# Bong-Sau



## izeqb (Oct 13, 2010)

Hi everybody...

I've recently started training wing chun again after a few years break...
I used to train in the Leung Ting Wing Tsun system and got a 6th student grade... 

A lot of stuff happened just before I quit, with the LT system... and not so long after (we're talking '02-'04 here) a lot of the very good WT practitioners jumped off and started their own Wing Chun Branches...

Anyway... Now I train with with one of the new branches and since I quitted, a lot of changes has been made to the system...

One of the things I noticed and are having are hard time to wrap my mind around is the bong-sau...

In "the old days" i learned that the bong-sau was made with the palm kinda outwards (like checking the time on a imaginary watch)...

But, a lot of the people I've trained with recently, make the bong-sau more like a vertical lan-sau, with the back of the hand facing upwards.

Can some of you more experienced wing chun guys please explain to me thw what and why's of the bong-sau...


----------



## wtxs (Oct 13, 2010)

izeqb said:


> Hi everybody...
> 
> I've recently started training wing chun again after a few years break...
> I used to train in the Leung Ting Wing Tsun system and got a 6th student grade...
> ...



You are right, with due respect to the new-and-improved way of doing WC, the classical (the old days) bong is as you remembered, however I would describe it more like an inverted fook sao.

The advantage of the "vertical lan sao" present itself when continue the bong forward motion (cork screw) into an strike.

The classical bong is more versatile, rotating the wrist towards an tan while continue the forward motion into an knife edge cut or an palm heel strike, ie counter attack from under, and no ... I don't mean Australia. :boing1:  By "collapse" the bong (aka lap sao) while moving forward, rotate the fook inward, up and out into an back fist, or an short upper cut punch if you like.

As with others, Bong sao is an instrument in the WC tool box, it can be used in more ways than the obvious.  IMHO don't get hung upon what or how others do with it.  It's your bong sao, max the ways it can work for you.

You go train now!


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 13, 2010)

izeqb said:


> In "the old days" i learned that the bong-sau was made with the palm kinda outwards (like checking the time on a imaginary watch)...



Yeah thats the one man, or as said above 'like an inverted fuk sau"

Why do it that way? Cause thats bong sau thats why


----------



## geezer (Oct 13, 2010)

izeqb said:


> In "the old days" i learned that the bong-sau was made with the palm kinda outwards (like checking the time on a imaginary watch)...
> 
> But, a lot of the people I've trained with recently, make the bong-sau more like a vertical lan-sau, with the back of the hand facing upwards.
> 
> Can some of you more experienced wing chun guys please explain to me thw what and why's of the bong-sau...



If you reached 6th Student Grade, you should have a solid grasp of the standard WT bong sau. I trained directly with LT throughout the 80's and your description sounds quite correct. I left the WT system as a 3rd level Technician in the early 90's and just came back to join the new NVTO group here in the States a few years ago. I still do the "classical" version, as I was taught. However, I have noted that the EBMAS WT group sometimes employs the lan-sau variation, for example in the counter to the first attack in WT Chi-Sau, Section 1. The new movement seems more streamlined and aggressively functional _in that particular situation._ However, I am not aware that they have altered bong sau across the board. I rather doubt it. Other groups may have. Anyway, welcome to the ranks of the WT _ronin._ Who do you train with?


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 14, 2010)

izeqb said:


> Hi everybody...
> 
> I've recently started training wing chun again after a few years break...
> I used to train in the Leung Ting Wing Tsun system and got a 6th student grade...
> ...


 
I wouldn't be too worried about what your hand is doing , the important bit is the position of the wrist and that your elbow force is distributed evenly along the forearm.

I can tack anything I want onto the end of the Bong Sau , a fist , a palm strike or a finger jab , but in the end its still a Bong Sau.

In the early stages of chi sau training it definitely helps with your focus , and forward force to have your fingers pointing to where you want them to go ie the centerline.
This is a bit like training wheels on a bike .

But if you watch a lot of the masters closely  when they do chi sau their hands are very relaxed and flopping all over the place , but their wrists stay strictly positioned on the centerline.

Because they have been training for so long that their force is focused  so perfectly from their elbow to their wrist it doesn't matter what their hand is doing , you take your hand away and they'll hit you.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Oct 16, 2010)

I dont train under the LT system (thank god), but I know what you mean about the bong sao. Defensively, the bong sao with the palm facing downwards (we will call it Version 2) is rubbish. However, as members have mentioned on here, it is quicker to get that type of bong sao up and moulds very easily into the fut sao strike (chop)

The bong sao with the palm facing forwards (Version 1) is an amazing structure, but is a little slower to get up and its harder to work off of it. 
An interesting little test on how good that kind of bong sao is (and something I do with my students to emphasise the importance of structure), is to get a partner pulling the bong sao downwards. You will notice that Version 2 bong sao is very easy to pull down, whereas Version 1 is very difficult. This is a lot to do with the joints and how the structure utilizes good angles (like a crane). 

Both bong saos have their merit and you have to decide which works for you on a practical level


----------



## izeqb (Oct 16, 2010)

geezer said:


> If you reached 6th Student Grade, you should have a solid grasp of the standard WT bong sau. I trained directly with LT throughout the 80's and your description sounds quite correct. I left the WT system as a 3rd level Technician in the early 90's and just came back to join the new NVTO group here in the States a few years ago. I still do the "classical" version, as I was taught. However, I have noted that the EBMAS WT group sometimes employs the lan-sau variation, for example in the counter to the first attack in WT Chi-Sau, Section 1. The new movement seems more streamlined and aggressively functional _in that particular situation._ However, I am not aware that they have altered bong sau across the board. I rather doubt it. Other groups may have. Anyway, welcome to the ranks of the WT _ronin._ Who do you train with?



I thought I had a pretty good idea of the what and why's about the bongsau... but again, I haven't trained for a couple of years and when I started again, a lot of small details was changed from what I did learn back then...

I've also used the lansau as counter to the first attack previously (if I remember correctly) but what I'm talking about here is while doing poonsau...




Kamon Guy said:


> I dont train under the LT system (thank god), but I know what you mean about the bong sao. Defensively, the bong sao with the palm facing downwards (we will call it Version 2) is rubbish. However, as members have mentioned on here, it is quicker to get that type of bong sao up and moulds very easily into the fut sao strike (chop)
> 
> The bong sao with the palm facing forwards (Version 1) is an amazing structure, but is a little slower to get up and its harder to work off of it.
> An interesting little test on how good that kind of bong sao is (and something I do with my students to emphasise the importance of structure), is to get a partner pulling the bong sao downwards. You will notice that Version 2 bong sao is very easy to pull down, whereas Version 1 is very difficult. This is a lot to do with the joints and how the structure utilizes good angles (like a crane).
> ...



The understanding I got from talking with someone who had trained for a long time, was that "version2" was better as the force was more directed towards the opponents centerline...

I don't understand what you mean by pressing the bong downwards... wouldn't it make much more sense to test what structure is strongest when pushing inwards... Or did I mis something?

Thanks


----------



## izeqb (Oct 16, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> I wouldn't be too worried about what your hand is doing , the important bit is the position of the wrist and that your elbow force is distributed evenly along the forearm.
> 
> I can tack anything I want onto the end of the Bong Sau , a fist , a palm strike or a finger jab , but in the end its still a Bong Sau.
> 
> ...



I'm not really thinking about where the hands are pointing it's more the wrist I'm concerned about...

If the wrist should be vertical (version 1) or horisontal (version 2)... :wink2:


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 16, 2010)

izeqb said:


> I'm not really thinking about where the hands are pointing it's more the wrist I'm concerned about...
> 
> If the wrist should be vertical (version 1) or horisontal (version 2)... :wink2:


 
I dunno then , I didn't even know there were two versions of Bong Sau.
I can't even think of how it could be improved , seems a bit like trying to improve the centerline punch , what are you going to do  , make it even more centerliney ?

If I'm visualising what you are describing correctly then the original version makes use of a full rotation of the forearm whilst the version you describe only rotates to half way stopping when the wrist reaches horizontal.

The power to off balance your opponent with your Bong Sau or to effortlessly absorb and redirect a heavy strike largely comes from the revolving force of your forearm turning fully into Bong Sau.

In my opinion you might not be using this revolving power to its full potential if you are using the second type of Bong Sau.

Another thing I've just noticed from trying it out in the air just then , is that in the original version my bicep stays nice and relaxed , but in the second version there is a noticeable contraction of the bicep taking place , which is not really going to do much for your relaxation in my view.


----------



## izeqb (Oct 16, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> If I'm visualising what you are describing correctly then the original version makes use of a full rotation of the forearm whilst the version you describe only rotates to half way stopping when the wrist reaches horizontal.



Exactly...!



mook jong man said:


> The power to off balance your opponent with your Bong Sau or to effortlessly absorb and redirect a heavy strike largely comes from the revolving force of your forearm turning fully into Bong Sau.
> 
> In my opinion you might not be using this revolving power to its full potential if you are using the second type of Bong Sau.
> 
> Another thing I've just noticed from trying it out in the air just then , is that in the original version my bicep stays nice and relaxed , but in the second version there is a noticeable contraction of the bicep taking place , which is not really going to do much for your relaxation in my view.



You're right about the biceps thing, didn't realize that before 

I'm not sure what's going on with the "version 2" but if I find a good reason to use it that way instead, I'll let you know...


----------



## yak sao (Oct 16, 2010)

I'm in no way trying to disparage anyone here, but, are you sure that the people that you are now under have a firm grasp of what bong sau is?

I've seen so many times where people change something they see as wrong, when in fact there was an incomplete understanding of it.

I trained in AWTO for 10 years and am now a direct student of an old HK student of LT from back in the old days.
Speaking from personal experience, I brought quite a few misconceptions to the table. Had I simply left and "started my own organization", I would have been building from a faulty blueprint.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 16, 2010)

Another reason for the discrepancy in the bong-sao is when one uses it in an improper context. You can get yourself into trouble when you allow the elbow rise above the collarbone(clavicle). The upper body loses connection with the lower and there is no support of structure. This is true of all of the 'sao'. 
 Many try to use the bong-sao for defense against headshots. What they are really doing is using a bong & wu together. This works but you need to be careful of committing two hands to their one because you can be easily trapped that way. May as well just use the wu and leave the other hand free to bridge/ attack another way. The bong-sao is best supported by structure when you are protecting the body with it. And although the wu is still there it is guarding.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 16, 2010)

graychuan said:


> Another reason for the discrepancy in the bong-sao is when one uses it in an improper context. *You can get yourself into trouble when you allow the elbow rise above the collarbone(clavicle)*. The upper body loses connection with the lower and there is no support of structure. This is true of all of the 'sao'.


 

I have to disagree with this statement , as long as the movement is supported by a pivot it will work fine.

For example if you swing a big committed haymaker at my head I can intercept it with a high Bong Sau and let the strike roll right over the top of me as I pivot , in essence his strike is being redirected over a circle.

But if I were to just stand there , then it is only my tiny deltoid muscles supporting my Bong Sau against a very powerful force coming from the side and it will collapse , but used with a pivot it is fine.



graychuan said:


> Many try to use the bong-sao for defense against headshots. What they are really doing is using a bong & wu together. This works but you need to be careful of committing two hands to their one because you can be easily trapped that way. May as well just use the wu and leave the other hand free to bridge/ attack another way. The bong-sao is best supported by structure when you are protecting the body with it. And although the wu is still there it is guarding.


 
Nothing wrong with using two hands , sometimes it is the only way to deal with a lot of power when there is a huge size discrepancy between theopponent and you.

If a huge steroid freak is coming at me with a spinning backfist you better believe that I'm going to use a double Fook Sau to stop it , then counter attack , sometimes there is just no choice.

Using the Bong and the Wu together is ok , but you should be using it against a heavy force where the opponent is committed and you will be using it with a pivot , that way he is shunted off to the side , off balanced and not in a position to trap.


----------



## geezer (Oct 16, 2010)

yak sao said:


> I'm in no way trying to disparage anyone here, but, are you sure that the people that you are now under have a firm grasp of what bong sau is?
> 
> I've seen so many times where people change something they see as wrong, when in fact there was an incomplete understanding of it.
> 
> ...



I agree with Yak. I personally know that the WT way of doing bong sau was consistent from the 70's through at least 2007. The guy I train with earned his Master ranking (Fifth Level Practition) directly from LT and only split away a few years ago. Other members of our group also reached high rank directly under LT and none of us have changed the basic structure and energy of the bong sau in poon sau as you describe. I'm pretty sure that GM Kernspecht of the EWTO teaches the same way. I admit that I don't know exactly what EBMAS uses these days, but last I heard, Emin had not totally changed how they do bong sau either. Now, there are people, like Victor Gutierrez in Spain who have made some pretty major changes, but he doesn't even call his stuff WT anymore. So the question is, who are you training under?  What do they say?


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 16, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> In the early stages of chi sau training it definitely helps with your focus , and forward force to have your fingers pointing to where you want them to go ie the centerline.



+1

Nearly ten years on and I still do this. Helps me keep forward intent, and you can latch horizontally with it better, also helps redirect force into the elbow and along, making it easy to stay relaxed.




mook jong man said:


> I didn't even know there were two versions of Bong Sau.
> I can't even think of how it could be improved , seems a bit like trying to improve the centerline punch , what are you going to do  , make it even more centerliney ?



Yeah I didnt know there was two types. I dont know, does it count as two types if one is wrong and the other is right?  Anything other than the trad bong sau is lazy in my opinion, and so not as structurally strong. I cant think of how one could improve the wing arm either.


----------



## Nabakatsu (Oct 16, 2010)

Jiust wanted to chime in real quick, no time to read the other posts, so sorry if this has already been covered, that said I'll jump right in. I am 5th student level in ebmas, and the ideal bong sau I was taught is as follows:
elbow higher than the shoulder, shoulder obviously back in the socket, wrist below the shoulder, elbow facing towards the opponent, palm is facing as upwards as possible, tis a big stretch for us newbies, even some of the higher level students, I'm blessed with flexible shoulders though. so yeah, I would get my butt kicked my sifu if I was doing a lan sau instead of a bong sau.


----------



## izeqb (Oct 17, 2010)

Nabakatsu said:


> Jiust wanted to chime in real quick, no time to read the other posts, so sorry if this has already been covered, that said I'll jump right in. I am 5th student level in ebmas, and the ideal bong sau I was taught is as follows:
> elbow higher than the shoulder, shoulder obviously back in the socket, wrist below the shoulder, elbow facing towards the opponent, palm is facing as upwards as possible, tis a big stretch for us newbies, even some of the higher level students, I'm blessed with flexible shoulders though. so yeah, I would get my butt kicked my sifu if I was doing a lan sau instead of a bong sau.



Thanks... very helpful...


----------



## geezer (Oct 17, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> ...I didnt know there was two types. I dont know, does it count as two types if one is wrong and the other is right?



Yeah, looking at it that way, there are two ways to do anything! 

BTW I love your signature. I've got a lot of respect for anyone who can be an instructor in one art and have the curiosity and humility to study a second art and honestly admit being a noob! I guess I've had to deal with too many people with the _"I'm the all-knowing sifu"_ syndrome... if you know what I mean.


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 18, 2010)

Nabakatsu said:


> elbow higher than the shoulder, shoulder obviously back in the socket, wrist below the shoulder, elbow facing towards the opponent, palm is facing as upwards as possible,



So, with the elbow higher than the shoulder, and your wrist below your shoulder, wouldnt that mean your elbow is pointing up in the air somewhat?  Not being a smart ****, maybe you just explained it wrong, but that sounds like a really strange Bong mate...



geezer said:


> Yeah, looking at it that way, there are two ways to do anything!
> 
> BTW I love your signature. I've got a lot of respect for anyone who can be an instructor in one art and have the curiosity and humility to study a second art and honestly admit being a noob! I guess I've had to deal with too many people with the _"I'm the all-knowing sifu"_ syndrome... if you know what I mean.



Yeah, some of my Chun students attend the same BJJ classes (I brought them into it) and so I think a few of them get a chuckle seeing me be so crap at it after running classes for them the night before in Chun. A couple of them are a lot bigger than me too so when we grapple they kick my ****, so probably feels pretty damn good for them lol. One of my seniors at BJJ found out how long I had been doing Chun, and that I was senior to all the boys at BJJ in it (apart from one) and said "Wow so you could kick my ****?". I smiled and said "not on the ground I couldnt"


----------



## Nabakatsu (Oct 19, 2010)

Yeah, the elbow is pointing a little bit in the air.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 19, 2010)

Its all very fine if you disagree with that statement. Thats your prerogative. However I must disagree with you when you say....



mook jong man said:


> ... as long as the movement is supported by a pivot it will work fine.



The reason is because there still must be attention paid to structure as it applies to Wing Chun and as the principles/forms suggest. Especially SLT. Now if you suggest that a turn is all you need then I disagree. Now my statement specifically suggested no movement at all without consideration of how its supported by proper structure. &#8216;Just being supported buy a pivot&#8217; is not enough. Whether  you are doing CK, BJ or MYJ the lessons of SLT are never absent. If they are then one has lost the &#8216;idea&#8217;.





mook jong man said:


> For example if you swing a big committed haymaker at my head I can intercept it with a high Bong Sau and let the strike roll right over the top of me as I pivot , in essence his strike is being redirected over a circle.
> 
> But if I were to just stand there , then it is only my tiny deltoid muscles supporting my Bong Sau against a very powerful force coming from the side and it will collapse , but used with a pivot it is fine.




 Now with regard to your example....
It depends on what you mean by at &#8216;big committed haymaker&#8217;. If you are talking about the undisciplined raise-the-elbow-cocked-back-hook/punch-John Wayne- type of strike then ...

 1.If its that high I probably wouldn&#8217;t try to intercept with a bong sao. You see those &#8216;haymakers&#8217; coming from a mile away. I would still step to the inside and use a Wu-Da, or just come over it with a Lop-Da and keep it simple. This allows me to be on the defensive AND the offensive immediately. Thus no turn, no rolling over an arm to a strike and no circle for this particular exchange.
2. The so-called &#8216;high bong sao&#8217; you are using is exactly that...too high. Thats why you need the turn. I would suggest a Fak Sao (which could be what you are actually talking about but I don&#8217;t know because you are also the one who does a Tan-Sao with the pinky side of your arm). Its &#8216;bong sao family&#8217; but it still keeps the elbows within the range of the collarbones even though the wrist can sway above a couple inches. This gives you the inside on intercepting a punch like that and allows you to bridge with a structure that is within the domain of SLT. With regard to &#8216;bong family&#8217; bridging: a biu sao to the inside of that arm as you face the attack would also work. By taking the inside line you still don&#8217;t have to turn unless you are turning into the attack. Ultimately I would rather face the attack and jam,slice,grab or wedge instead of turning away from it, and as long as I&#8217;m using structure first then I don&#8217;t have to worry about my &#8216;tiny deltoid muscles&#8217;.
 3. If then the strike is coming down the middle and straight up the pipe then this isn&#8217;t exactly a &#8216;haymaker&#8217;. Instead its pretty shrewd attack and it depends on if he is head hunting or body striking as to what I would do. But It would be supported by fundamental SLT structure, not just a pivot.





mook jong man said:


> Nothing wrong with using two hands , sometimes it is the only way to deal with a lot of power when there is a huge size discrepancy between theopponent and you.
> 
> If a huge steroid freak is coming at me with a spinning backfist you better believe that I'm going to use a double Fook Sau to stop it , then counter attack , sometimes there is just no choice.



 With regard to the spinning backfist attack from the roid freak... 

1. In the event that some untrained churl tried to attack me by giving me his back and taking his eyes off me right away then I would deal with that in an even simpler fashion, roid rage or no. Principle are principles. They  have been around for 300years(that we know for sure) and they hold up. 

2. Its off topic and I had no reason to get into it anyway. Now back on topic.




mook jong man said:


> Using the Bong and the Wu together is ok , but you should be using it against a heavy force where the opponent is committed and you will be using it with a pivot , that way he is shunted off to the side , off balanced and not in a position to trap.



Never said a bong/wu wasn&#8217;t ok, just that you needed to be careful(especially when you are throwing it high like you suggest), then I offered an alternative. I also suggest that whatever response your training dictates in the event of an attack that it should not be outside of the principles of SLT otherwise it is not Wing Chun....it is something else.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 19, 2010)

graychuan said:


> The reason is because there still must be attention paid to structure as it applies to Wing Chun and as the principles/forms suggest. Especially SLT. Now if you suggest that a turn is all you need then I disagree. .


 
The reason I turn is because I have tried to pierce on the inside with the Tan Sau but the resistance is too great , my angles are in danger of collapse so I redirect his force by means of a pivot to the side , trap the resistance and strike with a fak sau.
You don't automatically pivot with the Bong and Wu , only when your Tan sau has met with resistance.





graychuan said:


> Now with regard to your example....
> It depends on what you mean by at big committed haymaker. If you are talking about the undisciplined raise-the-elbow-cocked-back-hook/punch-John Wayne- type of strike then ...
> 
> 1.If its that high I probably wouldnt try to intercept with a bong sao. You see those haymakers coming from a mile away. I would still step to the inside and use a Wu-Da, or just come over it with a Lop-Da and keep it simple. This allows me to be on the defensive AND the offensive immediately. Thus no turn, no rolling over an arm to a strike and no circle for this particular exchange.
> ...


 
I'm talking about a very fast hook directed at the head , with full body torque by a large individual bent on your destruction .
I'm solid at 90 kg but I'm only 5 foot 2 inches tall , if I tried to Fak sau somebodies arm like that my arm would probably be torn off at the socket and my head caved in.

What we use in my lineage is a movement called a Dai sau , its half way between a Tan Sau and a Bong Sau it is simply raised up and deflects the punch up and away from your head.

This Dai sau coupled with a punch works fantastically well , I can just move square on and into the attacker.
But when the force is almost coming directly from the side as in a hook , we must have a back up plan in case the force of the hook is too much for us to handle .

So rather than the Dai sau collapse and we get hit , we convert the Dai sau into a high very circular Bong Sau with a pivot that redirects the force harmlessly over in front of our heads and allows us to trap the resistance and strike through much the same as the Bong Sau / Wu Sau , lap and fak sau combo.

Although the basis is the structure of Sil Lum Tao form , the techniques are derived from the Chum Kiu form .




graychuan said:


> but I dont know because you are also the one who does a Tan-Sao with the pinky side of your arm).


 
Yes that would be me , in our lineage a Tan Sau is a Tan Sau.
It doesn't matter whether we deflect his punch with the thumb side of our Tan Sau on the inside of his punch or deflect with the pinky side of our Tan Sau on the outside of his wrist .

Although it is preferable to get on the inside of his arm so we have the inside running so to speak , sometimes it is not possible and that avenue is closed off and it is just as easy to deflect on the outside of his arm and strike through that way.

The only other Tan Sau we use is when you have ended up with the thumb side of the Tan Sau on the outside of his wrist , this is a rather weak structure by itself .

But we get around this by going with the opponents force , by pivoting back on the side of our Tan Sau , and sinking the elbow down with our elbow and forearm pointed back at his centerline , looks a bit like you are holding a small book in one hand and reading it 

This pulls the opponent down and into range for an elbow strike from our Tan Sau when we pivot back into him .

We call this one the "reverse" Tan Sau.
Because as the name suggests instead of going forward , it yields and goes back putting the opponent in a very bad off balanced position as it does so.


----------



## zepedawingchun (Oct 19, 2010)

graychuan said:


> . . . . . . . . .
> 1.If its that high I probably wouldnt try to intercept with a bong sao. You see those haymakers coming from a mile away. I would still step to the inside and use a Wu-Da, or just come over it with a Lop-Da and keep it simple. This allows me to be on the defensive AND the offensive immediately. Thus no turn, no rolling over an arm to a strike and no circle for this particular exchange.


 
Use a Biu sao or biu da instead.  It's simular to a biu jee except you use the edge of the hand (outside edge round bone on the side of the hand below palm called pistaform) rather than the fingers to strike.  Looks like the biu jee from the second set of the Biu Jee form  The elbow is slightly bend which forms the position much like a bow, hand slightly above the height of the shoulder.  You position the hand on your centerline and shift, rotating the hand to the biu sao going forward to intercept the haymaker punch, inside the attackers punching line, striking the inner forearm.  Your da or simultaneous punch to strike the opponent on the throat or chin.  




graychuan said:


> 2. The so-called high bong sao you are using is exactly that...too high. Thats why you need the turn. .


 
Almost any punch, thrown as a hook or curved, to the neck or head should be handled by a biu sao.  That's what it was designed for.  Muay Thai fighters use a variation of it.  When they enter and raise their knees, both hands and arms are up and forward to use as a deflection or wedge to enter or defend an attack from their opponent.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 19, 2010)

zepedawingchun said:


> Use a Biu sao or biu da instead....
> 
> ...Almost any punch, thrown as a hook or curved, to the neck or head should be handled by a biu sao.  That's what it was designed for.  Muay Thai fighters use a variation of it.  When they enter and raise their knees, both hands and arms are up and forward to use as a deflection or wedge to enter or defend an attack from their opponent.




Im right with you, ZEPE. I also mentioned the 'Bong Family' possibilities in Point #2 about midway through the paragraph. Although a Wu Da would also work, but a last we are on the same page.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 19, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> The reason I turn is because I have tried to pierce on the inside with the Tan Sau but the resistance is too great , my angles are in danger of collapse so I redirect his force by means of a pivot to the side , trap the resistance and strike with a fak sau.
> You don't automatically pivot with the Bong and Wu , only when your Tan sau has met with resistance.



Maybe its because you are using the wrong side of your hand? 





mook jong man said:


> What we use in my lineage is a movement called a Dai sau , *its half way between a Tan Sau and a Bong Sau * it is simply raised up and deflects the punch up and away from your head.



  As long as you are doing a Tan with the pinky side of your hand I will continue to be confused by your references to techniques/applications.





mook jong man said:


> The only other Tan Sau we use is when you have ended up with the thumb side of the Tan Sau on the outside of his wrist , this is a rather weak structure by itself .



THIS I utterly and completely disagree with. SLT teaches the structure needed to support EVERY movement in WC.






mook jong man said:


> We call this one the* "reverse" Tan Sau*.
> Because as the name suggests instead of going forward , *it yields and goes back* putting the opponent in a very bad off balanced position as it does so.




Never heard of a 'reverse' Tan Sao any more that a 'reverse' Bong or Fook. Im interested now. Does your line/school/kwoon use both sides of the hand on a Bong Sao as well? What about the Fook? Both sides there too? Makes me wonder what your Phoon Sao and Luk Sao look like.

Also, with regard to that 'moving back' thing. How does it yield without letting the elbows drop back into the body and still have the forward asking energy which is a common staple of Wing Chun?


----------



## izeqb (Oct 19, 2010)

zepedawingchun said:


> Use a Biu sao or biu da instead.  It's simular to a biu jee except you use the edge of the hand (outside edge round bone on the side of the hand below palm called pistaform) rather than the fingers to strike.  Looks like the biu jee from the second set of the Biu Jee form  The elbow is slightly bend which forms the position much like a bow, hand slightly above the height of the shoulder.  You position the hand on your centerline and shift, rotating the hand to the biu sao going forward to intercept the haymaker punch, inside the attackers punching line, striking the inner forearm.  Your da or simultaneous punch to strike the opponent on the throat or chin.


 
 Are you talking about something like this:










zepedawingchun said:


> Almost any punch, thrown as a hook or curved, to the neck or head should be handled by a biu sao.  That's what it was designed for.  Muay Thai fighters use a variation of it.  When they enter and raise their knees, both hands and arms are up and forward to use as a deflection or wedge to enter or defend an attack from their opponent.



Now, I've seen this before, against haymakers... However, I've always used tansau, to deal with haymakers and hooks.

Is the Biu Sau somewhere in the SNT or CK forms?
We have the high(er) bongsau in Chun Kiu, but I'm not sure about the Bui Sau one... Please enlighten me


----------



## graychuan (Oct 19, 2010)

yak sao said:


> I'm in no way trying to disparage anyone here, but, *are you sure that the people that you are now under have a firm grasp of what bong sau is*?



The best response in this whole thread in my opinion. Gets right to the heart of the question.



yak sao said:


> I've seen so many times where *people change something they see as wrong, when in fact there was an incomplete understanding of it.*



Such as the Tan Sao maybe? 





yak sao said:


> I trained in AWTO for 10 years and am now a direct student of an old HK student of LT from back in the old days.
> Speaking from personal experience, I brought quite a few misconceptions to the table. Had I simply left and "started my own organization", I would have been building from a faulty blueprint.



BullsEye!


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 19, 2010)

Tan, Fook, Dai, Chit and Bong Sau are all pretty blanket moves. I dont worry about what side of what or what hand or anything, seeing as you dont know 100% what your attacker is doing you cant counter with 100% the right move. Theres many times in attacking-drills where I mistake what my opponent was doing but re-direct his attack anyway, thats how (most of) the movements should be. Otherwise your thinking 'what move counters this' a la BJJ or something, as opposed to just getting your hands up quickly to intercept the attack and reacting to its force and movement. Tying up the hands is better than nothing, especially if youve spent lots of time on Chi Sau as you can clear those hands quickly. Relying on one nice parry and punch vs their first attack then fight over isnt very realistic. Doesnt mean you shoudlnt train to be that perfect, of course you should, but bear in mind most fights wont go that smoothly.

Im confused about people saying that one side of the hand is 'wrong' in Tan Sau, seeing as Tan is so versatile (hence it being one of the core three - Tan/Fuk/Bong)

Tan Sau vs. Right cross? (thumb side of your right hand shears their forearm)
Tan Sau vs Left cross? (pinky side of your right hand shears their forearm)
Tan Sau vs Spinning backhand?
Etc

Tan works for all of these. Go try it if you dont think so.

For hooks to the head Tan and Bong suck really (Tan moreso). Especially if youve ever tried this on a good boxer (I have) who hooks tight, or who can adjust his hook mid strike etc. This is what Dai Sau/Chit Sau are for (aka: four corners) and they do it very well. Also Dai Sau rolls into Bong if you want it to, which in turn comes into Tan obviously (in case he follows up the hook with a cross or straight, which many boxers will do).



			
				graychuan said:
			
		

> Also, with regard to that 'moving back' thing. How does it yield without letting the elbows drop back into the body and still have the forward asking energy which is a common staple of Wing Chun?



It takes time, but you can learn to have that forward intent, that being "on" feeling, whilst still psychically moving your hand back. Nothing wrong with your elbow going a bit back (as long as its not too much) in fact against a very strong attack (unless your circles are perfect) this will probably happen a bit. Also its possible to pivot the body, your elbow not moving at all, to maintain forward force while "moving back".

Same with heaps of movements (Bong into Tan, is moving "down" yet "up/forward" etc). These juxtapositions are what makes Chun so interesting (ie: firm but soft, forward but backward etc)


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 19, 2010)

graychuan said:


> Maybe its because you are using the wrong side of your hand?


 
No I am using the thumb side of the Tan Sau on the inside of his wrist , but you can't always get through on the inside , it is preferable but not always possible.

It really depends on what type of force he is giving me , his force might be coming down or slightly across , it is better for me to redirect his force rather than let his force disrupt my stance.

I seem to be having trouble making myself understood , so here's a guy I used to train with demonstrating the technique.





 



graychuan said:


> As long as you are doing a Tan with the pinky side of your hand I will continue to be confused by your references to techniques/applications.


 
Its still a Tan Sau , what side does it matter its on .

If I aim a gun at you and shoot you in the head or in the balls what does it matter , you've still been hit by a bullet.




graychuan said:


> THIS I utterly and completely disagree with. SLT teaches the structure needed to support EVERY movement in WC.


 
You are correct in your assertion , but it doesn't suddenly make you "superman".
It certainly helps , a great deal in fact.
But as I said I'm only five foot two and I have trained with some huge bastards over the years , so believe me I have learned to redirect force and pivot.








graychuan said:


> Never heard of a 'reverse' Tan Sao any more that a 'reverse' Bong or Fook. Im interested now. Does your line/school/kwoon use both sides of the hand on a Bong Sao as well? What about the Fook? Both sides there too? Makes me wonder what your Phoon Sao and Luk Sao look like.
> 
> Also, with regard to that 'moving back' thing. How does it yield without letting the elbows drop back into the body and still have the forward asking energy which is a common staple of Wing Chun?


 
Regarding the reverse Tan Sau. 
Ok imagine you have your guard on and I use my right hand to press on the outside of your right wrist giving you some pressure.

If you just rotated into Tan Sau and pivoted , your Tan sau would be on your centerline but facing away from your opponents centerline which is no good to us at all.

To remedy this the elbow of your Tan sau comes out laterally away from your body so that the elbow and forearm can line up focused back at the opponents centerline when I have pivoted

Even though the arm is coming back , it is like a spring with forward force focused back at the opponent at all times.

The elbow doesn't drop back into the body , the angle is maintained.
We sink the whole arm from the shoulder joint thus redirecting the force down and to the side.
For the opponent it feels like he is trying to press on the edge of a circle that is moving.

As far as I know there is no reverse Fook Sau or reverse Bong Sau that I am aware of .

The chi sau just looks like normal chi sau.

Heres some vids.

chi sau with elbow trap




 
Here is Sigung explaining lap sau.





 
Heres one of my old instructors playing around with a student.





 
Just some normal relaxed rolling , I used to train with the instructor with the dyed blond hair , he'd probably beat seven shades of crap out of me now.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 19, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> Tan Sau vs Left cross? (pinky side of your right hand shears their forearm)
> .





This is what we call a Garm/Gaam/Jaam Sao. Different side of the arm, totally different bone, totally different energy.. This is where we will continue to disagree.





BloodMoney said:


> ...hand is 'wrong' in Tan Sau, seeing as Tan is so versatile (hence it being one of the core three - Tan/Fuk/Bong)....



And which of the core three families, eh? I say fook family for the Garm/Gaam/Jaam Sao(Pinkyside). Elbow is down, Using the Unla bone. Also from this particular scenario you have come across your body to the inside of his strike offering your corner to him. So the next main move that is usually done when I see this one is that they bend that Garm Sao in and hook with the pinky and fingers(fook) and continue a roll(Heun Sao-another fook family move) to gain the outside and flank or even whip it out like the turning fooks in Biu Gee.
  Now a right Tan Sao to the inside of his left cross will bridge with the thumb side(radius) and also not offer him your corner(Chi Sao). There is no part of the basic Phoon Sao roll or structure(which defines the three families) where the Tan is on the pinky side. These are and will remain two totally different energies.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 19, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> Tan, Fook, Dai, Chit and Bong Sau are all pretty blanket moves. I dont worry about what side of what or what hand or anything, seeing as you dont know 100% what your attacker is doing you cant counter with 100% the right move. Theres many times in attacking-drills where I mistake what my opponent was doing but re-direct his attack anyway, thats how (most of) the movements should be. Otherwise your thinking 'what move counters this' a la BJJ or something, as opposed to just getting your hands up quickly to intercept the attack and reacting to its force and movement. Tying up the hands is better than nothing, especially if youve spent lots of time on Chi Sau as you can clear those hands quickly. Relying on one nice parry and punch vs their first attack then fight over isnt very realistic. Doesnt mean you shoudlnt train to be that perfect, of course you should, but bear in mind most fights wont go that smoothly.
> 
> Im confused about people saying that one side of the hand is 'wrong' in Tan Sau, seeing as Tan is so versatile (hence it being one of the core three - Tan/Fuk/Bong)
> 
> ...


 
Cheers bro , explained it much better than I did.   :asian:


----------



## graychuan (Oct 19, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> No I am using the thumb side of the Tan Sau on the inside of his wrist , but you can't always get through on the inside , it is preferable but not always possible.
> 
> It really depends on what type of force he is giving me , his force might be coming down or slightly across , it is better for me to redirect his force rather than let his force disrupt my stance.
> 
> I seem to be having trouble making myself understood , so here's a guy I used to train with demonstrating the technique.



With regard to this first video( havent had time to watch the rest)...
Im assuming you are talking about the guy in the blue. Now I really want some help from some others in the forum here because what I saw was a Bong reinforced by a Wu into two Lop Saos(grabbing hands) then the chop and punches. Lets hear from some others in here please? I was looking for a Tan Sao.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 19, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Heres some vids.
> 
> chi sau with elbow trap
> 
> ...



That first one was very clean indeed. Entered with Lan Sao energy followed through to Bong Sao to feed into the left arm as he grabbed the right. Once you have control of both arms you are pretty much set. I stated this a lot in my Bastard son thread.

Tsu's videos are always good. My MYJ is pretty close to his. I got a couple of knee strikes in mine.

As for the last two...without any criticism to either side....I choose 2.


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 19, 2010)

graychuan said:


> This is what we call a Garm/Gaam/Jaam Sao. Different side of the arm, totally different bone, totally different energy.. This is where we will continue to disagree.



Yeah im not really one for a million different names for things. I understand this might be the traditional way, and I apologize for my ignorance but I try and keep it simple as - so we use very few terms and we dont break down movements into micro portions and name each one



graychuan said:


> And which of the core three families, eh? I say fook family for the Garm/Gaam/Jaam Sao(Pinkyside). Elbow is down, Using the Unla bone. Also from this particular scenario you have come across your body to the inside of his strike offering your corner to him. So the next main move that is usually done when I see this one is that they bend that Garm Sao in and hook with the pinky and fingers(fook) and continue a roll(Heun Sao-another fook family move) to gain the outside and flank or even whip it out like the turning fooks in Biu Gee.
> Now a right Tan Sao to the inside of his left cross will bridge with the thumb side(radius) and also not offer him your corner(Chi Sao). There is no part of the basic Phoon Sao roll or structure(which defines the three families) where the Tan is on the pinky side. These are and will remain two totally different energies.



Once again I dont actually know what half those movements are. I mean, I probably do physically but I dont know all the technical Chinese names for them.

Re: energies I try and have the same or similar core energy or feeling to every movement. Subtle adjustments and corrections happen of their own volition once youve drilled them enough. If multiple movements in your Chun have "totally different energies" then im confused to be honest. All my movements have basically the same energy ("forward")

Yes they can feel different, it depends where your circles or triangles connect with your opponents limbs, and how hes moving. To me this is just adding more depth and understanding (to say Tan Sau, instead of different applications being called different things its just Tan but as you get more advanced you understand how to make it more 3D and applicable to different attacks).

I think the difference is between traditional gung fu Chinese style and more modernized square on striking arts. Ive found that our style is a bit more simplistic and boxing like, with as few 'moves' as possible. I was shocked to find out how many old school Chinese masters had admitted to never using Chun on the street, or many never having been in a fight before in their lives. Trust me after a few spars with some of these new school MMA boys or modern boxers ones application of Chun definitely changes (or should, if you dont like getting knocked out).


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 19, 2010)

graychuan said:


> With regard to this first video( havent had time to watch the rest)...
> Im assuming you are talking about the guy in the blue. Now I really want some help from some others in the forum here because what I saw was a Bong reinforced by a Wu into two Lop Saos(grabbing hands) then the chop and punches. Lets hear from some others in here please? I was looking for a Tan Sao.


 
You are right he didn't use a Tan Sau , *but he should have at least tried to pierce through* , but everything after that is technically correct
He took a passive option of just redirecting the force , the advantage of trying to pierce through first is that you might get lucky and get through.

But even if you don't get through , your initial resistance will make the attacker try and commit more of his body weight to overcome that resistance so that when he is finally redirected he will end up even more off balanced than he normally would have been.


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 19, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> He took a passive option of just redirecting the force , the advantage of trying to pierce through first is that you might get lucky and get through.
> 
> But even if you don't get through , your initial resistance will make the attacker try and commit more of his body weight to overcome that resistance so that when he is finally redirected he will end up even more off balanced than he normally would have been.



This is basically our "style", this is pretty much _the_ philosophy behind the VCK association. Far too many styles of Chun ive seen are too passive, when I personally see Chun as a very aggressive and overwhelming art, not a sit back and react art. So yeah, of course I agree with you, but that doesnt mean I am dismissing more passive or defensive flavors of Chun, its just what I prefer.

Fighting often involves quite a lot of random chance and luck (especially stand up striking, ground fighting/submission stuff is a bit different). So the way I see it you can either get lucky and block the attack, or get lucky and KO them, _whilst_ greatly weakening if not 100% blocking the attack.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 20, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> This is basically our "style", this is pretty much _the_ philosophy behind the VCK association. Far too many styles of Chun ive seen are too passive, when I personally see Chun as a very aggressive and overwhelming art, not a sit back and react art. So yeah, of course I agree with you, but that doesnt mean I am dismissing more passive or defensive flavors of Chun, its just what I prefer.
> 
> Fighting often involves quite a lot of random chance and luck (especially stand up striking, ground fighting/submission stuff is a bit different). So the way I see it you can either get lucky and block the attack, or get lucky and KO them, _whilst_ greatly weakening if not 100% blocking the attack.


 
Thats exactly right , and that is the genius behind forward force.
You push a human being and he starts pushing back , which is ultimately his undoing.

We use forward force in a controlled measured way from a stable base , but to the opponent it feels like a lot of force is coming at them and they must try and overcome it or at least equalise it .

The problem for them is that ours is coming from our stance theirs is coming from committed bodyweight and muscular force which leads to them having their balance manipulated.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 20, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Thats exactly right , and that is the genius behind forward force.
> You push a human being and he starts pushing back , which is ultimately his undoing.
> .




Yes Siiiiiiir! This is the kind of Wing Chun I try to do. You Ask(push). They Answer(pushback).


----------



## zepedawingchun (Oct 21, 2010)

izeqb said:


> Are you talking about something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, that it is.  That biu sao first shows up in Chum Kiu, first part of the form, several hand positions before the bong saos.  Look for it, you'll find it.  Then again in Biu Jee form, second part last motions.  It is used for high hooking or arcing punches to the neck and head.  Tan and bong sao are meant to handle punches or strikes between the lower abdomin (stomach) and to the bottom of the neck.


----------



## zepedawingchun (Oct 21, 2010)

graychuan said:


> Im right with you, ZEPE. I also mentioned the 'Bong Family' possibilities in Point #2 about midway through the paragraph. Although a Wu Da would also work, but a last we are on the same page.


 
As I was taught, you should never raise or use a bong sao for anything to the side of the neck or above.  Structurely, it is too weak and leaves the abdomin too open.  With a biu sao, it allows you to drop your elbow if needed (for a tan sao with a shift) if the direction of the attack is changed.


----------



## zepedawingchun (Oct 21, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> No I am using the thumb side of the Tan Sau on the inside of his wrist , but you can't always get through on the inside , it is preferable but not always possible.
> 
> It really depends on what type of force he is giving me , his force might be coming down or slightly across , it is better for me to redirect his force rather than let his force disrupt my stance.
> 
> I seem to be having trouble making myself understood , so here's a guy I used to train with demonstrating the technique.


 
I didn't see a tan sao in there.  I'm assuming your talking about the dark haired gentleman in the blue shift responding to an attack.  I saw a bong sao yielding, then a lop (lap) sao with a left wu sao supporting the bong sao, then the wu sao does the lop.  Doesn't look like any tan sao in there.






mook jong man said:


> Regarding the reverse Tan Sau.
> Ok imagine you have your guard on and I use my right hand to press on the outside of your right wrist giving you some pressure.
> 
> If you just rotated into Tan Sau and pivoted , your Tan sau would be on your centerline but facing away from your opponents centerline which is no good to us at all.
> ...


 
We call this a crossing tan sao.  It is used mainly when you are having to defend a punch in which you have stepped into an attackers center and the energy from the punch is attempting to come into your center.  It's usually done with a shift.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 21, 2010)

zepedawingchun said:


> I didn't see a tan sao in there. I'm assuming your talking about the dark haired gentleman in the blue shift responding to an attack. I saw a bong sao yielding, then a lop (lap) sao with a left wu sao supporting the bong sao, then the wu sao does the lop. Doesn't look like any tan sao in there.


 
No he didn't , but he should have , or at least tried to pierce through with his guard.
I was in a bit of a hurry when I put it up and didn't look at it properly.

As I alluded to earlier a lot of the time you will get through , but just in case you don't , a bit of forward force first will make the redirection that much more effective.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 21, 2010)

zepedawingchun said:


> Yes, that it is.  That biu sao first shows up in Chum Kiu, first part of the form, several hand positions before the bong saos.  Look for it, you'll find it.  Then again in Biu Jee form, second part last motions.  It is used for high hooking or arcing punches to the neck and head.  Tan and bong sao are meant to handle punches or strikes between the lower abdomin (stomach) and to the bottom of the neck.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In our (Augustine Fong) sil lim tau- the seed of the biu gee is in the two handed shooting out in part 2 of the form right after the double jam and jut.
When you apply it -sugggestion: do not straighten out your elbow- straightening out is for devlopment. Donald Mak who is shown doing the biu gee on this thread is a good guy in Hong Kong.

Joy Chaudhuri


----------



## wtxs (Oct 21, 2010)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In our (Augustine Fong) sil lim tau- the seed of the biu gee is in the two handed shooting out in part 2 of the form right after the double jam and jut.
> When you apply it -sugggestion: do not straighten out your elbow- straightening out is for devlopment. Donald Mak who is shown doing the biu gee on this thread is a good guy in Hong Kong.
> 
> Joy Chaudhuri



Hello Joy,  good call on the Bil Gee seed.

Very few WCners realize the birth place of the Bil Gee/Sao  is within the SLT.  Some goes so far as to suggested it existed only in the third hand form.


----------



## graychuan (Oct 21, 2010)

zepedawingchun said:


> As I was taught, you should never raise or use a bong sao for anything to the side of the neck or above.  Structurely, it is too weak and leaves the abdomin too open.  With a biu sao, it allows you to drop your elbow if needed (for a tan sao with a shift) if the direction of the attack is changed.



Can I get an AMEN?!?!


----------



## graychuan (Oct 21, 2010)

zepedawingchun said:


> ....We call this a crossing tan sao.  It is used mainly when you are having to defend a punch in which you have stepped into an attackers center and the energy from the punch is attempting to come into your center....  It's usually done with a shift.



ZEPE, referring to the same example he gave you regarding the right palm press against the right Tan-Sao....

We also do this but the elbow stays forward off the body and doesn't go lateral. The Tan Sao 'opens' from the rotation of the humerus bone(shoulder down to elbow) along its axis so that the edge of the thumb-side is in line with the outside edge of shoulder instead of the center. We call this moving to the 'square'(extend both hands forward straight off the shoulders-like from CK- and this will show you the 'square'). Use this along with the pivot and the forward energy and this action will steal that line. Even with the power of the press coming in, the structure with that pivot will prevail.
 This is a subtle difference but I clearly understand what you are getting at. We are definitely barking up the same tree. :ultracool Thank you.


----------



## zepedawingchun (Oct 21, 2010)

graychuan said:


> ZEPE, referring to the same example he gave you regarding the right palm press against the right Tan-Sao....
> 
> We also do this but the elbow stays forward off the body and doesn't go lateral.


 
Same here, the elbow(s) never touches the side of the body.  It should remain at the fixed (immovable) elbow position.


----------



## Domino (Oct 22, 2010)

izeqb said:


> Hi everybody...
> 
> I've recently started training wing chun again after a few years break...
> I used to train in the Leung Ting Wing Tsun system and got a 6th student grade...
> ...



http://www.kwokwingchun.co.uk/techniques/bong-sau


----------



## Si-Je (Nov 25, 2010)

izeqb said:


> Hi everybody...
> 
> I've recently started training wing chun again after a few years break...
> I used to train in the Leung Ting Wing Tsun system and got a 6th student grade...
> ...


 
Oh, dear! That sounds like Dai Sau. Only Dai Sau doesn't have the same angle from wrist to elbow as bong sau. Could you show a pic of it? 
Say, when you do Si Lim Tau form and go from Tan Sau to Bong Sau, What is in the middle? Maybe this new "bong sau" your learning. 
Neato.

One question, Where are your fingers pointing with this back of the hand upward bong sau? 
Okay, two questions, lol! Does your elbow go as high as your temple with the forearm parallel to the floor?

Sounds like Dai Sau. 
Yes, alot has changed since the deali-o with LT and such. Are they calling this movement "bong sau?" I think alot of wing chun teachers are shying away from traditional bong sau. 
A pitty though, it is difficult to teach and apply until much later in training and can easily be used incorrectly but is still important for getting to the outside of the opponent's centerline.


----------



## izeqb (Nov 26, 2010)

Si-Je said:


> Oh, dear! That sounds like Dai Sau. Only Dai Sau doesn't have the same angle from wrist to elbow as bong sau. Could you show a pic of it?
> Say, when you do Si Lim Tau form and go from Tan Sau to Bong Sau, What is in the middle? Maybe this new "bong sau" your learning.
> Neato.



Isn't that Lan-Sai (barrier arm)...?



Si-Je said:


> One question, Where are your fingers pointing with this back of the hand upward bong sau?
> Okay, two questions, lol! Does your elbow go as high as your temple with the forearm parallel to the floor?
> 
> Sounds like Dai Sau.
> ...



A lot of stuff has happened since I wrote the OP.
And the stuff I was told wasn't true.. 

It was a misunderstanding that another student had gotten... So, we're still using good old bon-sau


----------

