Yiu and Chu Shong Tin all made their mark and have proven contributions towards the combat skill of Wing Chun.



A very sensible perspective. I'm also interested to learn that David Peterson was a "live-in" student of WSL. Certain other WSL-VT students here have dismissed him as a mere "seminar student" with an incomplete understanding of the system compared with _their_ sifu.  I find this kind of talk discouragingly similar to the kind of back-biting gossip that certain members of my old WT association used to engage in. One reason I'm no longer with that group.

Frankly I find your viewpoint informative and refreshingly apolitical. Are you a student of WSL-VT, _Callen?_


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - You should not use right Bong Shou to deal with a right punch.
> - If both you and your opponent have right leg forward (uniform stance), your leading right hand will have to contact your opponent's right arm before it can contact his left arm
> .



I would agree with this. perhaps in an ideal world. It is always _preferable_ if you can use bong to take the outdoor area. But, that may not always happen. So we do not make such an absolute rule. That is, in our VT, _we have no "wrong bong"._

At least in my VT lineage, your hands have to respond spontaneously, reacting to the situation and energy received. That means that sometimes you may end up using bong to the indoor area, or going across with your right bong deflecting their right punch, etc. In such a situation you must have good forward intention and flow immediately into the next _offensive _technique. That is why we say "bong never stays".

BTW you can see one example of bong-sau being used to the indoor area at about 1:30 in the Emin Boztepe videoclip, _Bong-Sau pt.1_ in post #185 back on page 10. There are other circumstances in which this situation can arise as well.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> A very sensible perspective. I'm also interested to learn that David Peterson was a "live-in" student of WSL. Certain other WSL-VT students here have dismissed him as a mere "seminar student" with an incomplete understanding of the system compared with _their_ sifu.  I find this kind of talk discouragingly similar to the kind of back-biting gossip that certain members of my old WT association used to engage in. One reason I'm no longer with that group.
> 
> Frankly I find your viewpoint informative and refreshingly apolitical. Are you a student of WSL-VT, _Callen?_



I agree on the last bit, Callen, has certainly been very informative.  As for the first bit I think the following quote that Callen posted is likely at the core of the issue...

_"Wong Sifu is constantly warning his students against the dangers of blindly following an instructor, copying every move he or she makes and accepting everything that they say as gospel. 'You must become the master of your system, not its slave' is his often repeated motto. Using art as an example yet again, Wong Sifu says, “…Kung Fu is like painting a picture. When you learn to paint from your teacher you cannot be exactly the same as he or she because there are differences in age and experience, and so there must be personal differences." - Sifu David Peterson"_

I would believe the above however as 100% accurate however because even YM's blood relative that he taught, sons and nephews, have all said that those students YM taught personally were taught to their strengths and weaknesses.  That if these students did not engage him with questions, in a way that one could describe as the Socratic method, they may come away with a different idea about a concept or technique.  This Socratic method of teaching being very traditional in Chinese culture.  Blame Confucius teachings because both Confucius and Socrates used very similar teaching methods.

When you teach the way YM did you will obviously have multiple people saying "this is what YM taught me" and they would all be telling the truth.  Additionally since you are teaching WC in a way that allows the student to maximize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses, the teacher essentially creates the "don't follow me blindly" dynamic with their instruction because they aren't saying "this is how I use WC so you must as well.


----------



## Callen

Juany118 said:


> ...YM's blood relative that he taught, sons and nephews, have all said that those students YM taught personally were taught to their strengths and weaknesses. That if these students did not engage him with questions, in a way that one could describe as the Socratic method, they may come away with a different idea about a concept or technique. This Socratic method of teaching being very traditional in Chinese culture. Blame Confucius teachings because both Confucius and Socrates used very similar teaching methods.
> 
> When you teach the way YM did you will obviously have multiple people saying "this is what YM taught me" and they would all be telling the truth. Additionally since you are teaching WC in a way that allows the student to maximize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses, the teacher essentially creates the "don't follow me blindly" dynamic with their instruction because they aren't saying "this is how I use WC so you must as well.


Good post. In my opinion, this is a large part of the bigger issue.

It seems it has been embedded into the way we teach and learn Wing Chun, even today. Right or wrong it's become cultural. Students of Wing Chun progress at their own pace, their own understanding. We feel, we study, we train, we reflect, we perfect... it's very subjective. No two students are going to have the _exact_ same interpretation of the system (nor should they), because as individuals, _we_ are the Wing Chun that we express. It's a living thing requiring natural, learned responses from the practitioner.




geezer said:


> A very sensible perspective. I'm also interested to learn that David Peterson was a "live-in" student of WSL. Certain other WSL-VT students here have dismissed him as a mere "seminar student" with an incomplete understanding of the system compared with _their_ sifu. I find this kind of talk discouragingly similar to the kind of back-biting gossip that certain members of my old WT association used to engage in. One reason I'm no longer with that group.
> 
> Frankly I find your viewpoint informative and refreshingly apolitical. Are you a student of WSL-VT, _Callen?_


From my understanding Sifu David Peterson was already an excepted student by the time he attend most of the seminars. He served as WSL's interpreter while teaching, as he is fluent in Cantonese. He also stayed with WSL while he was training in Hong Kong. In-turn, WSL lived with Peterson when he toured Australia. To me it's irrelevant whether Peterson was a mere "seminar student" or not. He was one of the few people that had a personal relationship with WSL and was able to spend quality time with him. I would say that makes his insights on WSL worth sharing.

Thanks for the kind words. We're all on the path together, searching. I believe whole-heartedly in an all lineage mindset. I am indeed a WSLVT practitioner, but I've also spent a lot of time traveling, visiting and learning from different proponents.


----------



## Juany118

Callen said:


> Good post. In my opinion, this is a large part of the bigger issue.
> 
> It seems it has been embedded into the way we teach and learn Wing Chun, even today. Right or wrong it's become cultural. Students of Wing Chun progress at their own pace, their own understanding. We feel, we study, we train, we reflect, we perfect... it's very subjective. No two students are going to have the _exact_ same interpretation of the system (nor should they), because as individuals, _we_ are the Wing Chun that we express. It's a living thing requiring natural, learned responses from the practitioner.



It can get even more interesting in a school like mine.  We learn Wing Chun and Kali in tandem.  While they are taught seperately.  One day all Kali, another day all WC yet another day 45 minutes of WC followed by 45 minutes of Kali, you obviously get bleed over.

A couple weeks ago we had a Sifu from our mother school come for a "Wing Chun immersion" class that we have a couple of times a month.  We were paired up with other students and he came over to correct me.  Instead of stepping "into" my partners stance to disrupt his center I stepped on an angle, in my case to mime stepping on his leading foot to accomplish the same thing (something we learn in open hand Kali, though I already used it as a hand cuffing technique).  It still disrupts the center because the opponent is going to instinctively want to free his foot and with almost half my body weight on it the move will not be smooth and take him off balance, or he is trapped and I pummel away.  The Sifu what I was doing, I told him, he said "that's sneaky, and effective, but in WC we step in." Lol


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> LFJ, I find this interesting and would like to get some further information. For the sake of argument, let's say the bong you are describing is a vertical movement ( keeping descriptions generic & generalized).
> 
> Is that the only manner in which bong is used in your system, vertically?



Vertical, for the sake of argument? Poor choice.

_Bong-sau_ is simply a concept of elbow rotation that delivers a _paak_ energy from the elbow (proximal end of the forearm). I don't talk about different types of _bong-sau_ that are given different applications because I don't do a technique-based version of VT.



> Does your system approach this concept in the same manner or do you change the remedial bridging movement when the obstruction is under your bridge?



There's no such thing as "bridging movement" in VT. If by bridge you mean forearm, a remedial action would most likely not be necessary. An auxiliary action like _paak_ or _jat_ would be enough to clear the way for punching.



> In short I am asking about the versatility of the bong you are using. Is it one dimensional or does it have multiple remedial actions?



Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> I mean a guard that occupy space in such a way as described by LFJ might be target for a bong-sau. In karate the guard was often quite low and in WC the guard is uncommited so moving forward with a bong-sau would be sacrificing your own arm.



I don't remember describing anything as being a target for a_ bong-sau_.

What exactly do you mean by moving forward with a _bong-sau_?



> A soft arm while extended will not be affected as desired by the bong say. Instead it will bend by the elbow and perhaps continue as a backfist or some other movement, hard to say actually because it depends on incoming force. Problem is also that there is a second arm that may also react to the bong-sau. In such a case the move may be stopped dead in its tracks.



_Bong-sau _isn't an independent defense. It's coupled with a punch from the same side that also clears the path on the way to the target. So the punch would cut straight through a winding backfist with built-in defense (_lin-siu-daai-da_).


----------



## LFJ

Callen said:


> David Peterson once told the story of how WSL would speak to his students about not becoming a slave to Wing Chun.



DP, like many others, has taken the quote out of context and uses it as a creativity license because he never got to the free-fighting aspect of VT.

WSL was talking specifically about the strict elbow training we do and how in fighting it should be relaxed and used at will. He always said VT is not an art, only skill. The skill is clearly defined. The system for developing it is accommodating to various physical conditions, but not open to free interpretation or the skill won't be developed.



> There are quite a few first hand accounts from early students (or even live-in students like David Peterson) illustrating how WSL had his own flavor of the system.



The people who spent the most time with him don't say this.

I will give DP credit in that his VT is probably better than most out there. But, he was not a live-in student. He was an occasional visitor and seminar attendee. His visits only lasted a month or so each year. That's not even enough to get really good at basic _pun-sau_ or _seung-ma/teui-ma_ drills. This is not backbiting as Geezer says. Just how it is. 

PB lived in HK for the first 18 months of his time with WSL, and speaks of how for so long all he did was _seung-ma/teui-ma_ drills, so much that he thought it was the only drill in VT.

Yet, an occasional visitor is going to learn VT in great depth in a month or two per year? Not a chance.

When I was much younger and lived in the US, I traveled to China for a month or so each year and stayed at a school, training all day every day. It was another style, and technique-based, so I learned a lot. But I wouldn't dream of saying I learned nearly as in depth as the students who lived there year-round.

I invited the teacher to the States for seminars and he stayed with me too. But I was always able to learn a lot from fellow classmates who trained with him year-round. They obviously had much more knowledge than I had; finer details I never got on previous visits. Time with the instructor is an undeniably clear factor in that.

Now, that was a technique-based MA. Easier to pick up. A concept-based system like VT with a very abstract training methodology would be impossible to learn well with such little training and only occasional guidance. It's no wonder DP teaches a technique-based understanding of the system. All he had time to learn was the skin and hair of the forms and some basic drills.

Again though, that said, what he teaches still probably functions better than a lot of other Wing Chun that's out there. So, it's not terrible. It's just missing a ton of detail, most importantly the understanding of free fighting strategy and tactics.

So, I'd either take what he says with a huge grain of salt, or not listen to him at all.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Problem with that quote is that I do not read it as him saying he made no changes. All he said is "Basically" that means that on the more basic level everything is the same, that there might be differences but it is not intended to change the basics. Then he follows up by saying he has changed the way he teaches it to a more systematic way.
> 
> Not wanting to start a fight but that quote seems far from saying that there were no changes made whatsoever.



You realize he was not speaking English and this is a translation of what he said? No point in analyzing the words used and speculating about what he meant regarding a system you have no experience with. 

Plus, the information from him does not just come from interviews, but his close and longterm students that spent the most time with him and know his system. What is referred to by "more systematic" is just the order in which he taught things like the dummy form, which was broken up and taught between CK and BJ forms.

The concepts and principles, the strategy and tactics are all the same. The “intuitive” part is being able to construct drills specific to an individuals needs, which he and any VT teacher who knows the system was/is very good at. This can only be done with the right understanding of VT without screwing things up though.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Vertical, for the sake of argument? Poor choice.
> 
> _Bong-sau_ is simply a concept of elbow rotation that delivers a _paak_ energy from the elbow (proximal end of the forearm). I don't talk about different types of _bong-sau_ that are given different applications because I don't do a technique-based version of VT.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "bridging movement" in VT. If by bridge you mean forearm, a remedial action would most likely not be necessary. An auxiliary action like _paak_ or _jat_ would be enough to clear the way for punching.
> 
> 
> 
> Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching.



You do realize that much of this response is simply an argument founded in semantics and not actual substance correct?  Example you refer to the use of bong, pak, what have you as "punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching."

That is all a bridging movement is, a movement that allows us to close and "clears the way" so we can punch.

You seem to be almost myopically focused on trying to prove that there is some massively fundamental difference in technique, yet you appear to be reduced to using semantics to maintain the argument.  If there was a fundamental difference this would not be necessary.

I think the most likely explanation is explained by WSL's own statement...

_"Basically I teach the same method I learned from Yip Man but I would say that I teach it in a more systematic way..."_

Systematic teaching is a two edged sword.  It can result in students, used to the more linear method of modern education, learning more readily.  However the more systematic structure also lends itself to people confabulating method with practice.  So when different terminology is used to explain shared techniques, the assumption is the "other side" is speaking of something different, when in reality both sides are discussing the same thing.

Traditional Chinese teaching methods are also a two edged sword btw, don't get me wrong.  The Confucius/Socratic method, while being more holistic and encouraging of critical thinking regarding the topic at hand, potentially allows for faster advancement and also making the Art, to a degree "your own" as well as it allows you to refine what you are learning to your own strengths and weaknesses.  However it also risks confusing or even losing the student, if they don't ask questions or, if not honest enough with themselves, the student can fail to recognize their limitations and so they do not know what questions need be asked.


----------



## LFJ

Go ahead and keep analyzing words that didn't come from WSL's mouth and speculating about a system you have no experience with.

The terminology of "bridging movements" certainly carries some baggage as many use it that I completely reject.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Go ahead and keep analyzing words that didn't come from WSL's mouth and speculating about a system you have no experience with.
> 
> The terminology of "bridging movements" certainly carries some baggage as many use it that I completely reject.



Well he did say that.  That what he teaches is what YM taught him, he simply changed the method of teaching to those techniques.  This also is confirmed by simple critical analysis.  Read how YM's students have described his teaching methods, the traditional Chinese/Socratic method vs how WSL organized VT instruction.  As for how other people have previously used the term bridging method with you, that isn't relevant here. What is relevant is what people HERE are saying to you and the use of the term "bridging movements" in this conversation is as I noted... clearing the way to strike.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Well he did say that.  That what he teaches is what YM taught him, he simply changed the method of teaching to those techniques.  This also is confirmed by simple critical analysis.  Read how YM's students have described his teaching methods, the traditional Chinese/Socratic method vs how WSL organized VT instruction.



He only changed the time at which the latter parts of the dummy form were taught because they contain more BJ ideas a student would have not yet learned. He changed absolutely nothing about the contents, how it's taught, or what it all means.

How do you think WSL organized VT instruction differently than YM besides the timing of dummy sections?



> As for how other people have previously used the term bridging method with you, that isn't relevant here. What is relevant is what people HERE are saying to you and the use of the term "bridging movements" in this conversation is as I noted... clearing the way to strike.



How does a _bong-sau_ clear the way to strike when there's nothing obstructing it?

Some "bridging" method using _bong-sau_ to do something to something going on underneath the arm was suggested. I do no such thing and can't imagine how it would not violate VT principles.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> He only changed the time at which the latter parts of the dummy form were taught because they contain more BJ ideas a student would have not yet learned. He changed absolutely nothing about the contents, how it's taught, or what it all means.
> 
> How do you think WSL organized VT instruction differently than YM besides the timing of dummy sections?
> 
> 
> 
> How does a _bong-sau_ clear the way to strike when there's nothing obstructing it?
> 
> Some "bridging" method using _bong-sau_ to do something to something going on underneath the arm was suggested. I do no such thing and can't imagine how it would not violate VT principles.



I said nothing about contents, I mentioned method.  Now maybe I am more sensitive to this.  Yes I was a soldier, now a cop, but my first degree was to be a history teacher.  There are many methods to teaching.  All I speak to is NOT the actual practice being changed as WSL was taught, rather he simply chose a less holistic and rather more systematic and thus, due to traditional Chinese/Confucius methods, different teaching method. 

I am thinking you are so trapped by an assumption at this point that you aren't really reading what is typed.  I am not trying to be rude but no where have I said that WSL is not teaching what YM taught him.  If you look above I actually say he did.  I am simply speaking of teaching methods and how methods can have as much an impact on learning as the ideas that are being taught.  WSL himself stated that the only thing he really changed was the method of teaching, and he described it as what it is, systematic vs a more holistic (read universal) method that also requires engagement and active questioning of the teacher by the student.


----------



## LFJ

You were talking about it just being semantics and that Nobody Important and I were saying the same thing. 

But he said something about _bong-sau_ being used to do something to something under the arm.

That couldn't be more different from what _bong-sau_ is to me. So, no, we are not talking about the same thing and different teaching methods didn't lead us there. The entire concept of _bong-sau_ has become something else.


----------



## Juany118

Hmmm... you said a bong was just one of many methods to open the gap for striking.  All he did was mention one specific method where it CAN be used to accomplish said goal.

That debate however is completely irrelevant to the issue of teaching method.  They are both two different topics as I said, though some confuse them as they both may have equal impact on a student.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Hmmm... you said a bong was just one of many methods to open the gap for striking.  All he did was mention one specific method where it CAN be used to accomplish said goal.



No. I said _bong-sau_ is just elbow rotation for a remedial purpose, not a primary or auxiliary action. He was giving it all sorts of possible applications I don't do. It's not semantics.



> That debate however is completely irrelevant to the issue of teaching method.  They are both two different topics as I said, though some confuse them as they both may have equal impact on a student.



You brought up teaching methods as a cause for semantic disagreements, which is not what was happening. So yeah, irrelevant.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> No. I said _bong-sau_ is just elbow rotation for a remedial purpose, not a primary or auxiliary action. He was giving it all sorts of possible applications I don't do. It's not semantics
> 
> You brought up teaching methods as a cause for semantic disagreements, which is not what was happening. So yeah, irrelevant.



I don't ever recall anyone saying "I am charging him with a bong so on the first point I am truly lost.

As for the second I noted as one of many causes.  Not the only cause or even required to be paired with another.  I can't say I am surprised by such a retort however.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I don't ever recall anyone saying "I am charging him with a bong so on the first point I am truly lost.



His _bong-sau_ is used to "hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull". These are various applications. He would hack one sort of thing, and lift another, or pull another. Not all of them are remedial.

My _bong-sau_ is simply elbow rotation to retake space/ regain lost position. Not an application against any specific thing.

How is that just semantics and not entirely different concepts?



> As for the second I noted as one of many causes.  Not the only cause or even required to be paired with another.  I can't say I am surprised by such a retort however.



You only named one cause and called it the most likely. But there is no semantic disagreement, so talking about possible causes is irrelevant.


----------



## geezer

_LFJ,_ I will not address your comments regarding David Peterson as I have never met the man or any of his students. I only know of him via a few positive comments from friends online and through a few youtube clips where he appeared to be a knowledgeable instructor. I will address the following comment in a very general way.



LFJ said:


> ...A *concept-based* system like VT with a very abstract training methodology would be impossible to learn well with such little training and only occasional guidance. It's no wonder DP teaches a technique-based understanding of the system. All he had time to learn was the skin and hair of the forms and some basic drills.



My own experience is nearly opposite yours. I have been involved in a few concept-based martial arts over a number of years, namely WT/VT, Latosa Escrima Concepts, and Direct Torres Eskrima. In each case, gaining a high level of finesse in the techniques demanded constant and close supervision by the master-instructor supplemented by many hours of practice.

Grasping the deep underlying concepts, on the other hand, came to those with intelligence and insight after a long time in the art, but _not necessarily from more supervision with the instructor_. Sometimes it came on as a gradual awakening, other times more suddenly, as with the well known "Aha!" or "Eureka!" experience. Sometimes such a realization comes when working with the master, other times training independently. And, even sometimes coming when simply _in conversation_ with the master, reflecting on particular experiences or situations.

The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but _not _how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience. Quality instruction, years of practice and reflection, innate talent and intelligence, an open and inquiring mind capable of divergent thinking all come into play. But conceptual understanding arises unpredictably, even surprisingly. If there were an instructional method that could guarantee such "enlightnement" within a set number of hours, everybody would be using it!

I don't expect you will agree, and that is fine. Diverse opinions can make for livelier discussions.


----------



## Nobody Important

"Vertical, for the sake of argument? Poor choice."

A few post back, this exact movement was agreed upon as above your bridge, in order to clear you must go up.

_"Bong-sau_ is simply a concept of elbow rotation that delivers a _paak_ energy from the elbow (proximal end of the forearm). I don't talk about different types of _bong-sau_ that are given different applications because I don't do a technique-based version of VT."

So you only do one bong Sau, what most would call Dai Bong. Yes you do, without the techniques you have no vehicle to use the concepts. Wing Chun is about transitioning from one technique to another with strategy. Quit trying to pretend it's something so organic that it can only be extrapolated from the cosmos once you learn it's concepts.



"There's no such thing as "bridging movement" in VT. If by bridge you mean forearm, a remedial action would most likely not be necessary. An auxiliary action like _paak_ or _jat_ would be enough to clear the way for punching."

Maybe not in yours, but for the rest of Wing Chun and every other southern art, bridges are a staple. All the bridges can be applied defensively or offensively with multiple concepts like Pak, Lan, Gai, But etc. This doesn't change the bridge. It's simply using the bridge conceptually.



"Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching"

So why not take up Western Boxing? Sounds like that's what your trying to turn it into.

Thank you for taking the time to reply I appreciate it, but it seems we are too far apart in our thought process to continue a discussion without turning it into an argument.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but _not _how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience.



What I said was not just measuring hours and minutes.

It's a matter of lacking that "constant and close supervision", not having time to receive all the details before going back home and doing who knows what.

It's also not meant as an attack on DP, I'm just saying I listen to him expound on _wu-sau_ for example, and he gives all these application ideas, but I'm waiting around for a mention of fighting strategy and punching concepts that _wu-sau_ is an integral part of, but it never comes.

So, people using him as an authoritative reference on WSLVT is, I think, a bit flawed, as he is lacking a ton of detail in his VT.


----------



## geezer

Oh ...one more thing. WC/VT is_ absolutely an art_ ...at least as the word is often used in _English _to mean a skill or craft elevated to the highest level by the personal ability and insight of a truly gifted master.

I do not know if WSL was accomplished enough in English to understand this when he famously remarked that _VT is not an art but a science_, but I doubt that he would have made such a statement had he fully understood what the English term art encompasses.

When the term "art" is applied to a fine-art craft or skill, such as woodworking, metalworking, ceramics, printmaking, and so forth (such as studied in Master of Fine Arts degree programs in American universities) there is always a foundation in science and the scientific method. Skills and processes are systematically learned and trained until the student has a complete command of the media and a solid foundation in functional design.

Such training can reliably turn out journeyman craftsmen. But to rise to _mastery_ requires something more. Insight? Inspiration? Genius? Whatever you call it, it is the uncommon ability to take your practical, scientifically based skills and understanding to a higher level, that we recognize as _true mastery_. Something like the actual meaning of the Chinese term _kung-fu (_i.e. great skill in a craft accomplished through hard work).

Pure science demands that results be _precisely replicable_. The arts and craft skills are based on the scientific method, but always, always you have to factor in the unknown variable of the human element, the artist/craftsman himself. So instead of replicability, you have infinite variety.

To put it another way, a great master in the arts can take on apprentices or teach students all the skills and methods he or she may know, but as they are human, and _not identical machines, _each student be distinct and express their craft differently. All may be highly competent, but only a very few will rise to mastery ...and each will be different from their teacher and each other. So it is in the fine arts, crafts, and skills, and also in the martial arts. Look at the students of Yip Man. Look at the students of Wong Shun Leung. It is an undeniable reality.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> What I said was not just measuring hours and minutes.
> 
> It's a matter of lacking that "constant and close supervision", not having time to receive all the details before going back home and doing who knows what.
> 
> It's also not meant as an attack on DP, I'm just saying I listen to him expound on _wu-sau_ for example, and he gives all these application ideas, but I'm waiting around for a mention of fighting strategy and punching concepts that _wu-sau_ is an integral part of, but it never comes.
> 
> So, people using him as an authoritative reference on WSLVT is, I think, a bit flawed, as he is lacking a ton of detail in his VT.



I do get what you are saying here. Is it possible that DP's explanations that you mention were directed to lower level students, and perhaps the other aspects are taught too? Have you personally trained with DP at some point?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> "Vertical, for the sake of argument? Poor choice."
> 
> A few post back, this exact movement was agreed upon as above your bridge, in order to clear you must go up.



The only way a low elbow will rotate is "up", but it's directed forward. There is no vertical lifting.



> So you only do one bong Sau, what most would call Dai Bong.



What is Dai Bong?



> Yes you do, without the techniques you have no vehicle to use the concepts.



What you describe as hacking, lifting, sweeping, pulling, etc. with _bong-sau_ are applications against specific sorts of things. You wouldn't lift what you would pull with it, would you? 

Giving various applications to a single technique does not make it conceptual. There is no clear concept to it. It's just all kinds of concrete applications. This is a technique-based approach where a single technique can be used for different things.

VT doesn't work like that.



> Maybe not in yours, but for the rest of Wing Chun and every other southern art, bridges are a staple.



VT has an entirely different definition of bridge and it has nothing to do with forearms. I don't do other Southern arts, so their terminology is irrelevant.



> "Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching"
> 
> So why not take up Western Boxing? Sounds like that's what your trying to turn it into.



Western Boxing doesn't do what VT does.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> I do get what you are saying here. Is it possible that DP's explanations that you mention were directed to lower level students, and perhaps the other aspects are taught too? Have you personally trained with DP at some point?



I've trained with other first gen. students who are all part of his group of buddies that share his same understanding of VT, very technique-based while saying it's conceptual, like most WC. They are all missing details and have very limited if any fighting strategy.

And on the topic of "art" vs "skill", the distinction WSL was making is that with art, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but with VT all that matters is whether or not it works. It can be objectively judged by who's left standing at the end.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> The only way a low elbow will rotate is "up", but it's directed forward. There is no vertical lifting.
> 
> 
> 
> What is Dai Bong?
> 
> 
> 
> What you describe as hacking, lifting, sweeping, pulling, etc. with _bong-sau_ are applications against specific sorts of things. You wouldn't lift what you would pull with it, would you?
> 
> Giving various applications to a single technique does not make it conceptual. There is no clear concept to it. It's just all kinds of concrete applications. This is a technique-based approach where a single technique can be used for different things.
> 
> VT doesn't work like that.
> 
> 
> 
> VT has an entirely different definition of bridge and it has nothing to do with forearms. I don't do other Southern arts, so their terminology is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Western Boxing doesn't do what VT does.


Tomato vs Tomato


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Giving various applications to a single technique does not make it conceptual. There is no clear concept to it. It's just all kinds of concrete applications. This is a technique-based approach where a single technique can be used for different things.
> 
> VT doesn't work like that.



Fairly certain this is not at all what was said. What was said is you can not follow concepts without doing techniques. Just because you have techniques it does not mean you are application based style. Even rotating an elbow a certain way is a technique.

You cant even do a punch without using some technique. After all without technique all you have is a theory. So mentioning techniques has nothing to do with a statement on whether it is concept or not. Saying that a technique must be used in a certain scenario is however saying it is not concept based, very different thing.



LFJ said:


> VT has an entirely different definition of bridge and it has nothing to do with forearms. I don't do other Southern arts, so their terminology is irrelevant.



Completely irrelevant but might as well mention. He did not say you shared his terminology, but if you think his terminology is irrelevant does that mean you are not interested in understanding him? And please, just dont reply to this part because I do not care what you think or feel. This topic about bridge has been done to death already and in the end it was nothing more than a silly discussion of no value.



LFJ said:


> Western Boxing doesn't do what VT does.



Western boxing in terms of punching has been accepted as one of the most devastating arts. Problem for a boxer exists of course when it is no longer about punching only.
It could be that he simply meant if you are only in it for the punching then you perhaps would be served better by training western boxing.

I can accept that boxing is not always optimal, especially with older age. But it leaves one question, you are always talking about punching, kicks are still important to you? And before you get into a fit about this or say we are talking about 1:1 application, it is a simple yes or no question. You do not need to write more than one of those words as answer.


----------



## Nobody Important

Phobius said:


> Fairly certain this is not at all what was said. What was said is you can not follow concepts without doing techniques. Just because you have techniques it does not mean you are application based style. Even rotating an elbow a certain way is a technique.
> 
> You cant even do a punch without using some technique. After all without technique all you have is a theory. So mentioning techniques has nothing to do with a statement on whether it is concept or not. Saying that a technique must be used in a certain scenario is however saying it is not concept based, very different thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant but might as well mention. He did not say you shared his terminology, but if you think his terminology is irrelevant does that mean you are not interested in understanding him? And please, just dont reply to this part because I do not care what you think or feel. This topic about bridge has been done to death already and in the end it was nothing more than a silly discussion of no value.
> 
> 
> 
> Western boxing in terms of punching has been accepted as one of the most devastating arts. Problem for a boxer exists of course when it is no longer about punching only.
> It could be that he simply meant if you are only in it for the punching then you perhaps would be served better by training western boxing.
> 
> I can accept that boxing is not always optimal, especially with older age. But it leaves one question, you are always talking about punching, kicks are still important to you? And before you get into a fit about this or say we are talking about 1:1 application, it is a simple yes or no question. You do not need to write more than one of those words as answer.


Great reply, well stated. Glad you wrote it because I didn't want to attempt it. Thank you!


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Wing Chun is about transitioning from one technique to another with strategy. Quit trying to pretend it's something organic



What most see as techniques in VT are only training wheels. The training system is about internalising the ideas of VT, making the elbow, body integration, reactions and stepping work, building attributes. The fighting does not look like the training and the system is not a technique based approach in that specific responses (e.g. bongs from chi sau) are not related to specific real world circumstances because it is understood that chi sau is but one of many abstract drills. VT is about loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung. It is about integrating neutralisation with striking. It is about cutting the way, interupting the opponent, and imposing a particular strategy upon them to end the fight as quickly as possible.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> What most see as techniques in VT are only training wheels. The training system is about internalising the ideas of VT, making the elbow, body integration, reactions and stepping work, building attributes. The fighting does not look like the training and the system is not a technique based approach in that specific responses (e.g. bongs from chi sau) are not related to specific real world circumstances because it is understood that chi sau is but one of many abstract drills. VT is about loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung. It is about integrating neutralisation with striking. It is about cutting the way, interupting the opponent, and imposing a particular strategy upon them to end the fight as quickly as possible.


What you have written is a more detailed and elaborate description of my simplified statement. Thanks for taking the time to type that out. Much appreciated.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> What you have written is a more detailed and elaborate description of my simplified statement



Not at all. VT isn't about transitioning from technique to technique- it is about the concepts which are embodied in the strategy. Talking about the concept of bong is not a VT way of looking at the fight. It is more akin to what you see in other Southern Chinese systems where you have very open principles, and various technique and application built upon. A focus on very broad concepts is not VT- the strategy is extremely specific. And yet nobody seems to have a clue how it works.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Not at all. VT isn't about transitioning from technique to technique- it is about the concepts which are embodied in the strategy. Talking about the concept of bong is not a VT way of looking at the fight. It is more akin to what you see in other Southern Chinese systems where you have very open principles, and various technique and application built upon. A focus on very broad concepts is not VT- the strategy is extremely specific. And yet nobody seems to have a clue how it works.


OK, if you say so.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> _LFJ,_ I will not address your comments regarding David Peterson as I have never met the man or any of his students. I only know of him via a few positive comments from friends online and through a few youtube clips where he appeared to be a knowledgeable instructor. I will address the following comment in a very general way.
> 
> 
> 
> My own experience is nearly opposite yours. I have been involved in a few concept-based martial arts over a number of years, namely WT/VT, Latosa Escrima Concepts, and Direct Torres Eskrima. In each case, gaining a high level of finesse in the techniques demanded constant and close supervision by the master-instructor supplemented by many hours of practice.
> 
> Grasping the deep underlying concepts, on the other hand, came to those with intelligence and insight after a long time in the art, but _not necessarily from more supervision with the instructor_. Sometimes it came on as a gradual awakening, other times more suddenly, as with the well known "Aha!" or "Eureka!" experience. Sometimes such a realization comes when working with the master, other times training independently. And, even sometimes coming when simply _in conversation_ with the master, reflecting on particular experiences or situations.
> 
> The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but _not _how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience. Quality instruction, years of practice and reflection, innate talent and intelligence, an open and inquiring mind capable of divergent thinking all come into play. But conceptual understanding arises unpredictably, even surprisingly. If there were an instructional method that could guarantee such "enlightnement" within a set number of hours, everybody would be using it!
> 
> I don't expect you will agree, and that is fine. Diverse opinions can make for livelier discussions.



A lot of what i do is concept driven as well.  The thing you need to note is that the concepts are not carved in stone. 

The ends justify the means.

A technique can completely defy a concept and still be valid.

And i think a lot of concept driven martial arts forget this.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> His _bong-sau_ is used to "hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull". These are various applications. He would hack one sort of thing, and lift another, or pull another. Not all of them are remedial.
> 
> My _bong-sau_ is simply elbow rotation to retake space/ regain lost position. Not an application against any specific thing.
> 
> How is that just semantics and not entirely different concepts?
> 
> 
> 
> You only named one cause and called it the most likely. But there is no semantic disagreement, so talking about possible causes is irrelevant.



Sorry but calling something a "remedial action" action is indeed semantics.  Every description you just used as "different" than you hack, support, sweep etc. was stated to be used for exactly the same purpose you note, to regain position or space so we can attack.  So the point of saying "I only use it as a remedial action is semantics.

Now the actual movement you use to execute a bong may indeed not be a matter of semantics, however that does not mean that semantics is not part of the problem.

As for the last, I apologize, I thought it was understood that another cause of semantic arguments is when one side or the other isn't actually listening (in this case reading) what the other side has to say.  

As an example I have seen no one here say a bong was a "primary action".  We are all in agreement that our primary action should be a strike, a bong is simply one of many tools that are available to accomplish this goal and the way we choose which tool is based on immediate necessity, there is no 1:1 technique.

Yet somehow you keep saying you see bong as a remedial action in an exclusive way, as if the rest of us do not.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> _LFJ,_ I will not address your comments regarding David Peterson as I have never met the man or any of his students. I only know of him via a few positive comments from friends online and through a few youtube clips where he appeared to be a knowledgeable instructor. I will address the following comment in a very general way.
> 
> 
> 
> My own experience is nearly opposite yours. I have been involved in a few concept-based martial arts over a number of years, namely WT/VT, Latosa Escrima Concepts, and Direct Torres Eskrima. In each case, gaining a high level of finesse in the techniques demanded constant and close supervision by the master-instructor supplemented by many hours of practice.
> 
> Grasping the deep underlying concepts, on the other hand, came to those with intelligence and insight after a long time in the art, but _not necessarily from more supervision with the instructor_. Sometimes it came on as a gradual awakening, other times more suddenly, as with the well known "Aha!" or "Eureka!" experience. Sometimes such a realization comes when working with the master, other times training independently. And, even sometimes coming when simply _in conversation_ with the master, reflecting on particular experiences or situations.
> 
> The idea that you can reductively explain who has the superior understanding simply by measuring hours and minutes spent in contact with the master is reassuringly facile, but _not _how the realization of conceptual knowledge actually happens ...at least in my experience. Quality instruction, years of practice and reflection, innate talent and intelligence, an open and inquiring mind capable of divergent thinking all come into play. But conceptual understanding arises unpredictably, even surprisingly. If there were an instructional method that could guarantee such "enlightnement" within a set number of hours, everybody would be using it!
> 
> I don't expect you will agree, and that is fine. Diverse opinions can make for livelier discussions.



I so agree with the above.  I think people miss something about concept arts.  The other art I study is Inosanto Kali.  For those unfamiliar with it.  Don Inosanto learned FMA.  He then met and studied with Bruce Lee and became on of Lee's first JKD closed door Students.  Later he applied the JKD concept to FMA, bringing in techniques from 26 different sources including multiple Escrima - Arnis styles, Silat, Kuntao, Filipino boxing and kicking styles as well many others.  It invites the addition of other techniques, WC actually fits in quite well as an example.

The trick is this though.  You need a teacher to very closely guide you as you train so the foundation, or frame, is rock solid.  If you don't do this and the frame is not rock solid, as you begin to experiment, add and subtract, the frame becomes unbalanced and it all collapses in a chaotic mess.  It's like being a Improvisational Jazz musician.  If you don't have impeccable skill with your instrument, when you start to just riff and go with the flow in a quartet, it will be a muddled mess.

Once you have this frame, it may be the extent of your advancement.  This isn't a bad thing because the frame in this context, by its nature, has to be a full featured and effective system.  That said if we honestly look at not only the art but, most importantly, ourselves, we can then, perhaps even without the guidance of a Sifu or Guro begin to not only make the art our own due to unconscious idiosyncrasies that are always there but through knowing intent.  Again though this is impossible without that rock solid frame and that takes a teacher carefully guiding you not simply in the how of the techniques but the "why."


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Just because you have techniques it does not mean you are application based style.



If you attach various applications to a technique, it is application based.

If you would not lift what you would pull with _bong-sau _, or if you would not hack what you would sweep with _bong-sau _(these are terms Nobody Important used), then each function has a 1:1 application used against a specific type of thing.



> And please, just dont reply to this part because I do not care what you think or feel.



Then don't post it...?



> It could be that he simply meant if you are only in it for the punching then you perhaps would be served better by training western boxing.



Western Boxing doesn't punch like VT.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Sorry but calling something a "remedial action" action is indeed semantics.  Every description you just used as "different" than you hack, support, sweep etc. was stated to be used for exactly the same purpose you note, to regain position or space so we can attack.  So the point of saying "I only use it as a remedial action is semantics.



There's an important distinction to be made between auxiliary and remedial actions.

If punching is our primary action, auxiliary actions are secondary that help deliver the punch when still in an advantageous position (e.g. _paak_, _jat_).

Remedial actions are used to recover from disadvantageous positions where primary and auxiliary actions aren't possible (e.g. _bong_, _laap_, _biu_).

These distinctions are clearly defined. Not semantics.



> I have seen no one here say a bong was a "primary action".  We are all in agreement that our primary action should be a strike, a bong is simply one of many tools that are available to accomplish this goal and the way we choose which tool is based on immediate necessity, there is no 1:1 technique.
> 
> Yet somehow you keep saying you see bong as a remedial action in an exclusive way, as if the rest of us do not.



I trust you now understand what I mean when I say remedial and auxiliary. 

Many people use _bong-sau_ as an auxiliary action with various specific functions applied against various specific things. I would not use _bong-sau_ here because I can still use other auxiliary actions without raising my elbow.

Nobody Important mentioned two types of vertically rising _bong-sau _used as a remedial block. The rest sound like auxiliary actions. Fine by me if that's what he wants to do. It's just not how the VT I do was designed to function.

To me, _bong-sau_ is recovery from a disadvantageous position (hence remedial), but not an application "against" anything specific, like an upward block at an arm. It's a direct attack on space to get me back to punching position, if that makes any sense to you.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Western Boxing doesn't punch like VT.



Please tell me this bit was being purposefully obtuse because it wasn't about HOW arts punch, the statement was clearly being about what your focus is.  WC is an art with far more than just punching.  You have elbows, knees, kicks, Chin Na, take downs etc. Now I was assuming when you spoke of opening the path to attack that you had all of the above in the table.  If I was wrong in this assumption then I think the point made is not unreasonable because there are so many techniques being neglected.


----------



## LFJ

VT punches cut the way as they strike (_lin-siu-daai-da_ principle). That's the primary weapon of VT.

If I'm "only in VT for the punching", switching to Western Boxing wouldn't teach me this.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> There's an important distinction to be made between auxiliary and remedial actions.
> 
> If punching is our primary action, auxiliary actions are secondary that help deliver the punch when still in an advantageous position (e.g. _paak_, _jat_).
> 
> Remedial actions are used to recover from disadvantageous positions where primary and auxiliary actions aren't possible (e.g. _bong_, _laap_, _biu_).
> 
> These distinctions are clearly defined. Not semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> I trust you now understand what I mean when I say remedial and auxiliary.
> 
> Many people use _bong-sau_ as an auxiliary action with various specific functions applied against various specific things. I would not use _bong-sau_ here because I can still use other auxiliary actions without raising my elbow.
> 
> Nobody Important mentioned two types of vertically rising _bong-sau _used as a remedial block. The rest sound like auxiliary actions. Fine by me if that's what he wants to do. It's just not how the VT I do was designed to function.
> 
> To me, _bong-sau_ is recovery from a disadvantageous position (hence remedial), but not an application "against" anything specific, like an upward block at an arm. It's a direct attack on space to get me back to punching position, if that makes any sense to you.



Well at least it seems we have agreement on the fact that we all see  _bong_ as simply being a way to open the path for our primary action, to be offensive.

That said then you view of a _ bong _ is not to far removed from the 1:1 argument you raise or you have your mind closed to the fact there are other offensive actions beyond a punch.

A _bong_ may be more advantageous as what you call an auxiliary action for a number of reasons.

1. Your goal may be to gain distance to go for a tool, even escape a superior opponent.  The transition from _bong_ to _lan_, which can generate that distance is quite simple.

2. Your goal may be to do a takedown.  If you and your opponent are in opposing stances (right vs left) the easiest way to execute a takedown is, in response to a straight punch from the leading side,  is to _bong_ the strike, step in behind their lead leg, then _fak sau_

3. If the goal is Chin Na, depending on the opponent's arm positions a _bong_ may place the arm in a more advantageous to move in to support the initiating hand in applying the lock.

4. You can initiate attacks from kicking range, as you enter kicking range raising a _bong_ preemptively can act as a shield of sorts for a sudden counter attack until you close into punching range where other techniques may be more optimal (some exceptions being noted above.)

If you only see punching as the correct path of offense/fighting, you are limiting yourself to an incredible extent.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> VT punches cut the way as they strike (_lin-siu-daai-da_ principle). That's the primary weapon of VT.
> 
> If I'm "only in VT for the punching", switching to Western Boxing wouldn't teach me this.



All WC teaches this.  The point is illustrated by my post immediately above.  If all you think of is setting up the punch, and none of the other tools available at your disposal, then why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques.


----------



## Nobody Important

Article about a Hung Gar sifu who practices Fung Gar. There are some YouTube clips, unfortunately they are strictly Hung Gar sets. Perhaps someone here could shed a little more light.






Home
Sign In
Articles

*Kong Pui Wai: the lineage holder’s burden*



arild200 
August 2013 edited September 2013 in Articles
 Articles 
Feb102012











 Being the Hung Kuen lineage holder is a ‘burden’, but one that Kong Pui Wai bears with a happy heart. In this classic interview, he explains why. It was first published in New Martial Hero Magazine in Chinese in 2002 (that’s him on the cover there, above), then in Inside Kung-Fu in Steve Bookless’s English version in 2005

 KONG PUI WAI became interested in studying the art of traditional kung fu as a young boy growing up in Hong Kong. He began training orthodox Hung Kuen (Hung Gar) kung fu under the tutelage of Hong Kong Hung Kuen master Chan Hon Chung. Master Chan was a disciple of the famous Lam Sai Wing, who was in turn a disciple of the legendary Wong Fei Hung.

The Hung style was developed by Hung Hei Gung, one of the five ancestors to escape the burning of Shaolin. This southern style emphasises strong, low stances and powerful bridge hands, combining the external with the internal.
Kong Pui Wai trained Hung Kuen in the old, traditional way in his sifu’s kung fu school, the Hon Chung Gymnasium, which opened in Mong Kok, Kowloon, in 1938. This old style of kung fu training meant a total commitment to one’s sifu and the art.

Kong Pui Wai reflects: “Training was different at that time; it was total commitment and not taken lightly. Chan Hon Chung was very famous in Hong Kong and represented what was best in his generation of masters. He held incredible knowledge and had the full Hung Kuen system passed down from Lam Sai Wing.”
Diligent practice and devotion combined with his natural abilities to quickly propel Kong Pui Wai to the position of assistant instructor in the Hon Chung Gymnasium and saw him teaching junior and senior students while still young himself.

Kong sifu stayed with his master and became a senior member of Chan Hon Chung’s kung fu family. He learned all aspects of the Hung Kuen system from Master Chan, including the forms, techniques, lion dance, traditional Chinese medicine (Kong Sifu is a permanent member of the Hong Kong Chinese Herbalist Association) and the spiritual aspects.

When Master Chan passed on in 1991 Kong Pui Wai accepted the awesome responsibility of carrying on his Hung Kuen teachings and traditions. “When sifu died I accepted that I would carry the burden, including the spiritual one, of this position,” he said. “Unless one is in this situation, and understands it as an inner family member, they cannot appreciate all that this meant, which is why I use the term ‘burden’. Chan Sifu held and promoted the knowledge he had been given by the ancestors and I accepted that I would do the same.”

English Hung Kuen sifu and student of Chan Hon Chung Jim Uglow remembered: “When Sifu died in ’91 I asked Kong Pui Wai to take over my training. Many people can say they have finished the Hung Kuen forms, but only the sequence. These have to be chap sau’d and then there is the internal and the spiritual. The family and my brothers told me the only person who has this is Kong Pui Wai. He doesn’t just have this; he can pass it on.”

Later, Kong Pui Wai would also accept the responsibility of being the chairman of Hong Kong’s most important kung fu organisation, the Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association.

The Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association was formed in 1970 by Chan Hon Chung with the intention of co-ordinating and promoting Chinese martial arts in Hong Kong. This organisation has brought together over 90% of Hong Kong masters and represented every style in the former British colony.
The offices of the HKCMAA are hallowed kung fu ground in Hong Kong. Imposing black and white photos of past and present members stare down from the walls and one can note the faces of such kung fu royalty as Chan Hon Chung, Kwan Tak Hing, Yip Man, Lee Koon Hung and so many other great and famous masters. For the kung fu enthusiast it is truly a special place.

Kong Pui Wai’s photo is placed among the privileged few who have been the organisation’s chairman, a position first held by his master and one that Kong Sifu has now held for a decade. The chairman oversees all aspects of the organisation and works to promote Chinese martial arts and lion dance (traditional and competition) throughout Hong Kong and the world. Kong Sifu’s duties continually take him to countless countries around the globe (Canada, UK, Germany, China, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Venezuela, Italy and Malaysia in just the recent past) in an effort to promote Chinese martial arts. He also works closely with the International Olympic Committee dealing with coaching standards, practices and sports promotion.

The Hong Kong government are strong backers of the Association and provide funding and support. They are working with the organisation to develop courses to improve sports coaching activities and to help promote martial arts. From the government’s point of view it’s a win/win situation as the organisation does so much to promote Chinese heritage and culture while improving the overall health of the people.
More interest in Chinese heritage and culture means more tourists visiting Hong Kong (the lion dance is becoming an important symbol for the Hong Kong tourist industry) and a more vibrant population means less tax dollars being spent on health care. Kong Pui Wai is a firm supporter of the health benefits of Chinese martial arts and enjoys promoting them throughout the world. Under his leadership the Association has worked hard to remove any negative connotations about martial arts which, in the past, have sometimes clouded some Hong Kong residents’ view on kung fu.

While senior members praise his leadership, Kong Pui Wai is modest when speaking of his role within the Association. “The achievements come from the efforts of all the members,” he says. “The HKCMAA works as a unit together, to motivate and develop. My role is to initiate co-operation between all. Credit for any success belongs to everyone.”

 As well as being chairman of the HKCMAA, Kong Pui Wai is also the president of several martial arts associations around the world, along with being the president of the Guangzhou Lion Dance Association and the president of the JPC Mong Kok Police District. If that’s not enough he is also chief kung fu instructor for several Hong Kong Police boroughs and head wushu consultant for the Hong Kong Police Chinese Wushu Club.
It’s rare to see a kung fu or lion dance function, competition or display in Hong Kong which doesn’t have him as an honoured guest. He is so highly respected in Hong Kong because his kung fu ability and mind are remarkable. Few have his aptitude for all aspects of traditional kung fu.

Hong Kong Police kung fu instructor and HKCMAA vice-president Wong Siu Tsun (Tony) explained Kong Sifu’s abilities: “Many sifus in Hong Kong are very competent in their own style but Kong Pui Wai transcends individual style and understands all aspects of kung fu because he deeply understands Shaolin; including all internal and external aspects and how to best position and move the body to create power. With his knowledge he can quickly apply these principles and correct anyone’s posture, positioning and angle and help them to mix hard and soft to create power.”

This in-depth understanding of the formula of kung fu was applied by Kong Sifu when he created the Jin Ying form for the HKCMAA. The form combines many different styles (Wing Chun, Praying Mantis, Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut etc) in the one form. The creation of this form cemented his leadership in the HKCMAA as masters of each style in Hong Kong realised the chairman not only understood the principles and movements of their individual styles, he was able to chap sau the forms to create the most power from the postures, techniques, angles and movements.

A simple discussion of punching power with Master Kong reveals many important kung fu ideals. “If you look at a punch, the goal is to get the power through,” he says. “Too many people defeat the power before they begin the movement. They don’t understand the formula. There’s so much in a proper kung fu punch and few can execute one properly. People end up fighting or changing that which should be natural. You are working with four things: speed, power, angle and the attack point. These four elements, the basis of any punch, transmit to all aspects of kung fu.”

About 20 years ago Master Kong started to learn a little-known spiritual kung fu style called Fung Gar from Hong Kong Fung Gar master Liu Tak. This style is an esoteric and ancient form of kung fu few have heard of. Even in China it has always been kept secret with the student never exposing knowledge of the art; resulting in very few knowing of its existence.
It is a significant development that Kong Pui Wai has begun to talk openly of Fung Gar in Hong Kong. Spiritual kung fu is an unknown concept to many in the west. Any practitioner of this kung fu would have to be calm, compassionate, have a good heart and be prepared to give up everything to follow the rule of the art.

Kong Sifu has begun to teach Fung Gar to a small number of individuals. He combines it with his Hung Kuen and exposes a select few students to this Hung/Fung. In his words, the main goal of the art is to “keep peace inside”.
Fung Gar contains no forms. It has bridge work and finger attack with a focus on single skill practice and the yin-yang (sun and moon) hands. It is incredibly powerful and fast. Kong Pui Wai explains: “Fung Gar contains three factors; form, power, and rule. Form relates to how you do exactly as asked. Power is gained through proper kung fu practice.
“Rule is the most important. Intangible and invisible, it surpasses the human mind and develops extreme power. You can open a door to absorb and gain the potential natural power into your body to achieve a higher level. The physical and spiritual must be practised together and anyone who is learning would have to be very kind, decent and honest.”

As the Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association’s reputation continues to grow and traditional Chinese martial arts and lion dance gain in popularity, Kong Pui Wai sees a bright future for Chinese martial arts practice around the world.
“Different faces, different cultures, different colours, same heart,” he says. “In kung fu there is no difference. Martial arts study will benefit anyone from any culture, gender or age group. It will give good health and vitality to the breath, mind and body and is an excellent method to relieve tension, stress and anxiety.”

As a senior member of the Association in Hong Kong says: “Everything Kong Sifu has done has been positive for the organisation and we are very lucky to have his guidance, vision and leadership. The best thing for the Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association is to continue with Kong Pui Wai as the chairman.”


Sign In or Register to comment.
Full Site Sign In
Powered by Vanilla


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> If all you think of is setting up the punch, and none of the other tools available at your disposal, then why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques.



Because VT punching is not like western boxing punching. I think LFJ already said this.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Your goal may be to gain distance to go for a tool, even escape a superior opponent. The transition from _bong_ to _lan_, which can generate that distance is quite simple



Hand chasing



Juany118 said:


> Your goal may be to do a takedown. If you and your opponent are in opposing stances (right vs left) the easiest way to execute a takedown is, in response to a straight punch from the leading side, is to _bong_ the strike, step in behind their rear leg, then _fak sau_



Bong the strike? Application based thinking. Hand chasing



Juany118 said:


> If the goal is Chin Na, depending on the opponent's arm positions a _bong_ may place the arm in a more advantageous to move in to support the initiating hand in applying the lock.


 
Application based thinking. Hand chasing



Juany118 said:


> You can initiate attacks from kicking range, as you enter kicking range raising a _bong_ preemptively can act as a shield of sorts for a sudden counter attack until you close into punching range where other techniques may be more optimal (some exceptions being noted above.)



Application based thinking. Completely impractical


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Because VT punching is not like western boxing punching. I think LFJ already said this.



Okay, you are both dodging the point because it doesn't address the rest of the art.

That out of the way LFJ's entire argument regarding the _bong_ appears to revolve around a myopic focus on punching.   This myopic focus has him telling people (paraphrased) "my art is unique to yours because you do not see the _bong_ as I do.  The problem with this argument is that he has made a universal statement about a technique in the art when his lens appears to be limited to only one aspect of that art.

I can appreciate the fact he may prefer he mechanics behind a WC/VT punch.  I think we all do, otherwise we would not be studying it.  There is a lot more to the art than simply punching though.


guy b said:


> Hand chasing
> 
> 
> 
> Bong the strike? Application based thinking. Hand chasing
> 
> 
> 
> Application based thinking. Hand chasing
> 
> 
> 
> Application based thinking. Completely impractical



No it isn't hand chasing, that is a dodge on your part.  It's called having plans or goals, sometimes required by Law, that don't just involve beating the hell out of someone.

I am not hand chasing when I say at work "I need to get distance and draw my gun" while being attacked.  If, while being attacked, the easiest way to accomplish this is with a lan, and my relative position to the suspect permits a bong, the easiest transition to a lan from a deflection can indeed be a bong.  This is simple biomechanics as a lan and a bong both have bent elbows it is more efficient to transition from bong to lan than other defensive techniques.

If I need to get the subject down so I can restrain for cuffing and out relative positions are as I noted and he is punching me, the best way to do that is with a bong followed by a fak.  Why? Again, basic biomechanics.  The bong and the fak come from the same arm.  Due to the fact your bong has your elbow bent already, after you step behind their leg, your arm is already in a position to flow into a fak to the neck and drop the person.

I don't know about the VT you two guys study but the WC I study prioritizes efficiency, over any specific definition of when a technique should or should not be used. There are circumstances, when you have a plan/goal when a bong is simply more efficient from a biomechanical perspective.

Now are these ALWAYS possible?  Of course not, they are dependent on the relative positions of both actors.  However to simply say "a bong is only a remedial action" is to be myopic and not realize that there are times when a bong is the best choice for what LFJ calls an auxiliary action.

The above btw, they aren't theory, or "arm chair" WC debating. I have put them into practice multiple times in real fights, as well as finding a bong more efficient to allow me to accomplish Chin Na for a wrist lock takedown in certain circumstances.

If anyone is doing Application based thinking it is LFJ because he is the ONLY person in this thread who has made a categorical statement regarding the application of a specific technique, namely the bong, being "only a remedial action." I wonder if he realized that when he liked your post?


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> If anyone is doing Application based thinking it is LFJ because he is the ONLY person in this thread who has made a categorical statement regarding the application of a specific technique, namely the bong.



You and N.I. give it various applications against specific things, then deny that's application based thinking...

I have not given it any 1:1 application against anything.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Okay, you are both dodging the point because it doesn't address the rest of the art.



Someone asked "why not take up western boxing". The reason is that VT punching is not like Western boxing punching. You then asked "why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques", as if you didn't understand the first answer. To be clear there are no extraneous techniques in VT. All is there for a reason.



Juany118 said:


> No it isn't hand chasing, that is a dodge on your part. It's called having plans or goals, sometimes required by Law, that don't just involve beating the hell out of someone.
> 
> I am not hand chasing when I say at work "I need to get distance and draw my gun" while being attacked. If, while being attacked, the easiest way to accomplish this is with a lan, and my relative position to the suspect permits a bong, the easiest transition to a lan from a deflection can indeed be a bong. This is simple biomechanics as a lan and a bong both have bent elbows it is more efficient to transition from bong to lan than other defensive techniques.
> 
> If I need to get the subject down so I can restrain for cuffing and out relative positions are as I noted, the best way to do that is with a bong followed by a fak. Why? Again, basic biomechanics. The bong and the fak come from the same arm. Due to the fact your bong has your elbow bent already, after you step behind their leg, your arm is already in a position to launch the fak at the neck and drop the person.



Sounds ike you just need to learn grappling and stop messing around with application based thinking in your VT.



Juany118 said:


> However to simply say "a bong is only a remedial action" is to be myopic and not realize that there are times when a bong is the best choice for what he calls an auxiliary action



Bong is not used as an auxilliary action because it raises your elbow. There are better choices when already in an advantageous position



Juany118 said:


> as well as finding a bong more efficient to allow me to accomplish Chin Na for a wrist lock takedown



Sounds insane. Why don't you just learn a proper grappling system? Anyway, not VT.



Juany118 said:


> If anyone is doing Application based thinking it is LFJ because he is the ONLY person in this thread who has made a categorical statement regarding the application of a specific technique, namely the bong



You just detailed several unlikely sounding police scarious where you use wing chun applications while arresting people. LFT is the only person on this bizarre thread who is talking any sense.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You and N.I. give it various applications against specific things, then deny that's application based thinking...
> 
> I have not given it any 1:1 application against anything.



Umm saying a technique is only used as X period is application based thinking.  So if you say a bong is "only" remedial it is application based thinking.

Second I did not say anything was 1:1.  I said IF relative body positions permit it a bong can be the most efficient response depending on what your goal is.  

You may not have thought of this before but some people have specific goals, and rules mandated by Law, when engaging people in fights in real life.  The Bouncer just wants to get the trouble maker out of his Club.  The Emergency Room Security Officer wants to restrain the tweeked out patient or the heroin OD that suddenly woke up, thanks to Narcan, who's pissed off you took away his high.  The Police Officer wants to detain and/or arrest a suspect.  These goals are not accomplished, legally, by simply Zening your way to beating them into immobility.  It requires takedowns, Chin Na etc and due to basic biomechanics there will be times a bong is more efficient.  

This is not however based on specific practice, or 1:1, your rote response to contrary theories.  The fact these very fact these series of maneuvers, when possible, are biomechanically more efficient, also makes them flow naturally, you don't even think about them, it just happens.  I never had someone demonstrate bong to lan to create distance.  My Sifu is an ex-cop but I am the only one in the school and he teaches for all.  I simply found that happening one night.  I knew I needed distance and bong>lan just happened because of relative position.  Same with the take down.

So you can retreat to 1:1 as much as you want but the person making a categorical statement about the purpose of a technique appears to be you.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Someone asked "why not take up western boxing". The reason is that VT punching is not like Western boxing punching. You then asked "why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques", as if you didn't understand the first answer. To be clear there are no extraneous techniques in VT. All is there for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds ike you just need to learn grappling and stop messing around with application based thinking in your VT.
> 
> 
> 
> Bong is not used as an auxilliary action because it raises your elbow. There are better choices when already in an advantageous position
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds insane. Why don't you just learn a proper grappling system? Anyway, not VT.
> 
> 
> 
> You just detailed several unlikely sounding police scarious where you use wing chun applications while arresting people. LFT is the only person on this bizarre thread who is talking any sense.



Ahh, now attack the source instead of the points raised. Humorus.

First: So your WC doesn't have takedowns and Chin Na?  Odd because the people I know who study VT in my area do and my WC certainly has them and we have to test them.

Second: Why do I study WC.  Because it is a comprehensive martial art.  It includes all aspects of MA; striking, take downs and Chin Na.  Most grappling arts are skimpy on the striking.  It is not a good idea for a Cop to go right into grappling range.  This gives a violent suspect the opportunity to try for the tools on your belt, especially if they are bigger/stronger and I am skinny as all hell.

Case in point, the bong>lan scenario.  I had pulled the guy off a victim, he started to grapple with me and went for my gun (he was wanted by State Parole for a prior Aggravated Assault on an Officer, unbeknownst to me at the time), I broke free of the grapple, he went to strike.  My response occurred because, since he went for my gun once, I was justified in deadly force.  He complied at gun point btw.

WC is useful because you can use strikes to disrupt the opponent's centerline, making the application of the takedowns and Chin Na easier.  Additionally...

1. The structure fits in naturally with a standard interview stance so I can have my structure ready without suspects knowing. I can even have my hands up.  I tend to talk with my hands anyway.
2. The fact the defenses of deflects and not blocks benefits my slim build.
3. The centerline theory, striking methods and speed benefit my physical strengths minimize my weaknesses.

Add in the Kali for the knowledge of knives (you defend better when you know how to use them) and specialized knife defense as well as the use of weapons (baton) and I believe, like my former LEO Sifu, that it is actually the ideal combination for LE.  But don't let a combined 45 years on the job in Cities with some of the highest per capita crime rates in the USA get in the way of you new defense.  My Sifu, and his Sifu also are contractors who have taught WC based combatives to Federal and local LE, to include Federal Marshalls, DEA and the NYPD.  

As for unrealistic.  If you think someone striking out to set up a grapple, or someone punching at a Police Officer suddenly is unrealistic, well there isn't much I can say then because violent encounters of that sort aren't uncommon in the least.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Umm saying a technique is only used as X period is application based thinking.  So if you say a bong is "only" remedial it is application based thinking.



What do you think it's applied against then?



> So you can retreat to 1:1 as much as you want but the person making a categorical statement about the purpose of a technique appears to be you.



Hack, lift, sweep, bar, pull, etc. are application ideas where one would be applied against specific things where another would not.

Having more than one possible function doesn't mean each function is not a 1:1 application.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> What do you think it's applied against then?
> 
> 
> 
> Hack, lift, sweep, bar, pull, etc. are application ideas where one would be applied against specific things where another would not.
> 
> Having more than one possible function doesn't mean each function is not a 1:1 application.



When you chose to not follow the "be vague> make unsupported fiat statements> ask questions and do not actually address the point made by a statement" answering mode we can continue.  As that is highly unlikely however, have a pleasant morning/afternoon/evening as I don't know what time zone you are in.


----------



## LFJ

This is addressing your point... You said _bong_ as only remedial is application based thinking. Explain exactly what you think it's being applied against then, if it is an application.

It was said that _bong-sau_ is adapted to "_hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull_". That means the way _bong-sau_ is performed is dictated by whatever specific thing it is being applied against. This is undeniably application-based thinking, and probably quite a bit of hand chasing.

For me, _bong-sau_ is the same elbow rotation regardless of what the opponent is doing. So, not 1:1 application.


----------



## Phobius

One can say a bong Sau is whatever it needs to be. Saying it's purpose is solely to clear space is application. Just as much as it being to hack or such specifically. But it is only a shape that is being whatever it is based on what it needs to be. 

LFJ, you seem close to saying that usage of any move is application based because that move was done as an application. All moves are at some point application. 

You are all missing what application based means, it means you do a move because you need a certain application.

A concept based means you do a move in a certain application because it follows the concepts. 

So it is the reason why you do a move in an application that dictates if it is application based. Otherwise all is application based. 

So how can you say when someone gives an example that you know they are application based? They never state they always do the move, nor reason behind their example. It is just an example. 

First when  you say a technique is always and/or only for specific purpose then you become application based.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Saying it's purpose is solely to clear space is application.



Having one simple and clearly defined concept for _bong-sau_ (elbow rotation) doesn't make it application based. 

What makes it non-application based is that how and why it's done is not dictated by what specifically the opponent is doing. It's non-specific elbow rotation. A simple concept.



> You are all missing what application based means, it means you do a move because you need a certain application.
> 
> A concept based means you do a move in a certain application because it follows the concepts.
> 
> So it is the reason why you do a move in an application that dictates if it is application based. Otherwise all is application based.



If you change how you perform _bong-sau_ for a needed function (this vs that), you are doing an application based style by your own definition.

You are changing your technique for a specific need. There is no clear concept to it that is followed. It's a hack when something needs to be hacked. It's a pull when something needs to be pulled. This is application based by your own definition.


----------



## Phobius

First of all, I am not saying remedial means application based. I have no interest in claiming your style is application based, doing so would just be silly and serve no point other than to aggrevate. I am certain most people here knows not to think in application based context at least most of the time.

Now to adress your points. (Below is my view on concept and application based. You can disagree or explain why you do not agree with it, fine by me)



LFJ said:


> Having one simple and clearly defined concept for _bong-sau_ (elbow rotation) doesn't make it application based.



This is not what I said, with clearing space I was referring to why you do the bong-sau. How you do a technique is never concept nor application based. It is simply training and understanding the movement/technique and feels rather irrelevant here. I fail to see your point, it seems you did not understand correctly.



LFJ said:


> What makes it non-application based is that how and why it's done is not dictated by what specifically the opponent is doing. It's non-specific elbow rotation. A simple concept.



Hate to say it but all techniques are non-specific. It is when we decide to use them that makes them specific. No technique has a rule on them when they must be used. That is what a system may have if it is application based (also concept based but then the rules may be a bit more abstract(correct word?)). Techniques themselves are just that. You may take a technique from a completely different system and apply your own rules to them. The techniques themselves may have rules of their own but they are more or less tied to usage of muscles, bending, angles, rotational force, linear force, relaxation, speed... any parameter that helps define the movement.

Why you do bong-sau I do hope is dictated by what specifically your opponent is doing. Sounds dangerous otherwise.



LFJ said:


> If you change how you perform _bong-sau_ for a needed function (this vs that), you are doing an application based style by your own definition.



Needed function can change your technique, without being application based. If the concepts dictate something you may identify the need for a specific outcome/result. As such you change how a move is done to affect the result to your benefits. Duality of movements. Of course this idea may or may not be present in your lineage and as such you may have own rules that say you should only and always knock down your opponent as quickly as possible.

Imagine this, you know this person is weak due to an injury in one arm. Instead of following what you would normally do  you instead take advantage of the injury to your benefit. This would increase the efficiency of your move and have the expected result that would normally not be there if he/she had not been injured with a lot less cost in efficiency.

Application based is if you have a specific technique done towards you dictating that you change your bong-sau from this to that. Rather than it being the way to adhere to your concepts.



LFJ said:


> You are changing your technique for a specific need. There is no clear concept to it that is followed. It's a hack when something needs to be hacked. It's a pull when something needs to be pulled. This is application based by your own definition.



A punch is a punch when something needs to be punched. The thing you seem to wish avoid realizing is that what you are talking about hacked, or pulled and so on. Same as saying bong or laap. Or whatever other thing you want to mention. Each has a time and place. Whatever dictates the time and place is what states if it is application based or not.

Just because a technique can to two things and there can be a decision on what to do, does not mean it is application based. You could just as well break them down to two separate techniques, one for hacking, one for pulling. They are in fact different movements.

Now I do not argue as to whether having two versions of bong-sau one for hacking and one for pulling is good thing and/or violating some concept. It is another discussion altogether and currently not given it much thought.


----------



## Phobius

Also have to admit I am not really sure how a bong-sau can be called pulling or hacking or whatever. Does not really align well with how I consider bong-sau. Could of course be due to missunderstanding so do not take this as criticism.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> This is addressing your point... You said _bong_ as only remedial is application based thinking. Explain exactly what you think it's being applied against then, if it is an application.
> 
> It was said that _bong-sau_ is adapted to "_hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull_". That means the way _bong-sau_ is performed is dictated by whatever specific thing it is being applied against. This is undeniably application-based thinking, and probably quite a bit of hand chasing.
> 
> For me, _bong-sau_ is the same elbow rotation regardless of what the opponent is doing. So, not 1:1 application.



While hopeless I will try one last time before I settle in.

First you actually didn't address in any substantive way the examples I raised.  Perhaps because of tunnel vision, perhaps because they undermine your position.  I don't know.  That said AGAIN, no one is speaking of a 1:1.  Simply saying "hack, cover..." etc doesn't indicate any real forethought at all.  You are either unintentionally reading said intent or you are intentionally trying to troll.  I will assume it is the former as I am still new around here.  Your own expressed philosophy actually supports this, whether you realize it or not.

"How so?  What are you talking about?" you may ask.  Here is why.

You have stated on multiple occasions that you believe our primary focus should be to punch.  You then state you see the _bong_ in that context as a remedial action only because it changes the line of your elbow as it rotates.  In the context you set, that of punching, I would agree. Why?  Biomechanical efficiency.  Biomechanical efficiency and physics is the core of WC/VT.  It is  more biomechanically efficient to go from many other techniques into a straight punch or palm strike than a _bong_ for the exact reason you note.  Because of this efficiency it is a far more natural action and so, once the muscle memory has been programmed via training it becomes an automatic response when our technique/goal is to punch.

Please note the following is determined on your situational awareness of the conflict.  Your bodies position, in three dimensional space, relative to that of the opponent.  These are NOT constants. Just prefaced to preemptively address your 1:1 trope.

The same principle applies to other techniques/goals.  Some techniques/goals can see greater biomechanical efficiency in a transition from a _bong_ than a punch would.  Ergo, if you have the proper muscle memory AND no preconceived notions as to what is the right way and wrong way to use a _bong, _which creates a mental block, your chosen technique/goal (the ones I noted, gaining distance, take downs etc) may have you automatically and with very little, if any, thought using a _bong_ as in that specific circumstance it is more biomechanically efficient, in the same way a punch may discourage it's use.

Now you may have never and perhaps will never use the other techniques that WC/VT provides us with.  The concept of a takedown, gaining distance from an opponent or applying Chin Na may be things you simply know WC is capable of but they may still be things that you will never execute in anger.  That is all well and good.  That said if you ever find yourself executing them, your mental block regarding a _bong_ may well see you executing these techniques in an inefficient and, even if only sub-consciously, forced manner, which we both seem to agree on as being bad WC/VT.


----------



## paitingman

Sorry for keeping the bong sao discussion going, but I remember seeing this video a while back and found it interesting.

Start @ 5:00
while this video is on specifically chi sao he states "not for fighting"






Not like any tan or bong explanation I'd ever been given. Anyone care to comment on it?

Or better yet are there any Hawkins Cheung people in the house?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> This is not what I said, with clearing space I was referring to why you do the bong-sau.



That is a simple concept, not a "this vs that" application.



> Hate to say it but all techniques are non-specific.



A lifting _bong-sau_ was mentioned earlier as a remedial upward block. That is specific. 

Each type of _bong-sau_ that was mentioned has a specific function, and one would be used where another one would not. That is specific. 



> Why you do bong-sau I do hope is dictated by what specifically your opponent is doing. Sounds dangerous otherwise.



What's dangerous is chasing hands. Why I do _bong-sau_ is dictated by position, not a specific technique to use it against.

It could be a number of things. Surely you haven't forgotten what I've been repeating to you countless times already in this thread??



> Needed function can change your technique, without being application based.



That's the very definition you just gave of "application based".



> If the concepts dictate something you may identify the need for a specific outcome/result. As such you change how a move is done to affect the result to your benefits.



What concept? If _bong-sau_ can be to "_hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull_", then it has no clear concept.



> Imagine this, you know this person is weak due to an injury in one arm. Instead of following what you would normally do  you instead take advantage of the injury to your benefit.



So instead of punching them in the face, I chase their arm?



> Application based is if you have a specific technique done towards you dictating that you change your bong-sau from this to that. Rather than it being the way to adhere to your concepts.



That's exactly what "_hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull_" is all about. You wouldn't cover what you would lift. That means you are changing the _bong-sau_ to perform a different function against this or that.



> Just because a technique can to two things and there can be a decision on what to do, does not mean it is application based. You could just as well break them down to two separate techniques, one for hacking, one for pulling. They are in fact different movements.



You wouldn't hack what you would pull. They are dictated by whatever they are being applied against. It's application based by your own definition.


----------



## Juany118

paitingman said:


> Sorry for keeping the bong sao discussion going, but I remember seeing this video a while back and found it interesting.
> 
> Start @ 5:00
> while this video is on specifically chi sao he states "not for fighting"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like any tan or bong explanation I'd ever been given. Anyone care to comment on it?
> 
> Or better yet are there any Hawkins Cheung people in the house?



He is absolutely correct in the video and is in line of what I noted because he is talking about center to center striking.  The only thing I have issue with is I have always hated to "no resistance" video assistant


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Each type of _bong-sau_ that was mentioned has a specific function, and one would be used where another one would not. That is specific.
> .



Only because you refuse to look past your preconception.  Your view of the _bong_ in the context you have created means that the mention of any other use must be by nature a 1:1 use.  The thing is though that only works if the person is saying, categorically "you use a bong for this period."  No one is saying that.  They are saying that due to relative positioning, and the goal you have in mind, a bong can be more efficient and thus more natural. The two key words are CAN BE, in case you missed it.

As for needed function = application based... you were the one who stated that the lifting nature of the elbow and how it creates issues with the function you see is key, punching, makes a _bong_ a remedial technique.  So now you contradict yourself.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> The thing is though that only works if the person is saying, categorically "you use a bong for this period."  No one is saying that.



Use a _bong_ like this to hack that.
Use a _bong_ like this to pull that.

"_Hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull_". 

Those are just multiple 1:1 applications.



> As for needed function = application based... you were the one who stated that the lifting nature of the elbow and how it creates issues with the function you see is key, punching, makes a _bong_ a remedial technique.  So now you contradict yourself.



Changing how _bong_ is done to function a certain way dictated by a specific thing it's used against is application based.

I don't do anything like that.

And I didn't say the elbow rising makes _bong_ a remedial action. That is why it is not a primary or auxiliary action. What makes it remedial is it's purpose, not how it's done.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> They are saying that due to relative positioning, and the goal you have in mind, a bong can be more efficient and thus more natural. The two key words are CAN BE, in case you missed it.



The goals you have presented have been hand chasing for the most part. Why would that be your goal?


----------



## Juany118

Just to ram it home.



LFJ said:


> Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching.



okay I think WC, having take downs Chin Na etc can have other goals depending on your purpose at the time but okay.



LFJ said:


> My _bong-sau_ is simply elbow rotation to retake space/ regain lost position. Not an application against any specific thing.



Well according to Merriam Webster's  an Application is...an act of applying:a (1) :  an act of putting to use <_application_ of new techniques> (2) :  a use to which something is put <new _applications_ for old remedies> so it is an application, though I will agree it is not against anything specific.  What should dictate the application of any technique is the goal, in your case punching, and then biomechanical efficiency.



LFJ said:


> If punching is our primary action, auxiliary actions are secondary that help deliver the punch when still in an advantageous position (e.g. _paak_, _jat_).
> 
> Remedial actions are used to recover from disadvantageous positions where primary and auxiliary actions aren't possible (e.g. _bong_, _laap_, _biu_).



hmmm seems again you are using particular applications of techniques to achieve a specific goal.  Whether they are auxiliary or remedial, if you truly see WC/VT as conceptual, then what dictates the application of techniques should not be a preconceived notion as to what is and what is not, primary, auxiliary or remedial.  Rather your goal of the moment and the relative positioning of yourself and your opponent, should determine what is auxiliary and what is remedial.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> okay I think WC, having take downs Chin Na etc can have other goals depending on your purpose at the time



The goal of VT is llhs lsjc



Juany118 said:


> if you truly see WC/VT as conceptual, then what dictates the application of techniques should not be a preconceived notion as to what is and what is not, primary, auxiliary or remedial. Rather your goal of the moment and the relative positioning of yourself and your opponent, should determine what is auxiliary and what is remedial.



Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing

Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Use a _bong_ like this to hack that.
> Use a _bong_ like this to pull that.
> 
> "_Hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull_".
> 
> Those are just multiple 1:1 applications.



No less so than the examples I quoted from you above



LFJ said:


> Changing how _bong_ is done to function a certain way dictated by a specific thing it's used against is application based.
> 
> I don't do anything like that.
> 
> And I didn't say the elbow rising makes _bong_ a remedial action. That is why it is not a primary or auxiliary action. What makes it remedial is it's purpose, not how it's done.



so for the first bit you admit, finally that it is about how YOU see a bong should be done.  It actually has NOTHING to do with all your blather about concepts and the like.  You have a dogma, "bong is this"  Thank you, underlined btw.



guy b said:


> The goals you have presented have been hand chasing for the most part. Why would that be your goal?



Nope not even a little.  It is no more hand chasing than using what you two may refer to as auxiliary techniques to enable punching.  The only difference is, as evidenced clearly by your prior post, the idea of doing anything more than striking in WC/VT is alien to you, and that makes me sad because you are missing the full glory of the art with your myopia.

Good day to you both.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> The goal of VT is llhs lsjc
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing
> 
> Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing




Is any other technique used to open a path to strike in the most efficient manner?  I explained under what circumstances, the bong is exactly this.  I also see they are apparently alien to you from your rather snarky and ad hominem filled response that I received initially.  For you using a bong in such a manner would require thought, thus = hand chasing, because you don't see WC/VT as an art which should be using such techniques which I find odd, even sad, since the take downs, Chin Na and such are built into the art so we can use them when required. However without said prejudice it isn't hand chasing.  When it is the most biomechanically efficient way to accomplish the task, and that is indeed not always the case, it is as natural and automatic as using any other technique to open the way for a punch.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> it is about how YOU see a bong should be done. It actually has NOTHING to do with all your blather about concepts and the like. You have a dogma, "bong is this" Thank you



Bong is that for conceptual reasons. Bong done other ways tends to be hand chasing, as your examples show



Juany118 said:


> It is no more hand chasing than using what you two may refer to as auxiliary techniques to enable punching.



Auxilliary actions are used to help the punch. Punch is still the goal- not hand chasing. In your examples you are doing things other than chase centre, eat space, hit down open lines, therefore you are chasing hands. In one example you even talk about moving the arm so that you can apply an arm standing arm lock technique to the same arm. Not only is this extremely unlikely to work, but it is almost like peak hand chasing, the perfect example.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Auxilliary actions are used to help the punch. Punch is still the goal- .



And as I said, this is your problem, you are so myopically focused on punching that you fail to see, if punching is not your goal, that other techniques come into a more natural place.  Are these "core" techniques of the art?  I quite go that far, but in the WC I study they are definitely trained and tested for.  

What is even funnier is you miss something.  The scenario where I gained distance, the take down?  Those were both achieved with strikes.  The distance gain is obvious imo but the only thing that turned the takedown into that and not a simple strike to the neck?  My body position in relation to his.  So it's not even like I did some Judo or Jujutsu techniques.  It was all WC striking focused in those two scenarios, just to get their, biomechanically a bong was more efficient.


When I learn any art I refuse to myopically focus on a specific technique.  Ignoring the forest for the trees is simply not my style regardless of how big a particular tree may be.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> okay I think WC, having take downs Chin Na etc can have other goals depending on your purpose at the time but okay.



VT is a striking method.



> Well according to Merriam Webster's  an Application is...an act of applying:a (1) :  an act of putting to use <_application_ of new techniques> (2) :  a use to which something is put <new _applications_ for old remedies> so it is an application, though I will agree it is not against anything specific.



lol! Trying to be clever now and say my method is application-based because I "use" _bong-sau_? 

Application-based martial arts are ones that use "this vs that".

VT is not.



> if you truly see WC/VT as conceptual, then what dictates the application of techniques should not be a preconceived notion as to what is and what is not, primary, auxiliary or remedial.



These are concepts. What dictates use of any action is position, not a category.

It just so happens that if you use a remedial or auxiliary action as a primary, you are chasing hands and will be in danger or at least in violation of directness and efficiency principles.



> Rather your goal of the moment and the relative positioning of yourself and your opponent, should determine what is auxiliary and what is remedial.



Correct, but as Guy requested;

"_Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing

Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing_"



> No less so than the examples I quoted from you above



Nothing you quoted me on was "this vs that".



> so for the first bit you admit, finally that it is about how YOU see a bong should be done. It actually has NOTHING to do with all your blather about concepts and the like. You have a dogma, "bong is this" Thank you, underlined btw.



?

Did you even read what you underlined? Clear "this vs that" application based thinking.

I don't do that. What you call "dogma" are VT principles that make it optimally functional.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> VT is a striking method.
> 
> 
> 
> lol! Trying to be clever now and say my method is application-based because I "use" _bong-sau_?
> 
> Application-based martial arts are ones that use "this vs that".
> 
> VT is not.
> 
> 
> 
> These are concepts. What dictates use of any action is position, not a category.
> 
> It just so happens that if you use a remedial or auxiliary action as a primary, you are chasing hands and will be in danger or at least in violation of directness and efficiency principles.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but as Guy requested;
> 
> "_Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing
> 
> Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing_"
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you quoted me on was "this vs that".
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Did you even read what your underlined? Clear "this vs that" application based thinking.
> 
> I don't do that. What you call "dogma" are VT principles that make it optimally functional.



All questions asked, and answered, myopic focus on punching is the issue because, as I said above, the scenario where I gained distance and did a take down were actually using strikes.  The bong came out of exactly what you state...my position relative to theirs, and my particular goal.  In each case it was actually to strike, just with a different consequence.

Please reference my forest for the trees comment.  This has actually been amusing to be honest, I have never seen someone talking about "concept" so much and yet so stuck on Dogma as well (don't know enough about VT to know if it is inherent in the art or if it is self created though since both happen).  However as amusing as it has been I need so sleep as I have to work again this evening.

I wish you both success in your endeavours.


----------



## LFJ

Again, what you call "dogma" are universal Wing Chun principles that make it optimally functional. That's the reason I adhere to them. You can call me dogmatic while you violate these principles all you want. Just do like other members on this forum and tap dance around the issue to stay content with what you do.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Again, what you call "dogma" are universal Wing Chun principles that make it optimally functional. That's the reason I adhere to them. You can call me dogmatic while you violate these principles all you want. Just do like other members on this forum and tap dance around the issue to stay content with what you do.



Sir the only person tap dancing is you.  Why?  Because when backed into a corner by the inherent contradictions of your own statements you speak of "universal principles".

The problem with you claim is this.  If 20 people are in a room, 2 say "this is a universal principle of something we all study" and 18 call shenanigans, 99. 999999.......% of the time it is the two that are wrong because universal principles are just that because the majority say "these are universal principles". Hence the term universal.

As I said before, good luck in your endeavours


----------



## LFJ

You disagree that directness and efficiency are universally recognized principles in all Wing Chun lineages?

Very indirect, inefficient, and arm-chasing technique applications have been suggested in this thread by yourself and some others.

The best tap dance step was your response to Guy in post #389, saying basically it's not hand-chasing if your goal is to chase the hand and you don't think about it. 

Or when you had to pull out a dictionary entry to say application means "use" therefore my method is application-based too because I "use" _bong-sau_!


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> The goals you have presented have been hand chasing for the most part. Why would that be your goal?



Now, now, now. That's a just trolling. You asked,  "Why is your goal chasing hands?" ...in response, how about this: "Hey Guy, when did you stop beating your wife?"


----------



## Phobius

I wonder, why did I even bring up the whole bong sau thing in this thread? I just honestly wanted to make a very simple and easy yes or no question.

At least we got something to discuss a lot.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Again, what you call "dogma" are *universal* Wing Chun principles that make it *optimally *functional.



1. Obviously these principles (at least as you understand them) are _not so universal_ if only your PB-WSL-VT lineage reliably applies them.

2. "Optimally functional" is just a more latinate and sophisticated-sounding way of saying "My way is the best!". Isn't it odd that a person with such a fine command of English as you should be so clueless about the social norms of communication? Really, raving about how _superior_ your approach is does not tend to make people want to listen to you. And, of course, that may not concern you.

But if effectively _communicating and sharing _ideas is not a priority, why are you wasting your time on a "friendly" forum like this? 




Don't worry about answering, as I fear it would be pointless.  Let's just consider this a rhetorical question I'm posting too early on a Sunday morning. Must be time for coffee...


----------



## geezer

*For those who are interested *in a _different_ "concept based" use of bong sau that is absolutely NOT "1:1 application" oriented, I will again throw out the "WT"  approach to bong sau. The underlying concepts, which apply to the way we move the entire body from arms to stance and steps, are basically as follows:


_1. Maintain forward intent. 

2. Be elastic and springy, compressing with force received and snapping forward when released (basically loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung).

3. Follow your opponent's center.

4. Do not try to execute a pre-conceived technique. Your opponent will show you how to hit him!_



If you apply these concepts, you will use your opponent's incoming energy and form a bong (essentially='bent spring") as needed (loi lau hoi sung). Depending on the situation and energy received, that bong will move with your opponent's energy to deflect his force to the side, upwards and aside, or downwards and aside.

--As the incoming energy is released, it slips free and snaps forward as a fak-sau, a punch, etc. (lat sau jik chung).

--Or, if your opponent crashes into you, his energy may bend your bong double and you release your energy back at him as an elbow strike.

--Or if he grapples your arm at the wrist and elbow yanking it downward... perhaps you can release your energy with a shoulder punch.

In short, the techniques can be infinite and as such are unimportant. The process and effect is the same_ if _you follow the concepts. We are _not _talking about techniques at all, but about _a way of moving, of receiving and returning energy._

Now we all know that LFJ and Guy reject this particular approach as useless and impractical, basically discounting it as a method "born of too much chi-sau and not enough fighting". Whatever. My point is simply that this is another example of concept-based rather than technique-based movement.

....Of course it may not be so_ universal_ or _optimal_ as some other approaches!


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Now, now, now. That's a just trolling. You asked, "Why is your goal chasing hands?" ...in response, how about this: "Hey Guy, when did you stop beating your wife?"



It's not trolling because I honestly don't want another response from Juany. I would prefer him to stop typing. I guess it is more frustration than anything else. It is extremely tiring answering questions from people who don't understand what you are talking about


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> It is extremely tiring answering questions from people who don't understand what you are talking about



Honestly I couldn't agree more. 





Now you know how so many of the rest of us feel!


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> *For those who are interested *in a _different_ "concept based" use of bong sau that is absolutely NOT "1:1 application" oriented, I will again throw out the "WT"  approach to bong sau. The underlying concepts, which apply to the way we move the entire body from arms to stance and steps, are basically as follows:
> 
> 
> _1. Maintain forward intent.
> 
> 2. Be elastic and springy, compressing with force received and snapping forward when released (basically loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung).
> 
> 3. Follow your opponent's center.
> 
> 4. Do not try to execute a pre-conceived technique. Your opponent will show you how to hit him!_
> 
> 
> 
> If you apply these concepts, you will use your opponent's incoming energy and form a bong (essentially='bent spring") as needed (loi lau hoi sung). Depending on the situation and energy received, that bong will move with your opponent's energy to deflect his force to the side, upwards and aside, or downwards and aside.
> 
> --As the incoming energy is released, it slips free and snaps forward as a fak-sau, a punch, etc. (lat sau jik chung).
> 
> --Or, if your opponent crashes into you, his energy may bend your bong double and you release your energy back at him as an elbow strike.
> 
> --Or if he grapples your arm at the wrist and elbow yanking it downward... perhaps you can release your energy with a shoulder punch.
> 
> In short, the techniques can be infinite and as such are unimportant. The process and effect is the same_ if _you follow the concepts. We are _not _talking about techniques at all, but about _a way of moving, of receiving and returning energy._
> 
> Now we all know that LFJ and Guy reject this particular approach as useless and impractical, basically discounting it as a method "born of too much chi-sau and not enough fighting". Whatever. My point is simply that this is another example of concept-based rather than technique-based movement.
> 
> ....Of course it may not be so_ universal_ or _optimal_ as some other approaches!




This is exactly it.  The only thing I would add is that preconceived intent is not simply saying "I _will_ perform maneuver X but also saying "I _will not_ perform..."

One of the prime tenets of WC is achieving your goal regarding your opponent as quickly as possible.  If you have preconcieved notions of how to achieve this goal, or how not, you will not achieve the goal as swiftly not only because you add thought to the process (of course you must think/visualize the goal itself) but because in requiring or denying particular techniques inevitably you add steps and/or transitions from technique to technique that are less efficient. Why open the way for a punch if your opponent is kind enough to leave his lead leg vulnerable to a kick to the knee cap?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> It's not trolling because I honestly don't want another response from Juany. I would prefer him to stop typing. I guess it is more frustration than anything else. It is extremely tiring answering questions from people who don't understand what you are talking about



Sometimes frustration is born of people understanding, they simply disagree with the foundation of the premise.  We all agree speed and efficiency are the key to WC/VT.  We all believe that one should simply react to achieve our goal.  The problem is many of us believe that planning is not simply limited to saying "I will do this next" but also "I will not do this".  Additionally some of us believe that WC is not simply about punching.

The only time these issues become a matter of "they don't understand" is when someone dogmatically adheres to their position and sees it as _the_ right way.  That however is an artifact of your opinion, not an objective truth.

If the above wasn't he case why are there so many different schools of WC/VT all claiming the same Lineage from YM.  Perhaps more interestingly why, from reading this thread, is there debate inside WSL/VT itself?  Otherwise why dismiss Sifus within that specific branch?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to

- put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.
- Since your Tan Shou is already close to your opponent's face while your back hand is next to your elbow, when your opponent punches you, you can change your Tan Shou into chain punches and attack his face from that short distance.
- ...

If you 

- can make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a good WC guy.
- can't make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a bad WC guy.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to
> 
> - put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.
> - Since your Tan Shou is already close to your opponent's face while your back hand is next to your elbow, when your opponent punches you, you can change your Tan Shou into chain punches and attack his face from that short distance.
> - ...
> 
> If you
> 
> - can make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a good WC guy.
> - can't make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a bad WC guy.



That is certainly part of the basic foundation but I kinda see saying that as saying "if you can add 4*4=16 you are good at math.". There is much more to WC.  Not as broad as mathematics of course, but a lot more none the less


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to
> 
> - put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.
> - Since your Tan Shou is already close to your opponent's face while your back hand is next to your elbow, when your opponent punches you, you can change your Tan Shou into chain punches and attack his face from that short distance.
> - ...
> 
> If you
> 
> - can make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a good WC guy.
> - can't make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a bad WC guy.




OK, if you had to boil the system down to one simple example, this would illustrate it as well as anything.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Of course WC has more. But the WC principle that I have just mentioned is quite unique among all CMA systems. For the others principles, you may be able to find through some other CMA systems.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> 1. Obviously these principles (at least as you understand them) are _not so universal_ if only your PB-WSL-VT lineage reliably applies them.



I'm not a PB follower, and directness and efficiency principles are recognized by every WC lineage I know of, although many unwittingly violate them.



> 2. "Optimally functional" is just a more latinate and sophisticated-sounding way of saying "My way is the best!".



Didn't say anything about "my way". For any WC lineage to function optimally, directness and efficiency principles must be adhered to. I don't know of any lineage that would disagree with this.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> If you have preconcieved notions of how to achieve this goal, or how not, you will not achieve the goal as swiftly not only because you add thought to the process (of course you must think/visualize the goal itself) but because in requiring or denying particular techniques inevitably you add steps and/or transitions from technique to technique that are less efficient.



Are directness and efficiency preconceived notions of how or how not to achieve the goal? Are you rejecting foundational principles?

Through proper training that adheres to these principles, your body will automatically know when to use what, or not, without thought. It's not a matter of thinking "this would be good or bad right now" in the middle of a fight.



> Why open the way for a punch if your opponent is kind enough to leave his lead leg vulnerable to a kick to the knee cap?



Your Wing Chun can't use hands and feet together to attack high and low simultaneously?


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to
> 
> - put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.



Sideways movement with a _taan_ to deflect punches? 

Hand-chasing. That's your main concept?!


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Are directness and efficiency preconceived notions of how or how not to achieve the goal? Are you rejecting foundational principles?
> 
> Through proper training that adheres to these principles, your body will automatically know when to use what, or not, without thought. It's not a matter of thinking "this would be good or bad right now" in the middle of a fight.
> 
> 
> 
> Your Wing Chun can't use hands and feet together to attack high and low simultaneously?


Glad to see you are willing to argue for argument's sake

The first half is a strawman argument because I am not arguing against the foundational principles at all.  I am actually saying exactly what you say here. You are trying to create the appearance of otherwise however because of our on going disagreement.

As for the last,  of course I can.  However if my opponent is bladed and we are facing each other, as I envisioned in the scenario, something called geometry gets in the way.  If I can kick his leading leg in the knee cap I likely can't punch him.  Him you noticed I said "open the way" first, which implies having to close with the opponent.  Now I will still have my forward intent after the kick, in the event I do not hyperextend the knee of shear the knee cap, and thus be able to follow up by opening the way and performing hand strikes. 

I get that at this point you are simply trying to question absolutely anything said by those who disagree with you.  Whether it is to troll or some other reason I don't know.  Regardless what I do not get is this.  There is no single universal school of thought on WC/VT.  Even under the UK lineage, his living students are divided on aspects and far too many of their followers argue over superiority.  It spreads even further when you look at the schools of thought created by his students that have left us.  WSL/VT is a perfect example as there the students of WSL are divided among themselves with the same type of arguments I refer to above.

In such an environment arguing what is "right" WC is pointless. Beyond the foundational principles and the form/shape of the individual techniques, Your WC/VT will not be my WC.  My WC will not be Geezers and Geezer's will Nobody's.  This even occurs among people who share the same school of thought because even if that is he same we can not help but bring some degree of personal idiosyncrasies into what we do.  As such to quibble over a single technique and it's "proper place", especially when you dealing with people trained under different schools of though is useless, unless you have some desire to say "I am right, you are wrong, I am better, _my_ WC/VT is better" and that to me goes against the very philosophy of an art that purports to be conceptual.  

The way such arguments should be resolved, again so long as the foundational principles are adhered to, is to "agree to disagree" and move the hell on.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> Sideways movement with a _taan_ to deflect punches?
> 
> Hand-chasing. That's your main concept?!


The side way movement that you guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm exists in many other CMA styles. IMO, that's not a unique principle only used in WC.

I'm not chasing my opponent's hands. I'm chasing his head. But before I can get to his head, I want to make sure that his hands won't give me any trouble. I want to create a "safe path" between his arms before I can get to his head. Since I have to deal with both of his arms, I will need to use both of my arms to feel where his arms are. It's like to "hold on handrail to go downstairs".


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Sideways movement with a _taan_ to deflect punches?
> 
> Hand-chasing. That's your main concept?!



I believe he is referring to sideways movement AFTER contact is made. If so, while, I might not typically do such a thing (I am opening my center), the _tan_ isn't hand chasing, you are simply moving your arm and as a consequence the opponent's arm moves.  So if you want to use a "chasing" type description the opponent's move follows the path of your arm.

Again I wouldn't do that since, as described, I fear it would open my center, instead I would spiral into a _bong_ so my hand stayed in a closer position on my centerline but that's just me, I have seen others do what he describes and it works. You really seem to jump to 2 retorts reflexively, "hand chasing" and "1:1" even when they are clearly not applicable.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> The way such arguments should be resolved, again so long as the foundational principles are adhered to, is to "agree to disagree" and move the hell on.



My argument is not a matter of specific tactics being subjectively right or wrong. I'm addressing issues I see where foundational principles are being violated.



> If I can kick his leading leg in the knee cap I likely can't punch him.



Why not? Depends on your position. Are you playing straight-line with them?



> Him you noticed I said "open the way" first, which implies having to close with the opponent.



You said nothing about being out of range initially. Being in close range doesn't mean the way is open.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm not chasing my opponent's hands. I'm chasing his head. But before I can get to his head, I want to make sure that his hands won't give me any trouble. I want to create a "safe path" between his arms before I can get to his head.



You aren't chasing his head if you are pressing his hand off to the side and then moving forward to strike. What you are doing is indirect and inefficient.

The same goal can be achieved with a direct counter punch that automatically clears the line displacing his arm while striking in one beat.

We've had this discussion before, but you're still doing block then punch. This is a violation of directness and efficiency principles, or _lin-siu-daai-da_.



Juany118 said:


> I believe he is referring to sideways movement AFTER contact is made.



Doesn't matter. Messing with an arm sideways with the intent to defend then attack is hand-chasing, not center-chasing.



> You really seem to jump to 2 retorts reflexively, "hand chasing" and "1:1" even when they are clearly not applicable.



Not reflexively. I only call it as it's presented. If it were not hand-chasing or 1:1, I wouldn't say so.


----------



## LFJ

@Juany118

It just dawned on me that perhaps the reason you're unable to follow my posts is because you do Cheung's style. That is probably the biggest hand-chasing style I've seen. The entire strategy is about moving out, keeping distance, and reaching out to control the opponent's arms. There's no eating space and smothering the opponent with center-chasing attacks.

This is not meant as a bash on your style, but an attempt to show you where I'm coming from when I talk about hand-chasing, with an example of something you probably understand.

I don't know if this is representative of what you do, but I believe he's a respected elder of the Cheung lineage. So, here we go...

As a first response to a single punch, he does _jat_, _hyun_, and _paak _before counter striking. Never mind the fact that a _jat_ like that is just pulling the second punch into his face, asking to get knocked out, that's 3 defensive actions against one before hitting back.

Because he has crossed himself by doing _jat_ to the inside of the opponent's arm, he then has to correct his wilful mistake with a _hyun _to get to the outside. Then instead of punching simultaneously with the opposite hand, he adds yet another defensive step to the same arm by doing a _paak_ to check it while he gives a body shot.

He's so focused on controlling the arm he's doing all this stuff to that he's completely unaware of the opponent's second hand that would be coming in right after his arm-chasing _jat_ rendering all this stuff useless. He would not even get to the second step.

Now, if you can look at this and think it's not clearly the textbook definition of arm-chasing, I can see why we're not on the same page.

I think if you looked up arm-chasing in a Wing Chun dictionary you'd see these still images. In the last one, he's doing _paak_ down and to the inside, so focussed on controlling that one arm that he's trading a low palm strike for a knockout punch to the face.

Can't get any more arm-chasing than this. And that's just one example. Open any video of Cheung style and they're stepping out, keeping a gap between them, and reaching out to control arms. Practically everything they do is arm-chasing.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> @Juany118
> 
> It just dawned on me that perhaps the reason you're unable to follow my posts is because you do Cheung's style. That is probably the biggest hand-chasing style I've seen. The entire strategy is about moving out, keeping distance, and reaching out to control the opponent's arms. There's no eating space and smothering the opponent with center-chasing attacks.
> 
> This is not meant as a bash on your style, but an attempt to show you where I'm coming from when I talk about hand-chasing, with an example of something you probably understand.
> 
> I don't know if this is representative of what you do, but I believe he's a respected elder of the Cheung lineage. So, here we go...
> 
> As a first response to a single punch, he does _jat_, _hyun_, and _paak _before counter striking. Never mind the fact that a _jat_ like that is just pulling the second punch into his face, asking to get knocked out, that's 3 defensive actions against one before hitting back.
> 
> Because he has crossed himself by doing _jat_ to the inside of the opponent's arm, he then has to correct his wilful mistake with a _hyun _to get to the outside. Then instead of punching simultaneously with the opposite hand, he adds yet another defensive step to the same arm by doing a _paak_ to check it while he gives a body shot.
> 
> He's so focused on controlling the arm he's doing all this stuff to that he's completely unaware of the opponent's second hand that would be coming in right after his arm-chasing _jat_ rendering all this stuff useless. He would not even get to the second step.
> 
> Now, if you can look at this and think it's not clearly the textbook definition of arm-chasing, I can see why we're not on the same page.
> 
> I think if you looked up arm-chasing in a Wing Chun dictionary you'd see these still images. In the last one, he's doing _paak_ down and to the inside, so focussed on controlling that one arm that he's trading a low palm strike for a knockout punch to the face.
> 
> Can't get any more arm-chasing than this. And that's just one example. Open any video of Cheung style and they're stepping out, keeping a gap between them, and reaching out to control arms. Practically everything they do is arm-chasing.



Hmmm that's odd because my Sifu is a Student of Sifu Keith Mazza (closed door student of and the the USA Rep for GM Cheung) we are taught exactly what you are taught.  No backing up, always go in, circle to the blind side if possible, but always go in (if possible, sometimes the other guy is better and yeah it's time to reevaluate) and absolutely no hand chasing, if we do its our ***.

Hell one night I was sloppy because I hadn't slept in 20 hours.  I kept using Kali zoning (triangle steps on the outside of the opponent) because before class I was doing Kali drills not knowing we had a guest instructor from Sifu Keith's school present and the exhaustion just had my brain on autopilot.  Our guest asked  "what are you doing?  We always go in" and I corrected myself. I actually noted this experience on the thread started by Geezer about what other arts, other than Wing Chun, do you study a day or two ago, I just neglected the state of exhaustion that contributed to the sloppiness.

I would suggest that videos from YouTube are likely not the best choice to use to pump up or put down a system as they are far from dynamic and ofte. only serve, at best to demonstrate the possible functions of techniques, THE real uses, or the guy can just suck.  

By the bit about possible uses I mean method.  It's not enough to just teach the forms as then say "open the way and punch".  A teacher has to explain and demonstrate the various functions of the techniques in a static way initially so students can visualize how they work.  Then through training and experience, the development of muscle memory, you then simply do what works for the given moment.  About the only thing that you MAY call "hand chasing" that we have is a motto.  "Touch one hand and look for the other" but hat mantra is simply a way to say "you know where the hand is that you can feel, be aware another attack will be coming" so you do not get sloppy and lower your guard.

A better judge?  Head on down to Maryland in July for U.S. International Kuo Shu Championship Tournament | USKSF and watch the competition's.  Saturday afternoon is a knockout fest for those who arent doing it right.


----------



## LFJ

Well, I see the same stuff from Cheung himself. So.. Shall we look at some of his instead?

Even when, especially when, showing ideas to beginners I would never use such hand-chasing tactics.

Whether or not someone can make it work at some point against someone doesn't mean it isn't far from optimal, since it's a serious violation of directness and efficiency principles.

More direct and more efficient would certainly make it more functional against a wider range of skilled fighters.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Well, I see the same stuff from Cheung himself. So.. Shall we look at some of his instead?
> 
> Even when, especially when, showing ideas to beginners I would never use such hand-chasing tactics.
> 
> Whether or not someone can make it work at some point against someone doesn't mean it isn't far from optimal, since it's a serious violation of directness and efficiency principles.
> 
> More direct and more efficient would certainly make it more functional against a wider range of skilled fighters.



I added an addition to my previous response but I will repeat it here.  I think you are confusing teaching method with application.  One can teach "you can address this attack like so, or so, or like so in order to close with the opponent" simply to illustrate possible applications of the techniques from the forms.  You need this to actually understand the use of the art imo.  Once the muscle memory is built in through proper training, application becomes far more automatic, you do what works for the immediate circumstances.

No striking art I am familiar with teaches hand chasing as APPLICATION.  WC is unique in many ways but not in this, which is why I am puzzled by the argument in the first place.  That simply doesn't work in a real fight BUT different arts, or schools of thought, have different methods in which they teach the possible applications, at what pace they allow students to start "exploring" the real applications of the art etc.  This is what, imo at least YouTube training videos are for.  If you can show me instructional videos from a Sifu you recommend that illustrate a different principle of learning I would like to see them.


----------



## Callen

LFJ said:


> It just dawned on me that perhaps the reason you're unable to follow my posts is because you do Cheung's style. That is probably the biggest hand-chasing style I've seen...


Really? There's no need for this. I'm sure someone of your caliber can make your points without picking out what you believe are the deficiencies of other lineages.


----------



## LFJ

Callen said:


> Really? There's no need for this. I'm sure someone of your caliber can make your points without picking out what you believe are the deficiencies of other lineages.



Tried that. People couldn't follow.

I need to use a visual example from something they know and understand.

I know this can be taken as picking on them, but it's just to illustrate my point in a way they can follow.


----------



## Phobius

Being all members of Wing Chun lineages, well also including WT/VT and others. I think hand chasing sadly is a term not possible to be discussed without being considered an insult.

Problem however is that we should rather than blame LFJ for picking out a lineage perhaps see those videos he referred to, discuss them and figure out how that came to be LFJ's view. Otherwise you will not be able to continue any discussion because LFJ will go about thinking the same thing about Cheung lineage and the rest of us will... well I dont actually know what the rest of us will.

Anyways, I also realized that no matter what lineage you train, it is not always the case that you all learn the same thing as others in your lineage. Reason being that it is all Wing Chun and different people emphasize different things. Some Sifu's have done trial and error and perhaps removed some stuff  that other sifus got working and kept in their tutoring.

I believe martial art systems are constantly changing, not necessarily always evolving but at least going around in circles from time to time.


----------



## Juany118

Callen said:


> Really? There's no need for this. I'm sure someone of your caliber can make your points without picking out what you believe are the deficiencies of other lineages.




Well we will see if he can show instructional videos, as opposed to demonstration video, of his VT that don't have Sifu's showing _possible_ uses of specific techniques.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Tried that. People couldn't follow.
> 
> I need to use a visual example from something they know and understand.
> 
> I know this can be taken as picking on them, but it's just to illustrate my point in a way they can follow.



So again, please post some instructional videos of your VT (since I do not know you exact lineage, you have been vague as hell on that and have also attacked other Sifus claiming the same lineage as you).

If you don't do that you really don't have a lot of credibility with what is clearly an attempt to build an argument based on videos taken out of their intended context.

It's why I suggested the trip to Maryland.  There you will see WC of all schools in action, not instruction.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I added an addition to my previous response but I will repeat it here.  I think you are confusing teaching method with application.  One can teach "you can address this attack like so, or so, or like so in order to close with the opponent" simply to illustrate possible applications of the techniques from the forms.  You need this to actually understand the use of the art imo.  Once the muscle memory is built in through proper training, application becomes far more automatic, you do what works for the immediate circumstances.



I understand applications can sometimes be used to illustrate your ideas, and that you shouldn't think in terms of applications, but when teaching these, if the applications shown are hand-chasing, that's a problem. 

Especially for beginners who don't know how to act in free fighting yet and are likely to use these applications as training wheels for movement. Unfortunately, what they are training into muscle memory by this are actions that violate foundational principles and reinforce bad habits that will be difficult to detrain later.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I understand applications can sometimes be used to illustrate your ideas, and that you shouldn't think in terms of applications, but when teaching these, if the applications shown are hand-chasing, that's a problem.
> 
> Especially for beginners who don't know how to act in free fighting yet and are likely to use these applications as training wheels for movement. Unfortunately, what they are training into muscle memory by this are actions that violate foundational principles and reinforce bad habits that will be difficult to detrain later.



I think this would be a problem for beginners when there is no forward intent in the drill. Such as a movement to the sides in order to catch a hand rather than to move forward and meeting hand.

Just realized I have crappy memory, cant recollect a drill that is done in order to illustrate that can also be missinterpreted as hand chasing. Not because we dont have those, illustrations are needed for people to understand some moves. It is just that my mind at the moment has gone blank completely.

Anyways, if you train with Philipp Bayer I assume a lot of the drills or illustrations avoid any kind of hand chasing not only because of the risk of missunderstanding, but also because doing said drill for both left and right arm can be bad for the person facing Philipp.

In my school we receive a lot of illustrations for people to understand movement that have not seen them before. Some start chasing hands at early points but once they learn forward intent it seems to fade away quickly without much need for unlearning. Could it be how my sifu does the drill? Possibly. Could it be something else? Possibly.

I read and studied a lot of videos and practises of those a lot better than me at that time as well so things did not go the same way for me. Or maybe I simply did not put any attention to it at the time and instead I notice the beginners nowadays.


----------



## Callen

LFJ said:


> Tried that. People couldn't follow.
> 
> I need to use a visual example from something they know and understand.
> 
> I know this can be taken as picking on them, but it's just to illustrate my point in a way they can follow.


I feel as though you're being genuine in your attempt, but you can easily illustrate your point without using another lineage as an example. There are so many ways in which you could have addressed the idea of "chasing hands" that didn't require you to call anyone out.

You want to use a visual example? Then simply post it without the comments regarding an entire lineage. You could have said nothing about William Cheung and referred to your resources quite effectively.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I understand applications can sometimes be used to illustrate your ideas, and that you shouldn't think in terms of applications, but when teaching these, if the applications shown are hand-chasing, that's a problem.
> 
> Especially for beginners who don't know how to act in free fighting yet and are likely to use these applications as training wheels for movement. Unfortunately, what they are training into muscle memory by this are actions that violate foundational principles and reinforce bad habits that will be difficult to detrain later.



Well, since you won't produce video then why is WSL himself teaching what you are calling hand chasing?











It is only a violation of he principles IF you take the teaching for what it isn't, application.  To learn to crawl, walk, jog, then run.  When you are crawling and walking this is how you teach and if your Sifu is worth a damn they let you know where you stand on that journey.  Unless of course even WSL himself was wrong of course.

Still waiting btw for you to show videos of your Lineage, not fiat statements made by you that support the point you are trying to make however.  Since you raised the video evidence it is now your obligation to give the counter point in the same format.  If you don't the Bard's words of "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." come to mind.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> If you don't do that you really don't have a lot of credibility with what is clearly an attempt to build an argument based on videos taken out of their intended context.



I feel that is a bit ad hominem... 

I don't need credibility to raise perceived issues. You can go ahead and assume my VT sucks. Does that mean my critique is invalid? If so, you're dismissing it based on an ad hominem.

Please explain in what context the example I showed is not clearly teaching hand-chasing ideas. 



> It's why I suggested the trip to Maryland.  There you will see WC of all schools in action, not instruction.



I don't live in the States, but will be looking out for the footage after.



Callen said:


> I feel as though you're being genuine in your attempt, but you can easily illustrate your point without using another lineage as an example. There are so many ways in which you could have addressed the idea of "chasing hands" that didn't require you to call anyone out.
> 
> You want to use a visual example? Then simply post it without the comments regarding an entire lineage. You could have said nothing about William Cheung and referred to your resources quite effectively.



The thing is, it just dawned on me why Juany118 and I are not on the same page concerning hand-chasing. It's a matter of lineage perspective. I didn't want to just pick one example that could be brushed off, because it is in fact the entire strategy of the lineage that I find problematic.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I feel that is a bit ad hominem...
> 
> I don't need credibility to raise perceived issues. You can go ahead and assume my VT sucks. Does that mean my critique is invalid? If so, you're dismissing it based on an ad hominem.
> 
> Please explain in what context the example I showed is not clearly teaching hand-chasing ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in the States, but will be looking out for the footage after.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, it just dawned on me why Juany118 and I are not on the same page concerning hand-chasing. It's a matter of lineage perspective. I didn't want to just pick one example that could be brushed off, because it is in fact the entire strategy of the lineage that I find problematic.



So then why is WSL hand chasing in the videos.  WSL/VT is what you study correct?  His hand chasing is little different than Cheung's.  Why, because it is instruction and NOT application.

And it isn't an ad hominem.  When you present evidence claiming one lineage is doing hand chasing, and in that context of instruction it is wrong, you have a duty to produce the "see this is the proper way to instruct" using the same media.  You have yet to do it.  If you do, I go away, if you can also answer to the WSL videos (and there are MANY more) that I linked.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> why is WSL himself teaching what you are calling hand chasing?



You posted 20 and 30 minute videos. Which parts are you talking about?

WSL taught some "mainstream" Wing Chun ideas at public seminars with visitors of various unknown backgrounds to keep it simple often to save face. He always said "just for show" and "maybe _you_ can do it".


----------



## Callen

LFJ said:


> The thing is, it just dawned on me why Juany118 and I are not on the same page concerning hand-chasing. It's a matter of lineage perspective. I didn't want to just pick one example that could be brushed off, because it is in fact the entire strategy of the lineage that I find problematic.


Point well taken.



LFJ said:


> I don't live in the States, but will be looking out for the footage after.


Where do you live? If you don't mind me asking, who are you currently training with?


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> When you present evidence claiming one lineage is doing hand chasing, and in that context of instruction it is wrong, you have a duty to produce the "see this is the proper way to instruct" using the same media.



So, you're saying hand-chasing is not wrong or bad if it's during instruction?

I would say it's wrong and bad _especially_ because it's being instructed. 

Maybe I would be more understanding if you taught non-hand-chasing methods, but in fighting you sometimes make mistakes. But teaching hand-chasing?!

If I show you instruction that does not involve hand-chasing, you "go away"? What does that mean? You don't think it's possible to teach without chasing hands?


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You posted 20 and 30 minute videos. Which parts are you talking about?
> 
> WSL taught some "mainstream" Wing Chun ideas at public seminars with visitors of various unknown backgrounds to keep it simple often to save face. He always said "just for show" and "maybe _you_ can do it".



As for the first video pretty much all of it.  2nd video, with the exception of some sticking hands in the beginning pretty much all.

As for your last bit, I was expecting this tbh, a fiat statement with no supporting evidence.  So as such, on this topic, this is saved to my clip board for all future responses.

"If you wish to actually produce verifiable proof please produce instructional, not demonstration videos of WSL/VT that do not use what you have called 'chasing hands.' Without said proof, all we have are baseless claims regarding instruction and training because EVERY WSL/VT instruction video I have this found WSL's or not, shows what you call "chasing hands." "

I expect no response to this last bit, rather I expect avoidance but hope springs eternal.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> So, you're saying hand-chasing is not wrong or bad if it's during instruction?
> 
> I would say it's wrong and bad _especially_ because it's being instructed.
> 
> Maybe I would be more understanding if you taught non-hand-chasing methods, but in fighting you sometimes make mistakes. But teaching hand-chasing?!
> 
> If I show you instruction that does not involve hand-chasing, you "go away"? What does that mean? You don't think it's possible to teach without chasing hands?



"If you wish to actually produce verifiable proof please produce instructional, not demonstration videos of WSL/VT that do not use what you have called 'chasing hands.' Without said proof, all we have are baseless claims regarding instruction and training because EVERY WSL/VT instruction video I have thus far found, WSL's or not, shows what you call "chasing hands." "


----------



## LFJ

So you want me to make an instructional video for you to show you that teaching can be done without chasing hands? I guess I'm not surprised you think it's impossible...


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> So you want me to make an instructional video for you to show you that teaching can be done without chasing hands? I guess I'm not surprised you think it's impossible...




No.  Unless you are some special little snowflake in the WSL/VG community, or the art is actually one only taught in secret upon pain of death, thanks to the wonders of the internet there will be videos of Sifus teaching the crawling and walking, even some jogging students, without hand chasing out there.  Thing is I haven't found one yet.  You should know how to better search for your Lineage than I however so...

"If you wish to actually produce verifiable proof please produce instructional, not demonstration videos of WSL/VT that do not use what you have called 'chasing hands.' Without said proof, all we have are baseless claims regarding instruction and training because EVERY WSL/VT instruction video I have thus far found, WSL's or not, shows what you call "chasing hands." "

If not it is just typical anonymous internet avoidance.


----------



## LFJ

This is true hilarity. I've never seen someone defend teaching hand-chasing, or challenge someone to prove that teaching can be done without hand-chasing. 

Point proven anyway. You are a hand-chaser. But since you don't mind, I won't try to change your ways. Or do you actually mind? I can't really tell.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> This is true hilarity. I've never seen someone defend teaching hand-chasing, or challenge someone to prove that teaching can be done without hand-chasing.
> 
> Point proven anyway. You are a hand-chaser. But since you don't mind, I won't try to change your ways. Or do you actually mind? I can't really tell.



Actually my point is proven.  How.  It's called critical thinking.  Its how we get people convicted in courts of Law in USA.  How does it work?

1. You post videos claiming my YM lineage creates hand chasers.
--- I respond by stating instructional videos are to teach possible uses for techniques not real world applications.  
------you deny this is useful but talk in circles on that issue in terms of actual substance.
2. I produce videos of the founder of your YM lineage doing the exact same thing.
---you come up with an unsupported "he taught some "mainstream"..."
3. So I say "okay forget WSL.  Just show me a video of ANY WSL/VT Sifu giving an instructional seminar or class on a video NOT teaching in the same manner.  Don't care who.  If you are right it must exist.  If you aren't right then the only facts we have in evidence are WC and WS teaching in the exact same manner.  That means from the point of verifiable fact, your position is unsupported.

This is how critical thinking and logic work irl. 

Thank you btw for the condescension.  It only further proved my point.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> You aren't chasing his head if you are pressing his hand off to the side and then moving forward to strike. What you are doing is indirect and inefficient.
> 
> The same goal can be achieved with a direct counter punch that automatically clears the line displacing his arm while striking in one beat.
> 
> We've had this discussion before, but you're still doing block then punch. This is a violation of directness and efficiency principles, or _lin-siu-daai-da_.


I apply WC concept to meet my need and not the other way around. 

My main goal is not trying to punch on my opponent's head but to "lock" on his head and then take him down. Before I do that, I need to feel where his arms are so I can wrap his arms. 

feel where my opponent's arms are -> wrap his arms -> apply head lock -> take him down -> start ground game


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> You are a hand-chaser.


If I can wrap my opponent's leading arm successfully, the clinch is established.

leading arm chase -> leading arm wrap -> clinch


----------



## Phobius

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I apply WC concept to meet my need and not the other way around.
> 
> My main goal is not trying to punch on my opponent's head but to "lock" on his head and then take him down. Before I do that, I need to feel where his arms are so I can wrap his arms.
> 
> feel where my opponent's arms are -> wrap his arms -> apply head lock -> take him down -> start ground game



Is there a reason why you want to take him to the ground? I mean it sure can be the goal if you have a profession where most fights need to end without punches such as working at a hospital.

What training do you have for the ground game itself? WC is not really that optimal on the ground to say the least.

WC concepts are still there saying things about efficiency, so it might be that if you can not punch your most efficient move is a takedown. But if you can hit him and there is nothing stopping you, I think you should hit.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> Is there a reason why you want to take him to the ground? I mean it sure can be the goal if you have a profession where most fights need to end without punches such as working at a hospital.
> 
> What training do you have for the ground game itself? WC is not really that optimal on the ground to say the least.
> 
> WC concepts are still there saying things about efficiency, so it might be that if you can not punch your most efficient move is a takedown. But if you can hit him and there is nothing stopping you, I think you should hit.


If I can take my opponent down and control him, I can ask him, "Can we be friend?" If he says, "Yes!" I can let him go and we will both live happy ever after. If I punch on my opponent's face and knock him down, I either have to go to jail, pay his medical bill, or he will come back with a shotgun and shoot me. IMO, the grappling art can always offer a better solution.

If you can wrap your opponent's leading arm, get a head lock on him, and take him down, you are in a nice "side mount" position already. If you can take advantage on that early start, that will be your advantage.

The WC concept may not be able to help me on my ground game. It can help me to obtain my "clinch". That's good enough for me.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> So, you're saying hand-chasing is not wrong or bad if it's during instruction?
> 
> I would say it's wrong and bad _especially_ because it's being instructed.
> 
> Maybe I would be more understanding if you taught non-hand-chasing methods, but in fighting you sometimes make mistakes. But teaching hand-chasing?!
> 
> If I show you instruction that does not involve hand-chasing, you "go away"? What does that mean? You don't think it's possible to teach without chasing hands?



You can chase.  Just so long as your hand stays between their hand and your head. 

There is clinching elements where you can apply it. 

But you can't chase hands in a punching exchange.

But if you chase you have to be wary of your arms leaving your body and becoming weak. 

But you can chase with your whole body and create angles.  That will help. 

Being unorthodox is not always wrong. Because right has not yet been determined yet.


----------



## Nobody Important

_If I can take my opponent down and control him, I can ask him, "Can we be friend?" If he says, "Yes!" I can let him go and we will both live happy ever after. If I punch on my opponent's face and knock him down, I either have to go to jail, pay his medical bill, or he will come back with a shotgun and shoot me. IMO, the grappling art can always offer a better solution.

If you can wrap your opponent's leading arm, get a head lock on him, and take him down, you are in a nice "side mount" position already. If you can take advantage on that early start, that will be your advantage.

The WC concept may not be able to help me on my ground game. It can help me to obtain my "clinch". That's good enough for me_

-----Personally I like variety. I look at styles like tools, each has a specific purpose. Wrenches, screw drivers, hammers,  saws etc., even with this there are specifics. Hacksaws, circular saw, wood saw, phillips head screwdriver, flat head screwdriver, claw hammer, sledge hammer, box wrench, ratchets etc. Though some tools will get a variety of jobs done there all always other possibly better options that will make the task easier and more efficient. It's hard to be a good carpenter/mechanic with a limited tool box, why limit yourself to a Swiss army knife when you have access to a variety of tools?


----------



## geezer

Nobody Important said:


> *----Personally I like variety.  ....Wrenches, screw drivers, hammers,  saws etc., even with this there are specifics. Hacksaws, circular saw, wood saw, phillips head screwdriver, flat head screwdriver, claw hammer, sledge hammer, box wrench, ratchets etc.* Though some tools will get a variety of jobs done there all always other possibly better options that will make the task easier and more efficient. ...why limit yourself to a Swiss army knife when you have access to a variety of tools?




I was skim reading to catch up when I saw this. Guess I took it literally, ..as ideas for self-defense. Conjured up images of movies like _Saw.._..


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Is there a reason why you want to take him to the ground? I mean it sure can be the goal if you have a profession where most fights need to end without punches such as working at a hospital.
> 
> What training do you have for the ground game itself? WC is not really that optimal on the ground to say the least.
> 
> WC concepts are still there saying things about efficiency, so it might be that if you can not punch your most efficient move is a takedown. But if you can hit him and there is nothing stopping you, I think you should hit.



Do you set people up at all? 

It is hard to defend a takedown when you are defending punches. And visa versa. 

The theory is you grab a bull by one horn and the other stabs you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> The theory is you grab a bull by one horn and the other stabs you.


The

- "single leg" and "double legs" will give your opponent 2 free arms.
- "waist surround" and "head lock" will give your opponent 1 free arm.
- "double over hooks" and "double under hooks" will give your opponent no free arm.

To make sure that your opponent's free arm (or arms) won't give you any problem is very important. In order to do that, you have to know "where your opponent's arms are". Not only you have to chase his arm, you have to chase both of his arms.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> _If I can take my opponent down and control him, I can ask him, "Can we be friend?" If he says, "Yes!" I can let him go and we will both live happy ever after. If I punch on my opponent's face and knock him down, I either have to go to jail, pay his medical bill, or he will come back with a shotgun and shoot me. IMO, the grappling art can always offer a better solution.
> 
> If you can wrap your opponent's leading arm, get a head lock on him, and take him down, you are in a nice "side mount" position already. If you can take advantage on that early start, that will be your advantage.
> 
> The WC concept may not be able to help me on my ground game. It can help me to obtain my "clinch". That's good enough for me_
> 
> -----Personally I like variety. I look at styles like tools, each has a specific purpose. Wrenches, screw drivers, hammers,  saws etc., even with this there are specifics. Hacksaws, circular saw, wood saw, phillips head screwdriver, flat head screwdriver, claw hammer, sledge hammer, box wrench, ratchets etc. Though some tools will get a variety of jobs done there all always other possibly better options that will make the task easier and more efficient. It's hard to be a good carpenter/mechanic with a limited tool box, why limit yourself to a Swiss army knife when you have access to a variety of tools?



This is why I am glad my school teaches WC and Kali.  They compliment each other quite well as @geezer will attest to as well I believe.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Do you set people up at all?
> 
> It is hard to defend a takedown when you are defending punches. And visa versa.
> 
> The theory is you grab a bull by one horn and the other stabs you.



Huh? I was asking in terms of training. You dont do takedown if you have no clue how to fight on the ground. 

I asked why or what training he had that made him want to take them to the ground. Being a pure Wing Chun ground game is not reliable for you. 

I mean there is a reason I train GJJ also to some extent.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Huh? I was asking in terms of training. You dont do takedown if you have no clue how to fight on the ground.
> 
> I asked why or what training he had that made him want to take them to the ground. Being a pure Wing Chun ground game is not reliable for you.
> 
> I mean there is a reason I train GJJ also to some extent.



The problem is that it is not when you are controlling the situation that a lack of situational ability becomes an issue. A boxer can kick all he wants. It is his lack of ability to defend kicks that is the issue.

As far as a ground game goes it does not take anywhere near the skill to pound someone from the top as it does to avoid being pounded. So you would be pretty right to drop a guy crack them in the head and run off if you can get away with it.

It is when you are taken down by the other guy that is the issue. And you don't have to be participating in some sort of grapple to have that happen.

You can very easily be fighting from your comfort zone and get caught.


----------



## Juany118

Phobius said:


> Huh? I was asking in terms of training. You dont do takedown if you have no clue how to fight on the ground.
> 
> I asked why or what training he had that made him want to take them to the ground. Being a pure Wing Chun ground game is not reliable for you.
> 
> I mean there is a reason I train GJJ also to some extent.



While the Kali I study has more of a ground game I think you would be surprised how effective the following works.  Wing Chun does have Chin Na (though largely limited to wrist locks). If, as you take down the opponent you apply a wrist lock and follow through, and I mean follow through, pain compliance is a powerful tool. GJJ is a great system no doubt but get a person on their belly and control just their wrist and thus elbow (and WC trains and apply adequate force?  99% of suspects will comply due to the principle of pain compliance.

That said, if I wasn't a LEO that would not be my goal.  My goal would simply be to end the threat and that would mean "attack" and there, I personally don't see me wanting to invite a ground game.  If my opponent went down it would be "ground and pound" until the threat stops.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> You dont do takedown if you have no clue how to fight on the ground.


If you smash your opponent's head into the hard ground, the fight can end right there.


----------



## Phobius

It is fine to smash someone head first into the ground. Problem is if they know more about ground than you, their head wont go first. Your body might follow them down.

If you have the ability to punch you should not go into clinch unless you are unable by your profession or other reasons to punch the person facing you.

Also if someone lands well enough on the ground, and you are assuming they wont. It is a big risk you wont feel that way for long.

In addition, taking someone to the ground and then punching them or kicking them. Well you no longer have the ability to claim self defense at least not in my country. So I do not object to taking people on the ground, on the contruary. I am just saying "Are you training something other than WC for groundwork? Reason I am asking is because WC might not really be best suited for ground game or even doing takedowns."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> "Are you training something other than WC for groundwork?


The WC is only one of my cross training systems. I'm not a ground game expert, but I have trained some. The side mount is my favor.



Phobius said:


> In addition, taking someone to the ground and then punching them or kicking them. Well you no longer have the ability to claim self defense at least not in my country.


I got a fight with a soldier in Shanyang northern train station in China. 3 polices came. I told them, the other guy cut in line to buy train ticket. We got into argument and *"tangled our bodies together"*. We both lose balance and fell down. I did not throw any punch at him. Those Chinese cops let me go. If I punched that guy on the face that day, I could be in jail somewhere in China.


----------

