# Bong Sau



## Hong Kong Pooey (Oct 23, 2014)

This is something I really seem to struggle with, a lot of the time I'm either too tense or it collapses, too high or too low. I think it's ok in SNT but when we're doing applications is when it seems to go wrong.

Do you guys have any great tips or insights that can help flick the switch so the light bulb comes on for me?

I'm a WT student, just started on Chum Kiu to give you an idea of where I'm at and how much I've still got to learn.

I will of course ask my teacher when I can, but haven't got class again till next week so thought it was worth a shot


----------



## geezer (Oct 23, 2014)

The *WT* bong-sau works a little differently than bong in some other lineages. We start training bong with an _artificial position_ (as found in the forms) with the arm bent at 135 degrees, the shoulder relaxed, the elbow rotated fully upwards, and the bridge on the centerline. Another thing to watch for, the upper arm (shoulder to elbow) should be pointing straight forward parallel to the centerline, and _not angled outward like a chicken wing_. This will give you some parameters to check your positioning.

Now the catch is that _this position isn't really bong-sau at all. _Bong-sau is what happens when your opponent's force bends your arm like a springy piece of rattan, and rolls it over so that the bow of the spring bends upward. This is the real, dynamic bong-sau as conceived in the WT system. It is what happens when your attacking hand meets and is "deformed" by opposing pressure. It must be very elastic and constantly press forward like a bent spring. It's height and angle all depend on the pressure you receive so the position in the form is just a sort of generic guide. When you get a little further into chi-sau this will become apparent. 

BTW I'm "ex WT". I had a great conversation tonight with a local WT guy. (Shhh. They really shouldn't be talking to _exiles_ like me)  Apparently he's off to take a seminar with LT down at WP's school in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe your sifu is going?


----------



## yak sao (Oct 24, 2014)

Bong sau is not easy. Part of the problem is developing proper shoulder flexibility, which comes in part, from practicing bong sau.
A common mistake is lifting the bong sau. Don't think of your bong sau as lifting, instead think of it spiraling forward within the 135 degree angle that geezer described.

Initially think of your middle finger as being a drill bit and drilling into the air as your arm moves forward in space. Once you've got the concept, get the focus off of your hand and think of the forearm/elbow, but continue with the spiraling motion.

Checkpoints: Shoulder and elbow are on the same plane. as if up against the wall. The wrist is on the center line, not the actual wrist joint but about 2 finger widths up from the styloid process ( the bony prominence on the pinky side of your forearm.)
 Hand is relaxed.
After oh, 1000 or so repititions in the air and a few hours of poon sau it starts to come together.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 24, 2014)

geezer said:


> BTW I'm "ex WT". I had a great conversation tonight with a local WT guy. (Shhh. They really shouldn't be talking to _exiles_ like me)  Apparently he's off to take a seminar with LT down at WP's school in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe your sifu is going?



I'm telling!.....oh wait...I'm an exile too.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 24, 2014)

Bong sao is a superb wing chun motion- not a fixed shape-not easy to learn. If you have a good teacher better to ask him first
rather than depend on net talk in early stages.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 24, 2014)

Bong Sao is not easy to develop but is an excellent movement. Can be created by the opponent's force, can be created by your force. Will take time and a lot of proper practice to develop it correctly. Get with your instructor or a senior student for the particulars of the movement, position, and follow up.


----------



## almost a ghost (Oct 24, 2014)

Don't sweat it.

There's the pendulum effect you'll have to deal with in learning Wing Chun. You're too tense one class and too relaxed the next, and the next week your too tense but less so, and the next class you are too relaxed but less so, and so on and so on until you've found your balance that works for you.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Oct 24, 2014)

Thanks guys, some great and helpful replies there.

Especially Geezer and Yak Sao for the conceptual & technical details. Also good to know it's generally considered not easy to master, don't feel quite so stupid now! 

My form version seems pretty much there from Geezer's description, I was only introduced to poon sau a few weeks ago and only done it that one time so far, but hopefully as I get to do more it will come together.

I doubt my sifu will be attending with GGM LT this weekend as we're in the UK and pretty sure he'd have announced it if he was going


----------



## geezer (Oct 24, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Thanks guys, some great and helpful replies there.
> 
> Especially Geezer and Yak Sao for the conceptual & technical details. Also good to know it's generally considered not easy to master, don't feel quite so stupid now!



Funny how WT/WC makes all of us feel like dummies sometimes. Anyway, here is a video of Sifu Alex Richter (another WT exile) explaining the basic WT take on bong-sau.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 24, 2014)

geezer said:


> Funny how WT/WC makes all of us feel like dummies sometimes.


Absolutely.



geezer said:


> Anyway, here is a video of Sifu Alex Richter (another WT exile) explaining the basic WT take on bong-sau.
> 
> How to Do Bong Sau aka Wing Hand | Wing Chun - YouTube



This is how we teach it as a basic. The pressure is from the opponent. As one advances the pressure can be driven by you as well.


----------



## geezer (Oct 25, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> This is how we teach it as a basic. The pressure is from the opponent. *As one advances the pressure can be driven by you as well*.



Absolutely.


----------



## wingchun100 (Nov 4, 2014)

The good news is two fold: 1) You will hardly use bong sao because it is not the kind of block anyone would start with. It is transitional. I have heard it said this way, "Bong sao 'happens.'" 2) If you can get the hardest block we do pretty good, then everything else should seem like cake afterward!


----------



## jhexx (Nov 5, 2014)

bong sao can be what seems like a simple defensive/deflective block, but in time as you find the balance between flexibilty and using forward drive, strength and footwork, it can be quite an interesting move to use. the best part to me is the self discovery behind alot of the learning process. the other day i had learned to use a bong as more of an offensive way towards pushing an opponent back using forward intent with focus on the forearm and elbow. that in cojunction with footwork moving forward with my weight into a slight sinking position, thrusting a bong forward can push an opponent backwards. it was pretty cool to see it work that way!


----------



## geezer (Nov 5, 2014)

jhexx said:


> bong sao can be what seems like a simple defensive/deflective block, but in time as you find the balance between flexibilty and using forward drive, strength and footwork, it can be quite an interesting move to use. the best part to me is the self discovery behind alot of the learning process. the other day i had learned to use a bong as more of an offensive way towards pushing an opponent back using forward intent with focus on the forearm and elbow. that in cojunction with footwork moving forward with my weight into a slight sinking position, thrusting a bong forward can push an opponent backwards. it was pretty cool to see it work that way!



Many use bong offensively in this manner. In fact my old Sifu told you he demonstrated this kind of bong when he trained with Grandmaster Yip Man. Yip Man may well have used bong this way himself when he was young. But this was in the Grandmasters final years and that frail stage of his life he discounted that hard method, saying that the "true" use of bong was not forceful but _soft, yielding and deflecting._ Accordingly _this_ has become the main way to enploy a bong-sau in our association.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 5, 2014)

geezer said:


> Accordingly _this_ has become the main way to enploy a bong-sau in our association.



Like a frail, cancer-stricken old man on the brink of death?

There is more than one claim that Yip Man revealed the "true" version of _ing _un to a special student before he died. Good marketing perhaps, and great timing with Yip Man being unable to confirm or deny the claims. I tend not to accept that kind of thing though. It is entirely illogical that one man would have taught such vastly different systems to select students in secret.

In any case, there is no reason an old man should be unable to apply an aggressive _bong-sau_, as it takes very little force to displace laterally and it should never go forward to meet force head-on anyway. So there is even less of a reason for an able-bodied person to need to be soft and yielding with it.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 6, 2014)

geezer said:


> Many use bong offensively in this manner. In fact my old Sifu told you he demonstrated this kind of bong when he trained with Grandmaster Yip Man. Yip Man may well have used bong this way himself when he was young. But this was in the Grandmasters final years and that frail stage of his life he discounted that hard method, saying that the "true" use of bong was not forceful but _soft, yielding and deflecting._ Accordingly _this_ has become the main way to enploy a bong-sau in our association.




My SiFu emphasizes this soft / yielding nature of Bong, so I am inclined to agree with this. His explanation of it in practice is that Bong has to be responsive to the opponent's force; i.e. send your hands out looking to strike and our opponent's force creates the need for Bong. To just throw it out is anticipating rather than reacting. This seems unnecessary andd less efficient since there ARE other more aggressive movements within the system to use in place of Bong Sau if we were able to anticipate attack and be ahead of the incoming force like that.


----------



## KPM (Nov 6, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> My SiFu emphasizes this soft / yielding nature of Bong, so I am inclined to agree with this. His explanation of it in practice is that Bong has to be responsive to the opponent's force; i.e. send your hands out looking to strike and our opponent's force creates the need for Bong. To just throw it out is anticipating rather than reacting. This seems unnecessary andd less efficient since there ARE other more aggressive movements within the system to use in place of Bong Sau if we were able to anticipate attack and be ahead of the incoming force like that.


 
 I agree with this.  But this doesn't necessarily make it "soft" or "yielding."  You send your hands out looking to strike and your opponent's force crosses your arm and creates the need to Bong.  But there is no reason why you cannot continue your forward intent at this point, moving into the opponent's center to disrupt his balance and break his structure as you immediately go into a Lop and punch.   Pin Sun even has a "Got Bong" or "cutting Bong" that is very close to being a diagonal elbow strike.  It collapses as it yields to the force and folds inward.  But at the same time the elbow is going forward to either strike the opponent or trap his limb momentarily.  It is done with forward motion.  I wouldn't exactly call it "soft."  ;-)


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 6, 2014)

KPM said:


> I agree with this. But this doesn't necessarily make it "soft" or "yielding." You send your hands out looking to strike and your opponent's force crosses your arm and creates the need to Bong. But there is no reason why you cannot continue your forward intent at this point, moving into the opponent's center to disrupt his balance and break his structure as you immediately go into a Lop and punch. Pin Sun even has a "Got Bong" or "cutting Bong" that is very close to being a diagonal elbow strike. It collapses as it yields to the force and folds inward. But at the same time the elbow is going forward to either strike the opponent or trap his limb momentarily. It is done with forward motion. I wouldn't exactly call it "soft." ;-)



It might be splitting hairs on we are saying "soft" means. I don't take it to mean the forward intent or angle of the elbow is compromised at all. I take it to mean sensitive or yielding enough to actually respond to the incoming force and dissipate it. 

My sifu tests student's Bong by pressing on their wrist; it should not take great effort for the defender's elbow to instinctively rise and form Bong Sau. Only the slightest pressure for you to roll to Bong Sau otherwise you aren't yielding enough. Likewise, he is testing to see if the angle of the elbow maintains its angle (i.e. not collapsing) and forward pressure, and if they pivot accordingly when enough force is being given, etc. Maybe I am in over my head trying to speak for it, but I think our Bong is taught as a means of dissipating force, not something that disrupts the opponent's balance or structure or to be wedged forward into the opponent. Other movements, or even just a punch and step, accomplish that much better.


We also don't Lop Sau. We punch over the Bong since its generally deflecting at low enough height that simply punching over it would be the most direct and efficient way to strike. If the force is great enough to force you to pivot with Bong to disipate the force, then we might Fook toward the center to pin that hand and punch over it. But we don't Lop. If no pivot is needed, and someone truly leaves their punch "hanging" out there long enough you could grab it with Lop Sau then punch in a 1-2 fashion, then you can just as easily punch over the Bong from your back hand, then pull / grab their hand as your punch retreats just the same. This way the guy gets a punch from the back and then your front hand versus just a Lop and then punch.


----------



## KPM (Nov 6, 2014)

My sifu tests student's Bong by pressing on their wrist; it should not take great effort for the defender's elbow to instinctively rise and form Bong Sau. Only the slightest pressure for you to roll to Bong Sau otherwise you aren't yielding enough.

---If that is the standard, then nearly every Wing Chun defensive move should be "soft."

 our Bong is taught as a means of dissipating force, not something that disrupts the opponent's balance or structure or to be wedged forward into the opponent. Other movements, or even just a punch and step, accomplish that much better.

---I don't think that is true.  Otherwise you would be doing them instead Bong.  We have only done a Bong because the opponent has dictated it, remember?  So if the opponent has put you in Bong, how would some other movement be better in that position for disrupting the opponent's balance or breaking his structure? His arm is over yours.  So you Bong.  How would a step and punch work better in this situation?


  We also don't Lop Sau. 

---Don't misunderstand me.  When I say Lop Sau, I'm not talking about a "grab on and hold him till the cows come home."  I'm talking about a very brief contact that simply moves his arm off-line.  We don't grab in Pin Sun.  

---Bong can be used in many ways with various energies.  Limiting it to just one isn't a very good idea in my mind.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 6, 2014)

KPM said:


> My sifu tests student's Bong by pressing on their wrist; it should not take great effort for the defender's elbow to instinctively rise and form Bong Sau. Only the slightest pressure for you to roll to Bong Sau otherwise you aren't yielding enough.
> 
> ---If that is the standard, then nearly every Wing Chun defensive move should be "soft."
> 
> ...



1) And? All WC movements should be yielding to some extent yes? I think maybe you take issue with using the word "soft". We might be saying the same thing but describing it differently. 
2) I meant there are other movements that are more suited to being aggressive or for breaking into someone's structure than Bong Sau. Mostly because it will collapse when other movements will not, but also that by nature it want to dissipate force ACROSS the centreline, so why make it do something it's not by nature best suited for? If you have been forced into Bong Sau as the most logical response, then thats where you are. 
3) I know the Lop is common. I'm not criticizing it. Just sayin I was taught to punch when the way was clear and try and pull something back leaving.
4) I'm referring to the Bong Sau with it's artificial position from SNT and it's most common usage. Bong Sau exists in other usages, no doubt. Not limiting it at all. I do think the Cutting or downward Bong you mentioned is called a Kneeling Elbow by some in the WT system.


----------



## geezer (Nov 6, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Like a frail, cancer-stricken old man on the brink of death?
> 
> There is more than one claim that Yip Man revealed the *"true" *version of _ing _un to a special student before he died. Good marketing perhaps, and great timing with Yip Man being unable to confirm or deny the claims. I tend not to accept that kind of thing though. It is entirely illogical that one man would have taught such vastly different systems to select students in secret.



LFJ please look carefully at what I said: 

_"Many use bong offensively in this manner. In fact my old Sifu told me he demonstrated this kind of bong when he trained with Grandmaster Yip Man. Yip Man may well have used bong this way himself when he was young. But this was in the Grandmaster's final years and that frail stage of his life he discounted that hard method, saying that the "true" use of bong was not forceful but __soft, yielding and deflecting. Accordingly this has become the main way to enploy a bong-sau in our association."


_Note that I didn't say anything about one method being superior, or that this was being secretly taught to a "special" student. I also disdain such claims. The story we heard was that the "yielding" bong was something Grandmaster Yip was emphasizing more in his later years. It seems logical to me, but that is just my opinion. Others may have more accurate information on this.

_Piedmont_ made a good points above. Words like "soft" and "yielding" are imprecise at best and can easily be misinterpreted. The so-called "soft" bong I'm referring to has considerable forward pressure and can exert a strong deflecting force. Perhaps it's not so different from what some others have described?


----------



## yak sao (Nov 6, 2014)

Why is the idea of a "soft"/yielding bong sau seem so ridiculous?
If we look at the paradigm set forth by Ng Mui, whether you see her as an historical figure or simply allegory to dictate to us an overall idea of how we should approach the system, this type of bong sau fits the model.

But as mentioned above, soft doesn't mean weak or flimsy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 6, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> a lot of the time I'm either too tense or it collapses, ...



All CMA skill should be able to be applied as 

- heavy as a mountain, or
- light as a feather.

A simple example can be when you opponent uses roundhouse kick at your lower leg, you can

- meet his kick with your shin bone, or
- bend your knee at your knee joint and let his kick to pass under.

IMO, the WC Bong Shou is no different. It can be applied both hard and soft.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 6, 2014)

geezer said:


> Note that I didn't say anything about one method being superior, or that this was being secretly taught to a "special" student. I also disdain such claims. The story we heard was that the "yielding" bong was something Grandmaster Yip was emphasizing more in his later years.



Yeah, but according to who? A guy who claimed to receive revelation as YM's final closed-door disciple, after he died, so that the claim is unfalsifiable?


----------



## yak sao (Nov 6, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Yeah, but according to who? A guy who claimed to receive revelation as YM's final closed-door disciple, after he died, so that the claim is unfalsifiable?




*sigh* here we go again.
LT, love him or hate him, his stuff works and is in line with WC principles.

Another point about bong sau...bong sau, as a wing arm structure is only half of the equation. A bong sau, fully expressed, is like a tree branch being pushed aside and lashing out when released.
The wing arm structure is only the spring being loaded.


----------



## KPM (Nov 7, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Why is the idea of a "soft"/yielding bong sau seem so ridiculous?
> If we look at the paradigm set forth by Ng Mui, whether you see her as an historical figure or simply allegory to dictate to us an overall idea of how we should approach the system, this type of bong sau fits the model.
> 
> But as mentioned above, soft doesn't mean weak or flimsy.



Nobody has said it was "ridiculous."   Maybe just imprecise terminology.   My point was that we shouldn't limit it to being "soft."


----------



## KPM (Nov 7, 2014)

1) And? All WC movements should be yielding to some extent yes? I think maybe you take issue with using the word "soft". We might be saying the same thing but describing it differently. 

---And nothing.  I was just pointing out that calling something "soft" is a bit ambiguous.   As you point out.

  2) I meant there are other movements that are more suited to being aggressive or for breaking into someone's structure than Bong Sau. Mostly because it will collapse when other movements will not, but also that by nature it want to dissipate force ACROSS the centreline, so why make it do something it's not by nature best suited for? If you have been forced into Bong Sau as the most logical response, then thats where you are. 

---And I meant that the opponent has already placed you in Bong Sau, so why wouldn't you use it this way to break structure and balance?  You can go across centerline while also going forward.  If your elbow is aligned properly and you are doing it right it will not collapse on you.  So when I do it, I am NOT making it do something its not suited for.  Rather I am responding to the situation at hand.  So if I am in Bong Sau, and I also see the opportunity to continue to close with the opponent and break his balance in the same motion, why would I use an extra beat to change my Bong Sau to something else and potentially lose that opportunity?  My point has been that Bong Sau does not have to ALWAYS be yielding with a big pivot off the line.  It can be used in several ways.

  3) I know the Lop is common. I'm not criticizing it. Just sayin I was taught to punch when the way was clear and try and pull something back leaving.

---Do you not practice the Lop Da drill in your lineage?

  4) I'm referring to the Bong Sau with it's artificial position from SNT and it's most common usage. 

---Most common usage for who?  In Pin Sun we do not commonly do a deep pivot off the line with Bong Sau.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 7, 2014)

And nothing. I was just pointing out that calling something "soft" is a bit ambiguous. As you point out.
--- Yes. "Soft" might be ambiguous or imprecise. I did have this mental picture of someone bashing into an opponent with their Bong Sau in a 'force against force' manner and I cringed. I might have been wrong to interpret it that way. *shrug*. Describing anything this nuanced over the internet is imprecise.

And I meant that the opponent has already placed you in Bong Sau, so why wouldn't you use it this way to break structure and balance? You can go across centerline while also going forward. If your elbow is aligned properly and you are doing it right it will not collapse on you. So when I do it, I am NOT making it do something its not suited for. Rather I am responding to the situation at hand. So if I am in Bong Sau, and I also see the opportunity to continue to close with the opponent and break his balance in the same motion, why would I use an extra beat to change my Bong Sau to something else and potentially lose that opportunity? My point has been that Bong Sau does not have to ALWAYS be yielding with a big pivot off the line. It can be used in several ways.

--- I was not saying to change Bong Sau into something else; at no point did I say that. I also specifically said the pivot is when the force is great enough it gives you the need to pivot. The way I was taught Bong is that it disssipates force so if there is no need to pivot in order to dissipate it, then there is no need to pivot at all. What you are describing; i.e. "breaking structure and balance" with the Bong is very hard to picture honestly, at least while yielding with the Bong the way I understand it. There might be bigger differences at work here. I was taught Bong is transitional, not somewhere you want to stay for any length of time at all. 

Do you not practice the Lop Da drill in your lineage?

--- I don't speak for my lineage but in my school, no; we do not. I was taught a Lop Sau drill that you might be referring before. My current school however, does a somewhat similar drill using Fook with the hand flat (and elbow in) with the force going toward their center rather than a Lop. 

Most common usage for who? In Pin Sun we do not commonly do a deep pivot off the line with Bong Sau.
--- Most common being deflecting a mid to upper level punch across the centre line; it's the most common application (not the other various Bong movements you mentioned) and generally what we are talking about from what I could tell. Doesn't always necessitate a pivot, and I only said "most common" to clarify that I didn't think it was the ONLY way to do Bong since that was apparently how I was being interpreted in the first place.


----------



## geezer (Nov 7, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Yeah, but according to who? A guy who claimed to receive revelation as YM's final closed-door disciple, after he died, so that the claim is unfalsifiable?



_LFJ, _I have no issue with your skepticism about the claims made by that sifu (and numerous others). Skepticism can be a healthy thing especially when evaluating the claims made by CMA "Grandmasters". On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So forget the personalities involved and consider the technique. I find the yielding or "flexible" bong concept very useful. And as _Piedmont_ has stated, it's totally consistent with WC principles.

Now @KPM regarding _lop sau _...we train a different "lap sau" cycle which is very much as Piedmont described, ...the pressure is always forward, you never use two arms to control one, and there is no "grab". The European branches of my lineage have replaced the name "lap sau cycle" with "jut-chuen-da cycle" (press-down, pierce, hit)  since these terms more accurately describe the techniques involved. 

We also train a lower level "lat sau" unit that includes the traditional "Bruce Lee lop sau" movement, but that just is to familiarize our students with this stereotypical WC/JKD movement so that they can respond to it effectively and exploit its weaknesses. 

What are those weaknesses? I see the main problems with that "typical" lap sau as 1. Using lap to pull-in, 2. ending up in a position where your two arms lay on one of your opponent's, and 3. an over-emphasis on speed as compared to actually controlling your opponent.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 7, 2014)

Bong Sao: Is it yielding and soft or yielding and structure breaking. Or is it both depending upon the situation?


----------



## LFJ (Nov 7, 2014)

yak sao said:


> *sigh* here we go again.
> LT, love him or hate him, his stuff works and is in line with WC principles.



If you think it works, fine, but it's only in line with "WT" principles. That's a different system. I don't recognize it.



> Another point about bong sau...bong sau, as a wing arm structure is only half of the equation. A bong sau, fully expressed, is like a tree branch being pushed aside and lashing out when released.
> The wing arm structure is only the spring being loaded.



"Wing arm structure"? What even is that? The character only means "wing" in Cantonese when it's pronounced "_pong_". When it's pronounced "_bong_" it refers to the upper arm which is lifted with the rotation of the elbow. We say _bong-sau_, not _pong-sau_. We are humans. It has nothing to do with flapping wings or flicking twigs... at least in my system.



geezer said:


> On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So forget the personalities involved and consider the technique.



I've considered the technique. The two times a day it works is when you're in class doing _chi-sau_ with like-minded individuals. The rest of the time it's a broken clock. It's fine for you to turn off line and shift most your weight onto one leg and let this springy wing arm be formed, then _laap_ their arm out of the way to let your spring go IF they just throw one punch and continue straight forward like a dimwitted bull. If, however, they are trained to face/chase and _jat+_punch immediately as their first punch is interrupted, then you'll have no more springy wing arm, nothing to _laap_, and no time to shift to the other side or mobility to step to evade as they pressure you onto your overloaded rear leg while punching you in the face. Very easy to destroy. -vampfeed-


----------



## KPM (Nov 7, 2014)

Now @KPM regarding _lop sau _...we train a different "lap sau" cycle which is very much as Piedmont described, ...the pressure is always forward,

---Not as forward as it could be if you are crossing center-line rather than jamming into center-line to break structure and balance.  To me....Bong Sau and Tan Sau are just two sides of the same coin.  They both can "wedge."   But "soft and yielding" doesn't seem like it would wedge very well.

 you never use two arms to control one, 

---But if you are doing it right, you have turned the opponent and made it difficult for him to use his other arm.  Your two arms are controlling his whole body if you break his structure and balance, not "just" controlling one arm.

and there is no "grab". 

--We typically don't grab either, although we might depending on the circumstance.  But there is definite contact that is brief and guides his punching hand off the line. 

The European branches of my lineage have replaced the name "lap sau cycle" with "jut-chuen-da cycle" (press-down, pierce, hit)  since these terms more accurately describe the techniques involved. 

--Then we probably are closer in actual practice than we think!  ;-)


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 7, 2014)

LFJ said:


> I've considered the technique. The two times a day it works is when you're in class doing _chi-sau_ with like-minded individuals. The rest of the time it's a broken clock. It's fine for you to turn off line and shift most your weight onto one leg and let this springy wing arm be formed, then _laap_ their arm out of the way to let your spring go IF they just throw one punch and continue straight forward like a dimwitted bull. If, however, they are trained to face/chase and _jat+_punch immediately as their first punch is interrupted, then you'll have no more springy wing arm, nothing to _laap_, and no time to shift to the other side or mobility to step to evade as they pressure you onto your overloaded rear leg while punching you in the face. Very easy to destroy. -vampfeed-



Who is saying there has to be a pivot? It would only be necessary if the punch was overcommitted and force great enough to need to pivot. And why does there even have to be a Lop? That's a bit of a straw man argument presented there. I only speak for myself here, but I was taught to send out a punch from the back hand over my Bong if the way is clear. If the opponent countered my Bong with a Jat and punch like you say, would my punch not beat their punch or at minimal deflect it enough to not eat that punch? Sounds like you are making a good argument NOT to Lop in my opinion since it opens up center and ties up your hands in Bong and Lop simultaneously (even for a moment) which is bad.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 7, 2014)

LFJ said:


> If you think it works, fine, but it's only in line with "WT" principles. That's a different system. I don't recognize it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah c'mon.....really ? A different lineage yes but a different system altogether ?

And wing arm is used in every wing chin book I've ever seen


----------



## KPM (Nov 7, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> Who is saying there has to be a pivot? It would only be necessary if the punch was overcommitted and force great enough to need to pivot. And why does there even have to be a Lop? That's a bit of a straw man argument presented there. I only speak for myself here, but I was taught to send out a punch from the back hand over my Bong if the way is clear. If the opponent countered my Bong with a Jat and punch like you say, would my punch not beat their punch or at minimal deflect it enough to not eat that punch? Sounds like you are making a good argument NOT to Lop in my opinion since it opens up center and ties up your hands in Bong and Lop simultaneously (even for a moment) which is bad.



Centering your training and strategy around the idea that you are going to be facing another Wing Chun guy in a Chi Sau-like situation is not a good idea in my opinion.  We do the Lop Da drill as a training drill to get in multiple reps to burn in the response.  But it is used against a boxer, street-fighter, etc. if he throws a nice straight but relatively slow punch that crosses your arm from above.  That kind of fighter is very rarely going to be thinking about trapping, countering immediately into the center with his other hand, "Jating", etc.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 8, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> Who is saying there has to be a pivot? It would only be necessary if the punch was overcommitted and force great enough to need to pivot. And why does there even have to be a Lop? That's a bit of a straw man argument presented there.



It's so common within LTWT one would think it's their bread and butter move. I certainly didn't make it up!



> I only speak for myself here, but I was taught to send out a punch from the back hand over my Bong if the way is clear. If the opponent countered my Bong with a Jat and punch like you say, would my punch not beat their punch or at minimal deflect it enough to not eat that punch?



Are you in LTWT? The way I see them do it and explain it, their _bong-sau_ is formed by the opponent and they often shift and turn themselves off the line to avoid the punch, rather than maintain facing and turn the opponent instead. That usually means they need a _laap-sau_ to remove the arm. 

Punching through your _bong-sau_ requires a different energy in the _bong _to laterally displace the opponent's arm, like a _paak_ from the elbow, and turn them while maintaining your facing. It won't work with a yielding _bong-sau_. If you don't affect the opponent's facing with a sudden shock force, they have a better line and their next punch can easily cut yours off.

Normally talking scenarios is pointless, but this is so simple and common. It's just basic continuation of punches.



> Sounds like you are making a good argument NOT to Lop in my opinion since it opens up center and ties up your hands in Bong and Lop simultaneously (even for a moment) which is bad.



Indeed. _Laap-sau_ is only used if the _bong-sau_ fails to displace the opponent's arm by itself. It's trouble if in the chaos of a fight you try to _laap_ and miss. Then your arm goes off center and out of punching position. That's why the primary response to continue an interrupted punch is rather _jat_. Done correctly, there is an element of _jat_ in the final SNT punches as it clears the line and recycles to the next punching position. _Laap-sau_ is in the BJ form.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 8, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Ah c'mon.....really ? A different lineage yes but a different system altogether ?



The only similarities I see with LTWT and what I do are in terminology, form names, and form sequences. The interpretations of everything from start to finish couldn't be further apart and their different concepts create vastly different fighters. So yeah, perhaps they shouldn't be, but they are very different systems. 



> And wing arm is used in every wing chin book I've ever seen



Every wing chun book you've ever seen has been wrong about this, lol. Just use a good dictionary with Cantonese pronunciations. When the character means "wing" it is pronounced _pong_ as in _chi-pong_ (wing). Pronounced _bong_ as it is in _ing _un systems it refers to the upper arm (of a human). Wing is a bad and incorrect translation.


----------



## geezer (Nov 8, 2014)

LFJ said:


> The only similarities I see with LTWT and what I do are in terminology, form names, and form sequences. The interpretations of everything from start to finish couldn't be further apart and their different concepts create vastly different fighters. So yeah, perhaps they shouldn't be, but they are very different systems.



Actually, you have a point. When I began training with LT back in 1980, he insisted that his WT method was _essentially distinct_ from other WC systems, even from other branches of the Yip Man lineage. And as you noted, these differences are primarily rooted in the back-weighted WT stance and the emphasis on "springy energy" as seen in the WT approach to things like bong-sau. At that time I pretty much agreed that the WT method was a distinct sub-system. 

But after I came back to WC after a break of many years, I adopted a more eclectic approach to my training. I came to see my former WT training as just one of many possible approaches to WC and I see much that I do recognize in other branches of WC. Then again, I've always leaned towards an inclusive, "big-picture" perspective.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 9, 2014)

geezer said:


> But after I came back to WC after a break of many years, I adopted a more eclectic approach to my training. I came to see my former WT training as just one of many possible approaches to WC and I see much that I do recognize in other branches of WC. Then again, I've always leaned towards an inclusive, "big-picture" perspective.



In some Wing Chun systems the forms are separate and contain various different application ideas. So mixing and matching is not much of an issue to them. In WSLVT, all the forms and training methods of the system fit together to create a cohesive approach to combat, but its effectiveness depends on its consistency. I mean the system itself forms a big picture, and there are many irreconcilable differences with LTWT and others. Mixing the different ideas would make it ineffective. It would be like borrowing pieces from another jigsaw puzzle. You wouldn't end up with a bigger picture as much as just a big mess.


----------



## geezer (Nov 9, 2014)

LFJ said:


> ...I mean the system itself forms a big picture, and there are many irreconcilable differences with LTWT and others. *Mixing the different ideas would make it ineffective. It would be like borrowing pieces from another jigsaw puzzle*. You wouldn't end up with a bigger picture as much as just a big mess.



You may be surprised to find that I totally agree with what you say. By seeing "the big picture" I meant seeing how different WC systems each represent a divergence from a common theme, sort of like an evolutionary tree. I would not advocate casually mixing bits and pieces from different systems any more than I would try to put parts from a Mercedes into a Porsche or Ferrari. Each is a distinct engineering system. So it is with divergent branches in WC.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 10, 2014)

KPM said:


> Centering your training and strategy around the idea that you are going to be facing another Wing Chun guy in a Chi Sau-like situation is not a good idea in my opinion. We do the Lop Da drill as a training drill to get in multiple reps to burn in the response. But it is used against a boxer, street-fighter, etc. if he throws a nice straight but relatively slow punch that crosses your arm from above. That kind of fighter is very rarely going to be thinking about trapping, countering immediately into the center with his other hand, "Jating", etc.



I agree with you, though I think the above comment is assuming that I am guilty of it? Another commenter brought up Jat Sau, not me. I was just pointing my previous statement that punching over the Bong when possible is a basic and efficient counter not just something reserved for "chi sau-like situations". Not many people are going to leave their punch hanging out there for a Lop to be effective, whether WC or non-WC. A boxer would retract that punch and be following up with another from their free hand. A pivot would not be needed against a very non-committed punch that retreats quickly, but a pivot would help you maintain your balance and structure against someone trying to blast thru your Bong Sau with overcomitted force. Our similar drill using Fook Sau is done with the same intent; to burn in the response but not to seek trapping at all opportunities.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 10, 2014)

LFJ said:


> It's so common within LTWT one would think it's their bread and butter move. I certainly didn't make it up!
> 
> Are you in LTWT? The way I see them do it and explain it, their _bong-sau_ is formed by the opponent and they often shift and turn themselves off the line to avoid the punch, rather than maintain facing and turn the opponent instead. That usually means they need a _laap-sau_ to remove the arm.
> 
> ...



I study WT though my SiFu and his SiFu are not associated with LT any longer. Regardless of what perception you have of LTWT, I was taught to *not* automatically pivot with the Bong. My SiFu tests students response by giving varying pressure on their Bong Sau and if they pivot without needing to then its clear they are anticipating rather than allow the force to turn them. Its preferable, the way we are taught, to allow the force to turn you rather than pivot pre-emptively.


----------



## KPM (Nov 10, 2014)

I agree with you, though I think the above comment is assuming that I am guilty of it? Another commenter brought up Jat Sau, not me.

---You said:   S_ounds like you are making a good argument NOT to Lop in my opinion since it opens up center and ties up your hands in Bong and Lop simultaneously (even for a moment) which is bad.    _In my opinion that's only bad if you assume another Wing Chun guy that can trap, etc. and take advantage of it.  A boxer or street-fighter wouldn't.    



 Not many people are going to leave their punch hanging out there for a Lop to be effective, whether WC or non-WC. A boxer would retract that punch and be following up with another from their free hand.

---I agree with you, and I think I already pointed out that we don't "grab" with our Lop, and that it is only a momentary "tap" likely much like what you are referring to as Fook.



 A pivot would not be needed against a very non-committed punch that retreats quickly, 

---Which is why that circumstance is an even better opportunity to be instantly moving in with your Bong Sau to jam and to break his structure like I have been trying to describe in this thread.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 11, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> Regardless of what perception you have of LTWT, I was taught to *not* automatically pivot with the Bong. My SiFu tests students response by giving varying pressure on their Bong Sau and if they pivot without needing to then its clear they are anticipating rather than allow the force to turn them. Its preferable, the way we are taught, to allow the force to turn you rather than pivot pre-emptively.



That doesn't make it better, from my point of view. You are still making the exact mistake I want you to make. 

One goal will be to turn the opponent, or let them turn themselves by overshooting, etc. so I'm using two free hands to fight a flanked opponent. Purposefully allowing yourself to be turned is a funny concept, but I'll take it.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 11, 2014)

KPM said:


> In my opinion that's only bad if you assume another Wing Chun guy that can trap, etc. and take advantage of it.  A boxer or street-fighter wouldn't.



Is that a safe assumption to make though, that if one isn't trained in WC trapping skills they won't be able to take advantage? 

I think it is never a good idea to make assumptions about who you might be facing and what they may or may not be capable of.


----------



## KPM (Nov 11, 2014)

LFJ said:


> That doesn't make it better, from my point of view. You are still making the exact mistake I want you to make.
> 
> One goal will be to turn the opponent, or let them turn themselves by overshooting, etc. so I'm using two free hands to fight a flanked opponent. Purposefully allowing yourself to be turned is a funny concept, but I'll take it.



Robert Chu has a saying...."Shift is a Gift!"  ;-)


----------



## KPM (Nov 11, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Is that a safe assumption to make though, that if one isn't trained in WC trapping skills they won't be able to take advantage?
> 
> I think it is never a good idea to make assumptions about who you might be facing and what they may or may not be capable of.


 
 You cannot train for every single possibility.  You have to focus on what is most likely to happen.  So I think it is not wise to spend lots of time training for something that is very unlikely to happen when you could instead spend the time on getting good at dealing with what IS likely to happen.  The typical boxer or streetfighter is very unlikely to get into these "Chi Sau-like" complexities you guys have been describing.   So I am not at all concerned about having my Bong and my Wu or Lop up at the same time as PiedmontChun seems to be.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 11, 2014)

Training for what IS likely to happen? What's likely to happen is that when the opponent's punch is deflected he will follow with a cross from the back hand. If you were in Bong, are you then going to Lop with your Wu hand, then strike with your Bong hand once that it is free? Because you might eat that cross in the face unless you are amazingly fast at executing this. And thats not "chi sau like complexities".


----------



## KPM (Nov 11, 2014)

Who said I was using a Bong on the lead hand?  I've been assuming from the beginning that the Bong was for the rear hand.  Otherwise what you are describing would be a "wrong side" Bong and something to be avoided when possible.  Now...if you are not talking about doing a "wrong side" Bong, and I have used....say my right arm Bong against his left lead punch..... then breaking balance and structure with the Bong will prevent that cross from coming with any real effectiveness.  If it is a fast lead punch quickly retracted with no opportunity to move in and break his balance or to do a Lop & punch, then my Bong & Wu are already in place to deal with his cross.  How would your relatively low-power, rear hand punch across your Bong be any better?   

 LFJ....are you worried about having your Bong and your Wu or Lop or Fook up at the same time?    And guys....I believe this is just a variant of "Kwan Sau" which is a major technique in most Wing Chun lineages.  ;-)


----------



## LFJ (Nov 12, 2014)

KPM said:


> LFJ....are you worried about having your Bong and your Wu or Lop or Fook up at the same time?



I'd rather have two free striking hands working together than any two non-striking actions.

_Wu_ should be punching as the _bong_ clears and instantly recycles to punch again. _Laap_ is only used instead of a punch if _bong_ fails to displace the arm on its own. _Fuk_ is for training, and the type of punch it trains is opposite to the _bong_ direction. They don't go together. Outside of chi-sau I can't imagine why you'd ever have _bong_ and _fuk_ "up at the same time".



> And guys....I believe this is just a variant of "Kwan Sau" which is a major technique in most Wing Chun lineages.  ;-)



Do you mean when a punch comes, throwing your _bong_+_taan_ at it? That's not _kwan-sau_ to me. That's using two arms to fight one, and as usual takes another step to strike; often _laap_ from the _taan_ and strike from _bong_. Indirect and too slow for real fighting speeds. 

My system works off the principle of directness. Directness is striking mentality. With it you will be simple and efficient. Without it you will do two-arm defensive techniques like above. _Kwan-sau_ to me is punching on the 1/2 beat of _bong-sau_. Anything longer and more complex is too slow.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 12, 2014)

Kwan sau is not simply a low bong sau with the other hand in tan sau.
Kwan sau is also an action. It translates from what I understand as rolling hand or rotating hand.

If my hands were to be trapped down, one on top of the other, then I would roll the bottom one out. If this is done in a classical sense that leaves the lower arm in a low bong sau and the upper arm in tan sau

Described here    How to Do Kwan Sau aka Rotating Hand | Wing Chun | Howcast


----------



## KPM (Nov 12, 2014)

_Wu_ should be punching as the _bong_ clears and instantly recycles to punch again. _Laap_ is only used instead of a punch if _bong_ fails to displace the arm on its own.

---That doesn't seem to be what you see on nearly every Phillip Bayer clip on youtube.



_Fuk_ is for training, and the type of punch it trains is opposite to the _bong_ direction. They don't go together. Outside of chi-sau I can't imagine why you'd ever have _bong_ and _fuk_ "up at the same time".

----I agree.  I only included Fuk because PiedmontChun did.  I'm not quite sure what he means myself.  I suspect what he is calling "Fuk" we would call "Lim" in Pin Sun.


  Do you mean when a punch comes, throwing your _bong_+_taan_ at it? That's not _kwan-sau_ to me. That's using two arms to fight one, and as usual takes another step to strike; often _laap_ from the _taan_ and strike from _bong_. Indirect and too slow for real fighting speeds. 

---On the contrary it can be done very fast. Your hands just happen to be low, a punch comes in over your arms.  You lift into Bong Sau to redirect and immediately flow into a brief Lop and punch with the Bong hand without a pause in your Bong.  That is no slower than doing a Bong and then punching with the Wu hand.  Its not a 1, 2.  Its more of a 1 &....a beat and a half, not 2 beats.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 12, 2014)

KPM said:


> ---That doesn't seem to be what you see on nearly every Phillip Bayer clip on youtube.



I'm not aware of any free fighting clips of his on Youtube.



> That is no slower than doing a Bong and then punching with the Wu hand.



Because "and then" is wrong.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 12, 2014)

> _Wu_ should be punching as the _bong_ clears and instantly recycles to punch again. _Laap_ is only used instead of a punch if _bong_ fails to displace the arm on its own.



If you are able to Lop then bong did clear otherwise you have crossed the center to execute the lop and are trapping yourself. We use lop as a part of the cycle not just a lop.


----------



## KPM (Nov 12, 2014)

I'm not aware of any free fighting clips of his on Youtube.

---Yes.  That is a good point.  Lots and lots of clips but not a single free fighting clip.  But then...are you saying he does not fight the way he trains, nor trains the way he fights?  Why would that be?


 Because "and then" is wrong.

---So how do you Bong without a "and then" punch with your rear hand?  Unless you are punching simultaneously across your body and over your Bong like our WT friends?


----------



## geezer (Nov 12, 2014)

KPM said:


> I
> 
> 
> Because "and then" is wrong.
> ...



WT Friends? ...or how about just *WTF* ???  :uhyeah:

Anyway, I really should just shut up and not even post on this again since I have nothing more to add. I really feel that it's gotten to the point where we are beyond discussing bong and quibbling over words. Heck, if we were all together, it would be easy enough to show each other what we mean, but this kind of discussion really doesn't clarify anything. There are too many subtleties of position, pressure and timing. If we were actually working together and somebody said "Let me show you my problem with your approach..." and then totally shut down my technique. I'd be impressed and grateful for the insight. On the other hand in this  purely written format I feel like we are at the point where each is stubbornly talking past each other.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 12, 2014)

Danny T said:


> If you are able to Lop then bong did clear otherwise you have crossed the center to execute the lop and are trapping yourself. We use lop as a part of the cycle not just a lop.



Are you with the WT guys who do the yielding _bong-sau_ with a shift, if needed? Otherwise your objection doesn't make sense.

My _bong-sau_ will never overshoot and cross the center because I won't be shifting and turning away from my opponent trying to yieldingly redirect their arm. _Bong-sau_ is a sudden stopping "_paak_" to the line with the forearm, coupled with a simultaneous attack from the _wu_ hand. The sudden energy transmission to the opponent's arm will ballistically displace it from my striking path. Only if the _bong_ fails to displace the arm alone, will the punch from _wu_ need to _laap_ the arm out of the way. Otherwise, the hands are free, attack directly.

If the _bong_ does its job and clears the line, why and what are you _laap_ing? Because you are shifting and can't immediately punch with the rear hand? An effective _bong-sau_ as I describe requires maintained facing; a basic principle that from my point of view is constantly broken in WT and leads to superfluous actions and arm-chasing. If you've cleared the line and still try to _laap _you are unnecessarily dealing further with the arms and risk missing with the _laap_ and being caught in a very disadvantageous position. This is why we don't shift away from out opponent and why _laap_ is not a primary action.


----------



## KPM (Nov 12, 2014)

geezer said:


> On the other hand in this  purely written format I feel like we are at the point where each is stubbornly talking past each other.


 
 Agreed.  I've always found it to be very exasperating to try and carry on discussions with LFJ.  So I'll stop now as well.  ;-)


----------



## Danny T (Nov 12, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Are you with the WT guys who do the yielding _bong-sau_ with a shift, if needed? Otherwise your objection doesn't make sense.



Not a WT guy but a WC practitioner. (Jiu Wan from Foshan. Moved to HK in the late 50's)





So you would never shift with a bong as Jiu Wan is doing in this photo? Key, for me, is as you stated; "if needed".



> My _bong-sau_ will never overshoot and cross the center because I won't be shifting and turning away from my opponent trying to yieldingly redirect their arm. _Bong-sau_ is a sudden stopping "_paak_" to the line with the forearm, coupled with a simultaneous attack from the _wu_ hand. The sudden energy transmission to the opponent's arm will ballistically displace it from my striking path. Only if the _bong_ fails to displace the arm alone, will the punch from _wu_ need to _laap_ the arm out of the way. Otherwise, the hands are free, attack directly.


 So your bong will ballistically displace the opponent's striking arm then just strike there is no need to Lop. I agree. My quote; "If you are able to lop then bong did clear..." so just punch. 'IF' the bong does not clear and you attempt to lop with your wu hand that is now attempting to strike because the bong 'did not' clear the line with be crossing the center and you will have trapped yourself. Doesn't matter if you are square or have shifted you are crossing your arms and have set yourself up for a trap.



> If the _bong_ does its job and clears the line, why and what are you _laap_ing? Because you are shifting and can't immediately punch with the rear hand?


If the bong cleared there is no reason to lop so hit; if the opponent's arm is still there on the recovery of the punch we'll lop and continue to punch.


> If you've cleared the line and still try to _laap _you are unnecessarily dealing further with the arms and risk missing with the _laap_ and being caught in a very disadvantageous position.


Agreed, hence my statement of "If you are able to Lop then bong did clear...". Meaning there is no reason to lop. 
"...otherwise (if it did not clear and you attempt to lop) you have to cross the center to execute the lop and (at that moment) are trapping yourself."


----------



## LFJ (Nov 12, 2014)

KPM said:


> ---So how do you Bong without a "and then" punch with your rear hand? Unless you are punching simultaneously across your body and over your Bong like our WT friends?



No, nothing should go across your body if you aren't giving up your facing. We do _bong-sau_ the way we do so we turn the opponent rather than turn ourselves. As I said in a previous post, it's punching through on the 1/2 beat of _bong-sau_, like continuing the punching path opened by the _bong_ in one beat. It's impossible that this is not faster than doing _bong-sau_ and recycling to strike with the same arm with no strike in between.

And BTW, in response to your previous statement, this is not "training for every single possibility". It's simply acting in the most direct way, not doing superfluous movements, which means less chance to be exploited regardless of who you might be facing. But if you think you're safe because your opponent won't have the special knowledge to exploit you (which really need only be another punch), then by all means, carry on...



KPM said:


> I've always found it to be very exasperating to try and carry on discussions with LFJ.



I wonder what makes you feel that way... I'm a relatively patient poster, aren't I? :lookie:


----------



## LFJ (Nov 13, 2014)

Danny T said:


> So you would never shift with a bong as Jiu Wan is doing in this photo? Key, for me, is as you stated; "if needed".



No, I wouldn't. It's only "needed" if you do sticky, yielding _bong-sau_ to redirect while attached and the force is too strong. But I think none of that is a good idea anyway.

Not sure what you mean by crossing center and setting oneself up for a trap. _Bong_ and _wu _as I do them are already on the same side, clearing the path in the same direction >> or <<. _Wu_ is just a continuation of the _bong_, and _laap_ is done if the punch from the _wu_ hand is intercepted because the _bong_ didn't get rid of the obstacle. By that time, _bong_ has recycled and is now punching with the _laap_. With two free arms working in rotation, there is no tie-up.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 13, 2014)

LFJ said:


> No, nothing should go across your body if you aren't giving up your facing. We do _bong-sau_ the way we do so we turn the opponent rather than turn ourselves. As I said in a previous post, it's punching through on the 1/2 beat of _bong-sau_, like continuing the punching path opened by the _bong_ in one beat. It's impossible that this is not faster than doing _bong-sau_ and recycling to strike with the same arm with no strike in between.
> 
> And BTW, in response to your previous statement, this is not "training for every single possibility". It's simply acting in the most direct way, not doing superfluous movements, which means less chance to be exploited regardless of who you might be facing. But if you think you're safe because your opponent won't have the special knowledge to exploit you (which really need only be another punch), then by all means, carry on...



LFJ, what lineage are you or which do you come from if you don't mind me asking? 

I get that the Bong Sau each of us is describing are different and possibly irreconcilable. Quite honestly I would love to see it in person; its just hard to picture. I would have a lot of questions like.... what if your opponent is bigger or stronger than you: how does YOUR Bong turn HIM in that case like you describe, versus allowing it to turn you as we would do in WT to not eat that punch? 

Likewise, I think you might be surprised to see how nimble some practicioners can be in pivoting when needed and pivoting back, not superfluous movement at all, and like I mentioned before- it is only when force necessitates it. It is born out of shifting our weight; the foot turns quite naturally as the weight shifts- all to help us dissipate force to the side and its not a jerky or committed movement where we then end up caught in that position. Quite logically, I would see myself pivoting with a Bong only if someone were to be overcomitted with their punch or really blasting thru where my Bong might collapse, a situation more likely against a drunk guy in a bar putting his weight into a punch than against WC/WT guys or even skilled strikers like boxers. But it is a skill that is useful. Pivoting with my Bong against someone who put too much of their weight into the punch would have them finding themself deflected to the side and can put me in an advantageous position for all kinds of strikes, quite the opposite of him having any advantage. And I am still striking at the opponent's center, just from a different angle - we would not consider that giving up our facing.

This thread has been englightening even if I had to grit my teeth and not take the LTWT bashing bait thrown around so casually. There are clearly nuanced but fundamental differences in how different lineages do certain things. I am ok with that though.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 13, 2014)

LFJ said:


> No, I wouldn't. It's only "needed" if you do sticky, yielding _bong-sau_ to redirect while attached and the force is too strong. But I think none of that is a good idea anyway.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by crossing center and setting oneself up for a trap. _Bong_ and _wu _as I do them are already on the same side, clearing the path in the same direction >> or <<. _Wu_ is just a continuation of the _bong_, and _laap_ is done if the punch from the _wu_ hand is intercepted because the _bong_ didn't get rid of the obstacle. By that time, _bong_ has recycled and is now punching with the _laap_. With two free arms working in rotation, there is no tie-up.



From what you describe it seems you are relying on force and speed rather than position and structure. Bong and Wu are already on the same side. ???  You've crossed the center with both wrists?


----------



## LFJ (Nov 13, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> LFJ, what lineage are you or which do you come from if you don't mind me asking?
> .... what if your opponent is bigger or stronger than you: how does YOUR Bong turn HIM in that case like you describe, versus allowing it to turn you as we would do in WT to not eat that punch?



WSLVT, and it doesn't take much force. 3lbs can divert 300lbs. Greater force can turn them on their axis. Especially the more tense and committed their punch is, the more their arm acts like a lever to their core. If someone offers you a lever, you turn them, not yourself. It's like a _paak_, a sudden stopping slap to the line, not past and not shifting away, but done with the forearm by rotating the elbow to laterally displace the incoming punch opening the striking line for the _wu_ hand. A sudden transmission of force into an object does what to that object? It's not meeting head-on, so it doesn't take much force.



> Likewise, I think you might be surprised to see how nimble some practicioners can be in pivoting when needed and pivoting back, not superfluous movement at all, and like I mentioned before- it is only when force necessitates it.



I doubt it's possible to shift to one side and back to the other between incoming punches, nor do I find that a good tactic, pivoting to evade the attacker at real fighting speeds. By superfluous I was referring to the hands though. Doing _bong_ and then _laap_ before striking is superfluous if you can do _bong_ in such a way that the opponent is turned and you retain your hips and shoulders facing to just blast on them straightaway. That consequently makes the shift superfluous too.



> It is born out of shifting our weight; the foot turns quite naturally as the weight shifts- all to help us dissipate force to the side and its not a jerky or committed movement where we then end up caught in that position.



The picture of Jiu Wan posted on the previous page is not a position I would like to be in at any time. He's shifted his weight mostly to one leg and turned his hips and shoulders away from the target. So he can't hit effectively directly off the rear hand, and would likely want to do _laap_ before striking with the _bong_ hand then square back up. But if the puncher he's trying to avoid continues to chase center, now most of his weight is on the rear leg and there is no leg to support behind him. Not only can his hands be stopped by _jat_+punch, but he will have limited mobility from that position to deal with the pressure from the direct attack.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 13, 2014)

Danny T said:


> From what you describe it seems you are relying on force and speed rather than position and structure.



It's fighting. All four are necessary.



> Bong and Wu are already on the same side. ???  You've crossed the center with both wrists?



Unlike most _ing _un systems, we don't have to occupy center in order to control it. The last three actions before the final punches in SNT for example shows us the lines we sweep, recycling _man-sau_ and _wu-sau_ x-ing the line at the wrists and sweeping it clear as we strike. Most people see those actions as wrist grab escapes or some such technique in applications. 

As _bong-sau_ displaces laterally the _wu_ hand will strike directly while the elbow expands sweeping clear the line in the same direction should anything be in the way. This allows thoughtless defense functions inbuilt in our attacking. So we're not thinking which side to take, which hand to use, and causing hesitation. It's a different strategy and tactic to most _ing _un that prefers sticky, yielding, attached fighting, which tends to only work with like-minded people who give you their arms.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 13, 2014)

> The picture of Jiu Wan posted on the previous page is not a position I  would like to be in at any time. He's shifted his weight mostly to one  leg and turned his hips and shoulders away from the target. So he can't  hit effectively directly off the rear hand, and would likely want to do _laap_ before striking with the _bong_  hand then square back up. But if the puncher he's trying to avoid  continues to chase center, now most of his weight is on the rear leg and  there is no leg to support behind him. Not only can his hands be  stopped by _jat_+punch, but he will have limited mobility from that position to deal with the pressure from the direct attack.


I would agree with this other than this is not correct. When turned properly with the pelvis tucked the weight distribution is more 60/40 and not mostly on the rear leg. Due to the pelvic tuck the front leg can be very quickly utilized for a kick without having to shift the weight onto the rear leg. It appears to be leaning back onto the rear leg but no it is much closer to 60/40. The hips and shoulders are not turned 'away' from the target but the body is shifted to the quarter angle and the center is facing directly into the opponents core. When we perform this we are facing into 3 of the opponent's gates vs our 6 unless the opponent turns to face us.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 14, 2014)

Danny T said:


> When turned properly with the pelvis tucked the weight distribution is more 60/40 and not mostly on the rear leg.



...... Mostly means as regards the greater part or number. 60% on the rear leg is mostly on the rear leg.



> Due to the pelvic tuck the front leg can be very quickly utilized for a kick without having to shift the weight onto the rear leg.



Because the weight is mostly on the rear leg already...

From that position the only kick you could do with the front leg would be a low inside oblique kick, but the kick wouldn't have much support and in that position your mobility is already compromised against an opponent who continues to face and attack center, being with most of your weight on the rear leg and no third leg for support behind you on the new line the skilled opponent would take. Lifting onto one leg would just make things worse. It happens very fast. That's why I say you need to affect their facing, and not instead be forced to turn by them. Otherwise you're their puppet.



> The hips and shoulders are not turned 'away' from the target but the body is shifted to the quarter angle and the center is facing directly into the opponents core.



Maybe I'm not understanding the photo because there is no opponent there for reference, but I've seen this move done plenty of times. In the photo, his feet, hips, and shoulders are facing the camera, but his _bong_, _wu_, and eyes are facing to his right, suggesting that's where the attack is coming from, which means he's shifted his body to evade the line of attack and is no longer squared to the opponent. 

I would call that turning away from the target, as all of his weapons don't have equal reach. That's why instead of being able to attack directly from _wu_, a _laap-sau_ is most often the follow up so the _bong_ hand which is closer can attack, also because the sticky, yielding _bong_ only helps to avoid the punch but doesn't clear a direct striking line for the rear hand. Hence, the need to _laap_.

If the _bong-sau_ is used to ballistically displace the opponent's limb and affected their facing, no _laap-sau_ would be necessary and the _wu-sau_ could strike directly and immediately into the opened space without turning, shifting weight, or otherwise affecting our own freedom of mobility, while also keeping two striking hands free to attack.

I want two feet with the freedom to move in and attack from either side and two free hands with equal reach attacking a flanked opponent... not a shifted stance with one side overloaded and a turned upper body with unequal reach from both hands requiring superfluous defensive actions in passive response to my opponent. Real fighting speeds and pressure are simply too fast and chaotic, and this would get one plowed over.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 14, 2014)

LFJ said:


> ...... Mostly means as regards the greater part or number. 60% on the rear leg is mostly on the rear leg.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well we'll simply have to disagree.
Because of your constantly having a completely neutral stance and weight distribution you could never move forward or backwards; you would never be able to knee, kick, or sweep. Of course you could because your change in stance and positioning would be but an instant in time. Same with us. Taking a pose as in the picture would be but a moment in time and not a static position. But I'm certain you know that already. Lets get a video of you moving and we'll find several moments that when frozen you are in a non 50/50 or and off center position. You know as well that fighting is dynamic and there is the constant changing of body positions and weight distribution.

I agree that when bong offsets the punch wu is clear to punch and lop in not necessary. I stated that already. If I were to lop it would be on the return of the punch. And when we bong on a shift due to pressure my wu hand will reach you and is a very powerful punch. You may not be able to punch in that position but I am able to or biu gee the eyes and lop on the return. The shift is but a moment in time. Just as your bong and forward step (which puts you in a 100% weight distribution on one leg for a moment).


----------



## LFJ (Nov 14, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Lets get a video of you moving and we'll find several moments that when frozen you are in a non 50/50 or and off center position. You know as well that fighting is dynamic and there is the constant changing of body positions and weight distribution.



While weight distribution may change from 50/50 momentarily depending on what I'm doing, I should never be swaying my axis and ending up in an off-center position with one leg overloaded, as in the photo. If I ever did, that would be a mistake and I'd probably pay for it. I also shouldn't be lifting to take walking steps like some do. Rather I should be using short shuffling steps to maintain my power lines, non-bouncing COG, and mobility in all directions in order to have knockout power from any position at any moment. 

You say when you shift with _bong-sau_ your _wu_ hand will be able to reach, but with a shifted body and no supporting leg under it, as in the photo, it won't have knockout power. You'll have to switch your footwork again, for which there will be no time. If you have someone continue their punch interrupted by your _bong-sau _with a_ jat _and punch cutting off your rear arm as they reface and drive into your center where you have no supporting rear leg, I believe you'll see what I mean. Done imposingly, aggressively the shifting _bong-sau_ and rear punch no can defend.  
Must not allow opponent to maintain or regain facing or... get the squish, just like grape... :tank:


----------



## geezer (Nov 14, 2014)

I believe the following clip reinforces some points made by Danny T. Actually I was looking for some other clips that show a flexing "WT" style bong used to turn the ooponent's center while simultaneously punching. But I found this instead.

Here we have Sergio Iadarola demonstrating turning with the "yielding" bong as used In WT. He demonstrates that when you turn you must remain aligned directly at your oponent's center. If you overturn past center of course you are vulnerable! Instead you turn and stay aligned with your opponent's center and _his_ centerline is deflected.

Another point of agreement. Notice when he does the technique around 2:17-2:25 that he does not use a lap sau. 

Sifu Sergio Iadarola - La rotazione - YouTube

BTW, apparently it is in Italian. I do not speak Italian, but oddly, I seemed to understand what he was saying throughout. Perhaps because I speak Spanish? Or perhaps WC is really a universal language except for minor dialectical differences?  :hmm:


----------



## Danny T (Nov 14, 2014)

geezer said:


> Another point of agreement. Notice when he does the technique around 2:17-2:25 that he does not use a lap sau.



However, note that on the recovering of the punch 2:21 he sticks to the arm and could lop if needed as the punch is recovering.


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 15, 2014)

True- kwan is not simply bong and tan!!!


----------



## LFJ (Nov 15, 2014)

geezer said:


> If you overturn past center of course you are vulnerable! Instead you turn and stay aligned with your opponent's center and _his_ centerline is deflected.



Only, that didn't happen. The _bong-sau_ did absolutely nothing to the puncher's core, didn't affect his facing, or do anything to hamper his ability to fire more than one punch. The _bong-sau_ really served no purpose there and shouldn't have been done as an opening response to a punch from out of range anyway. 



> Notice when he does the technique around 2:17-2:25 that he does not use a lap sau.



No, he sure doesn't, but the entire move itself is superfluous when returning fire with a direct punch would accomplish more. He does a yielding _bong-sau _which does nothing but interrupt the punch, then rolls over to chop from the same arm because the way is not free for a direct punch, and actually runs into the rear hand which happens to be unresponsive and collapses because the guy was only meant to throw one punch for the demonstration. 

In any case, the moment the first punch is interrupted it can immediately _jat_ the _bong_ arm for the next punch. Even if the rollover worked, the _wu-sau_ would be able to do the same, _jat_ and continue recycling punches. Unless you affect the puncher's facing you're just clashing head on against an opponent in as fine a position as you, but not acting indirectly. Odds are not in your favor unless you're fighting a one-punch fool.

This yielding _bong_ and rollover idea may work fine in your _chi-sau_ with pre-contact, but in free fighting with no pre-contact and ceaseless full speed attacks, it's not very realistic to intercept punches like this. It's too passive and indirect to work against blurring punches in the chaos of a real scrap. You can do a lot of things from mutual pre-contact that just won't work when you don't have pre-contact and the guy won't play nicely. Why free sparring with non-likeminded individuals is important.


----------



## geezer (Nov 15, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Only, that didn't happen. The _bong-sau_ did absolutely nothing to the puncher's core, didn't affect his facing, or do anything to hamper his ability to fire more than one punch.
> 
> ...Unless you affect the puncher's facing you're just clashing head on against an opponent in as fine a position as you, but not acting indirectly. Odds are not in your favor...




_LFJ_, What you say is very true. Unless you affect your opponent's facing _relative_ to your own, you are left fighting "nose to nose" and have no advantage. However, please note the term "relative facing". You want to turn your opponent away so that he's no longer facing your center, but you are squarely facing his center. 

There are two ways to achieve this. One is to use a strong bong and leverage to turn your opponent off your center. The other method used against very heavy attacks is to use the force of the attack to shift your stance aside causing your opponent to miss your center while you are still squarely aligned on his center. I believe these are both legitimate and functional strategies depending on the situation and the pressure you are receiving. 

I also believe that the camera angle in that clip of Sergio is deceptive, and that if you look closely you will see that he does achieve a decent angle on his opponent. However, I believe that Emin does a better job of illustrating using a yielding bong sau and gets a better angle in the following clip. He also demonstrates going from bong to punch without needing to use lap-say, and moreover, at the end of the second clip, _he applies the technique against multiple punches_ answering your concern in the previous post.










Now before Keith gets too upset about Emin demonstrating "wrong bong" or inside gate/cross-arm bong I should say that in the WT lineage and off-shoots they teach that there is no "wrong bong". Sure, the outside gate bong has advantages, but you need to be able to make both inside and outside gate bong-sau work. Emin addresses this in the second clip posted here.

BTW --Just for the record. I'm not the greatest at applying the springy, yielding bong. Although I'm not a large person, when sparring, I find a forceful, forward bong that turns my opponent and jolts his stance to be a very practical approach. That is unless I'm working with someone way better than me. Then that soft stuff eats me alive. It's no joke.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 16, 2014)

geezer said:


> There are two ways to achieve this. One is to use a strong bong and leverage to turn your opponent off your center. The other method used against very heavy attacks is to use the force of the attack to shift your stance aside causing your opponent to miss your center while you are still squarely aligned on his center.



The problem with this yielding method is still that you only move yourself out of the way and do nothing to affect the opponent's ability to continue chasing center. You may avoid the first punch, but you do nothing to disrupt the opponent stance, spine, or arms. He remains in perfect balance with the ability to immediately cut the angle and continue striking. This will only work against a fool who keeps charging forward right past you with one punch.



> I also believe that the camera angle in that clip of Sergio is deceptive, and that if you look closely you will see that he does achieve a decent angle on his opponent. However, I believe that Emin does a better job of illustrating using a yielding bong sau and gets a better angle in the following clip.



In both clips, the punchers are not affected. Their shoulders remain square and their arms are hardly redirected. Instead, Sergio and Emin both move themselves around the punchers to avoid their punches. The problem with this still remains that there is nothing stopping the opponent from immediately cutting off that angle with _jat_+punch to continue striking. These guys are clearly fast, but speed without good strategy is only useful against unskilled opponents.



> at the end of the second clip, _he applies the technique against multiple punches_ answering your concern in the previous post.



No, he didn't... ? Throwing one punch, then resetting to throw the same punch again is not what I meant by multiple punches.


----------



## geezer (Nov 16, 2014)

LFJ said:


> The problem with this yielding method is still that you only move yourself out of the way and do nothing to affect the opponent's ability to continue chasing center. You may avoid the first punch, but you do nothing to disrupt the opponent stance, spine, or arms. *He remains in perfect balance with the ability to immediately cut the angle and continue striking.*



I understand what you are saying above and again it is a legitimate concern. However, in my experience, once you establish a good angle (i.e. your opponent is turned away from your center while you are aligned squarely on his) you can maintain the advantage with good, aggressive forward pressure. Once you gain a dominant angle and position, it's easy to drive forward and unbalance your opponent, and it's not so easy for him, now on the defensive, to cut the angle and recover. Why would you let off the pressure and give up your advantage?

I think people mis-construe the idea of a springy bong as weak, or that this approach means that we abandon forward pressure. At any rate I don't advocate that. When I get a good angle on somebody, I don't want to just hit them, I want to press forward and destroy their structure.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 16, 2014)

geezer said:


> However, in my experience, once you establish a good angle (i.e. your opponent is turned away from your center while you are aligned squarely on his) you can maintain the advantage with good, aggressive forward pressure.



You keep saying the opponent is turned away from your center, but really he's just no longer facing your center because you've moved yourself. If he were really turned away his stance would be affected and he'd have to recover. As it stands all he has to do is continue chasing center and there's nothing affecting his ability to do that.



> Once you gain a dominant angle and position, it's easy to drive forward and unbalance your opponent, and it's not so easy for him, now on the defensive, to cut the angle and recover. Why would you let off the pressure and give up your advantage?



I would agree with this if that were what happens, but as I say, if you've done nothing to disrupt the opponent's stance, spine, balance, etc. then he's really not on the defensive. He just needs to continue chasing center with his offense since he's not in an unstable position he needs to recover from. We don't see the pressure put on in either of your clips.



> When I get a good angle on somebody, I don't want to just hit them, I want to press forward and destroy their structure.



Again, I would agree, but we never see that with this kind of strategy. It's always evading the opponent's line of attack and trying to hit them on a new angle, but without affecting their ability to do anything about it. In both the clips you showed, even in slow-mo the punchers' shoulders remained squared and unaffected and their arms were not really redirected as much as just interrupted while the defender turned off line.

This is a common problem I see in other systems besides LTWT. TWC is also constantly trying to circle off line and pin the attacker's arm on their blind side and strike them, but they keep too much distance, allowing space between them and don't really affect the opponent's core as much as just try to deal with the arms.

I think both of these methods are too passive and you really need to get in and aggressively disrupt the opponent's stance, balance, facing, and destroy them. You can't really do that by turning and moving out. You have to act directly.


----------



## geezer (Nov 16, 2014)

LFJ said:


> ...This is a common problem I see in other systems besides LTWT. TWC is also constantly trying to circle off line and pin the attacker's arm on their blind side and strike them, but they keep too much distance, allowing space between them and don't really affect the opponent's core as much as just try to deal with the arms.
> 
> I think both of these methods are too passive and you really need to get in and aggressively disrupt the opponent's stance, balance, facing, and destroy them. You can't really do that by turning and moving out. You have to act directly.



You have a point. I just finished a private session today with my _Eskrima_ coach who is of the same persuasion as you. He feels the initial contact should  in one jolting move deflect, strike , turn your opponent off-line, and mess up his stance. Different system but same objective. By contrast my _Ving Tsun_, primarily derived from WT, is more like what I previously described. Both approaches can work. As to which works best, I believe it depends on the fighters and the situation. You believe differently. I'm OK with that.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 17, 2014)

LFJ said:


> You keep saying the opponent is turned away from your center, but really he's just no longer facing your center because you've moved yourself. If he were really turned away his stance would be affected and he'd have to recover. As it stands all he has to do is continue chasing center and there's nothing affecting his ability to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have a video to share of this? I have nothing but respect for WSL. I know he was regarded for being direct and efficient, but I have never seen or heard much from WSL students.


----------



## geezer (Nov 17, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> Do you have a video to share of this? I have nothing but respect for WSL. I know he was regarded for being direct and efficient, but I have never seen or heard much from WSL students.



_Piedmont_, two WSL guys I find very impressive are Philip Bayer and David Peterson. Here's a clip of Philip Bayer working Chi-Sao with Shawn Obasi. Notice that even though Obasi is bigger and stronger, Bayer jolts him right off his feet. I believe this is the kind of stance disruption_ LFJ_ was talking about. Anyway, I'm impressed.

Philipp Bayer & Shawn Obasi USA 2013 - YouTube

Now here's a clip of David Peterson doing some Chi-Sao. Notice the close range, minimal stance movement (no weight-shifting), and obvious forward pressure. He doesn't need to shift, he just turns and unbalances his opponent. Clearly and effective approach:

WSL Ving Tsun Combat Science Malaysia - YouTube

Now, there seems to be some disagreement between the followers of Bayer and Peterson. LFJ may wish to weigh in on that. I suspect it's just more WC politics. Regardless, it's readily apparent that both these guys are very good. 

Now as to why I say that and still value the soft-springy approach that I train? Call it a personal preference. I upset a lot of people with my annoying tendency to see both sides of an argument. Imagine the trouble I get into when the topic turns to politics, ...or worse, _football!_


----------



## KPM (Nov 17, 2014)

geezer said:


> You have a point. I just finished a private session today with my _Eskrima_ coach who is of the same persuasion as you. He feels the initial contact should  in one jolting move deflect, strike , turn your opponent off-line, and mess up his stance. Different system but same objective. By contrast my _Ving Tsun_, primarily derived from WT, is more like what I previously described. Both approaches can work. As to which works best, I believe it depends on the fighters and the situation. You believe differently. I'm OK with that.


 
 Just as an aside.....this is also exactly what Robert Chu teaches in his Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.


----------



## geezer (Nov 17, 2014)

KPM said:


> Just as an aside.....this is also exactly what Robert Chu teaches in his Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.



Yeah, I've seen that in some of Alan Orr's clips. Here's an example: 

Wing Chun Questions 3 - Alan Orr - Wing Chun turning and weight placement - YouTube

The section from about 1:50-2:05 seems particularly directed at the WT style light or yielding stance with a weight shift to get an angle. He makes some great points. However, I look at my training to be light as a way to compensate for my tendency to clash force in the heat of the moment. The human default mode is to resist force with force.

 By training to be springy you can compensate and overcome this tendency towards a hard or rigid response. Althought we strive to be more yielding, in practice, we never abandon forward pressure and control of your opponents's center. So, if he is structurally weaker, you turn him. If he is your equal, you will turn him some, and shift around him some, effectively borrowing his force as needed. If he far stronger, you use his force to press yourself to the side to get your angle (like working against the Mook Yang Jong). The key is to _press _yourself to the side. _You never let off the pressure._

So to my eyes, there is NOT a huge gulf between our objective and what Mr. Orr is demonstrating. Many on both sides of this debate (including some of my kung-fu brothers) will disagree.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Nov 17, 2014)

geezer said:


> _Piedmont_, two WSL guys I find very impressive are Philip Bayer and David Peterson.



what about Barry Lee? i heard he was WSL's best student.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 17, 2014)

geezer said:


> Althought we strive to be more yielding, in practice, we never abandon forward pressure and control of your opponents's center. So, if he is structurally weaker, you turn him. If he is your equal, you will turn him some, and shift around him some, effectively borrowing his force as needed. If he far stronger, you use his force to press yourself to the side to get your angle (like working against the Mook Yang Jong). The key is to _press _yourself to the side. _You never let off the pressure._
> 
> So to my eyes, there is NOT a huge gulf between our objective and what Mr. Orr is demonstrating. Many on both sides of this debate (including some of my kung-fu brothers) will disagree.



If it's any consolation to you, as your "kung fu cousin" this is the way I tend to approach things as well.
Although what I practice is WT lineage, it is very much a hybrid between what I learned from EB and what I learned from AF. It seems to work for me.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 17, 2014)

yak sao said:


> It seems to work for me.



Well said Yak. This is whats most important!


----------



## geezer (Nov 17, 2014)

yak sao said:


> If it's any consolation to you, as your "kung fu cousin" this is the way I tend to approach things as well.
> Although what I practice is WT lineage, it is very much a hybrid between what I learned from EB and what I learned from AF. *It seems to work for me.*



It really boils down to the bolded words above. There is no perfect system for everyone. Each person has different abilities and weaknesses. From the legendary fighters to us mere mortals, each will ultimately benefit more from some parts of the system than others. I think GM Yip understood this. Look how his different students and grand students have focused on different aspects of what he taught. But somehow each seems to think that only their method is correct. What a bunch of bone-heads. ...Some are physically gifted bone-heads, I'll grant you that. But still, bone-heads!

Even in the association I belong to now (which is a good one), sometimes there is the feeling that only they have it absolutely right. And members are tacitly discouraged from participating on forums, watching too many heretical youtube clips, training with other groups, and what-have-you. And I find that I'm not alone in this situation. Notice how most of the free-thinking members of this forum are currently independent of the major lineages? Something about the authoritarian nature of TCMA and the Western tradition of free inquiry and independent thought don't seem to blend all that well. Eventually, the yoke begins to chafe.


----------



## geezer (Nov 17, 2014)

While I'm at the computer, there's one more thing I'd like to throw out there, but I think it is a little off-topic. In response to LFJ's earlier post where he stated that he didn't even recognize the WT yielding bong and weight-shifting method as WC, I got to thinking about how in Western boxing, there are a lot of different styles a fighter can  adopt -- in=fighter, out-fighter, brawler, counter-puncher... and a coach will train-up his fighter according to what works best. When a fighter confronts an opponent with a different style in the ring, nobody talks about "not recognizing" what the other guy does as "boxing". Why should it be different for WC Chinese boxing? This is a question Alan Orr has raised, and honestly, he's onto something. Check out my new thread on this.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 17, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> Do you have a video to share of this? I have nothing but respect for WSL. I know he was regarded for being direct and efficient, but I have never seen or heard much from WSL students.



If you're looking for direct and efficient WSLVT, some of the best to be seen online in my opinion, is that of Michael Kurth. As you'll see, there's no circling out, shifting around, etc., just direct and efficient footwork and forward pressure cutting into the other's attacks. At high speed and when the gloves go on and things get a little heavier, I think a passive approach would get one eaten alive. 

He was a student of Bayer and has a reputation as a fighter in Germany, where he's openly put his *** on the line many times taking on anyone of various styles who would come through his school to test him, regardless of size and skill. I know one such guy, a Mantis style sifu that said MK is the scariest person he's ever sparred. He threw his entire arsenal at him and it was all shut down. He just has really efficient _gung-fu_.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 17, 2014)

geezer said:


> Now, there seems to be some disagreement between the followers of Bayer and Peterson. LFJ may wish to weigh in on that. I suspect it's just more WC politics. Regardless, it's readily apparent that both these guys are very good.



I already elaborated a bit on DP at the end of the "Eddie Chong's Sil Lim Tao" thread. It's not just a matter of politics. If you compare what you've seen from DP to the clips of MK posted just above, I think you'll find they are on entirely different planets!


----------



## geezer (Nov 18, 2014)

LFJ said:


> *I already elaborated a bit on DP* at the end of the "Eddie Chong's Sil Lim Tao" thread. It's not just a matter of politics. If you compare what you've seen from DP to the clips of MK posted just above, I think you'll find they are on entirely different planets!



You mean when you posted this?

_  "...(DP) only had training time to receive fast track application ideas, as evidenced by what he teaches. As he said in that clip you posted, WSL didn't keep secrets but taught individuals based on what he thought they could absorb at the time. Someone who steps into his school for 5 mins once a year is not going to be able to absorb abstract training methods for fighting strategy and tactics which need constant development and refinement throughout the system. It's not just a "when they do that, you do this" sort of thing. WSL's early and longterm students didn't teach that way either. But visiting students needed something to take home. Some of the ideas may not be "wrong", but they are at best secondary or even last line of defense options."  -- LFJ

_I get the general idea that you feel that David Peterson didn't get the same regular, in-depth training as some others, and consequently that certain others received, but I'm still rather vague on what the actual, observable differences are. What should we be looking at? Could you share a couple of examples?


----------



## LFJ (Nov 18, 2014)

geezer said:


> I get the general idea that you feel that David Peterson didn't get the same regular, in-depth training as some others, and consequently that certain others received, but I'm still rather vague on what the actual, observable differences are. What should we be looking at? Could you share a couple of examples?



Do you not see any difference between his clip you posted and the ones of MK I posted? The contrast is stark if you ask me.

Well, a lot of what DP teaches is not so observable, because although his forms run the same patterns, he teaches 1:1 application ideas to each action, and since they don't spar you only see these applications done in one-step demonstrations. Things like _taan-sau_ to block round punches, or _soh-sau_ to block kicks. In an article he wrote on the _soh-sau_ technique, which others call _gam-sau_, he wrote how it can be modified to block round kicks as well. He doesn't describe exactly how, but trying to block any kick with a single palm is nuts. If they actually did free sparring with any sort of intensity they'd find out quickly how crazy these application ideas are. The action is done downward in the forms, so some people look at it literally and think of how it can be applied in terms of 1:1 scenarios and miss what it's actually showing. 

But just looking at their training clips, 

DP: 



MK: 




, you can see how DP is still all about techniques. He does an entry technique and tries to touch his partner's face with his palm and then stops. If the partner then tries to move all four arms get into a tangled mess like they don't know what to do. Some times they stalemate and their arms are tangled for a moment, and you can see their muscles struggling as they think of a way to outsmart the other guy in a game of tag. This is making a game out of the whole thing and is really useless for fight training. DP doesn't have the basic elbow ideas the system is all about, so instead of using the elbow to clear and maintain striking lines coupled with tactical footwork and body mechanics, he stands, tangled in their arms, and looks for ways to go around them.

On the other hand, in MK's clips you don't see them pausing on each others arms trying to think of a way to outsmart the other guy and get around each other's arms. You don't see single "gotcha" techniques that slip through. You see training of tactical footwork and use of the elbows to cut angles on the partner as they drive forward with the aim to hit and keep hitting while cutting off the partner's ability to stop or counteract it. Even at high speeds there is no tangling and muscling, because the fundamental strategy and tactics are different. While this is not fighting, you can see how it is part of VT fight training in learning how to continue one's flow of attack through instinctive reaction even at high speed. If you always pause and play this point game of smarts while attached to the other guy's arms, you're not really developing anything useful. 

This is a bridge toward free fighting where there is no pre-contact. If you never even spar, you won't have a clue what _chi-sau_ is in reference to and will miss the point entirely. You see, in WSL's school they didn't have regular sparring, but this was because the serious students went out to fight every week, and so training time was spent mainly with _chi-sau/gwoh-sau_ drills to iron out problems that appeared in real fights. Less serious students, or visitors would never taste the reality of fighting and think _chi-sau_ is all they needed to do and all there was to it. Missing out on this important piece meant that their _chi-sau_ itself got turned into a competitive game, rather than a platform for developing correct behaviors for combat and drilling out errors made in real fighting/ hard sparring. Without free fighting, they wouldn't even understand enough footwork. I think this lack of practical experience can be seen clearly in DP.


----------



## geezer (Nov 20, 2014)

Here's a clip of Sifu Fernandez applying a Tan Sau against a punch, yielding and getting an angle, simultaneously borrowing and redirecting the force back through his opponent. Although he "yields" he turns rolling his body weight so that it increases the forward pressure against his opponent, destroying his structure. IMO this is also the way you maintain forward pressure with a bong ...after all a bong is just a tan rolled over. By aggressively applying forward pressure in this manner, and following up with continuous attacks, it is very difficult for your opponent to "chase center" and recover. 

I don't agree with everything Fernandez shows in his videos, but I think he has a very practical version of WT.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 21, 2014)

My question is still "why"? I mean, of course you should know when someone has their hands up ready to fight, they aren't just going to stand there and let you walk straight through their arms. So by coming forward and making that contact you have to convert it to either _taan_ or _bong_ and try to go around it. It's an obstacle that you created yourself by looking for that initial contact where you knew you weren't likely to just get through. So I ask, why? I also don't think it's a good idea to look for contact when that arm could suddenly not be there and the guy has moved to strike. Maybe you aren't "looking for contact" but you are blindly moving up an occupied center with no intention of displacing the obstruction, which means you are intentionally walking straight into an obstacle, assuming the opponent is not so mobile anyway.

I also don't see how this avoids the problem of the _jat_+punch response. You know the _laan-sau_ from the first section of CK? We do it with the elbow slightly lower than the hand as it turns and it has an element of _jat-sau_ in it. This sort of _laaan_/_jat_+punch can be used as you turn to attack center on the guy trying to move around you. The action can deal with both arms, the one that was already placed on it and the intercepted punch, while you have another hand to punch with.

As I think I said earlier, debating scenarios is really pointless, but this is just a basic instinctive reaction we develop to continue an interrupted attack or clear contact to punch in a very direct way. Being that it is very direct, it is always a good response to consider from your opponent when working out the practicality of any attack or defense.


----------



## geezer (Nov 21, 2014)

LFJ said:


> My question is still "why"?  *...Maybe you aren't "looking for contact" but you are blindly moving up an occupied center* with no intention of displacing the obstruction, which means you are intentionally walking straight into an obstacle, assuming the opponent is not so mobile anyway.



I think this (bolded script) is the better answer to your question. _Of course_ it is better to get into position to hit directly and eliminate the need for bong and tan sau. Bong and tan come into play when you run into something, or it runs into you.  

If you use a "hard" explosive bong, you can jolt your opponent and directly disrupt his stance so you can easily follow up with punches. If you take a more yielding approach with bong or tan, but *keep on the pressure* (like Fernandez does in this last clip) you defend and hit simultaneously, disrupting his stance_ with the punch_. Unlike tan, bong doesn't lend itself so well to simultaneous punching. So some use the bong as the attack. Others soften the bong, so it yields more and lets the punch come through _almost_ at the same time. 

So I guess the question is, "_Would you rather disrupt their structure with your bong or punch?" B_oth strategies can work. Each has it's advantages.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 21, 2014)

geezer said:


> I think this (bolded script) is the better answer to your question. _Of course_ it is better to get into position to hit directly and eliminate the need for bong and tan sau. Bong and tan come into play when you run into something, or it runs into you.



So going forward up the middle with your "wedge" is not actually part of your strategy? Because that's what I see often from LTWT. They go forward with their wedge and then convert to _taan_ or _bong _when they meet an obstruction they can't just drive through with their wedge. At least in demonstrations, I see this. Is that just to show what happens when a collision occurs? Because the way they demonstrate it, it seems like part of their strategy; to hold center until forced to change lines. Just seems an odd idea to run into an occupied space knowing you'll more than likely have to do another action to go around it.



> If you take a more yielding approach with bong or tan, but *keep on the pressure* (like Fernandez does in this last clip) you defend and hit simultaneously, disrupting his stance_ with the punch_.



Assuming the opponent doesn't immediately react upon contact from your lead hand, right? Because he does make contact and convert to _taan_ before punching. They don't actually happen at the same time, although they end up being on at the same time. If you both collide with lead hands at the same instant (obviously), you both have the same amount of time to react. It will come down to the two reactions, which is faster, more direct, powerful...


----------



## geezer (Nov 23, 2014)

LFJ said:


> So going forward up the middle with your "wedge" is not actually part of your strategy? Because that's what I see often from LTWT. They go forward with their wedge and then convert to _taan_ or _bong _when they meet an obstruction they can't just drive through with their wedge. At least in demonstrations, I see this.



This is one common strategy, but not the only one. I prefer "getting an angle" and finding a hole through which to attack. Part of this comes from my Escrima background, but it is also present within LTWT. The concept of _"yau pin yap ching"_ or "stepping from side to center" is evident in most WC lineages, as in the _three-angle-walking_ steps I've also seen taught in the Augustine Fong WC. Perhaps _Joy_ can elaborate.



LFJ said:


> If you both collide with lead hands at the same instant (obviously), you both have the same amount of time to react. It will come down to the two reactions, which is faster, more direct, powerful...



Actually, the WT position is that if all other factors are equal, the practitioner with the more elastic or springy quality _will be faster_ in making this transition. Those who are depend on force have to_ feel_ the obstruction then then react and change to another technique such as bong sau. Even if this transition is trained into "muscle memory" and is reflexive _it is subject to the limitations of human reaction time_.

On the other hand, the practitioner whose arm bends under stress like a supple sapling or bamboo _does not depend upon "reaction time"_. His arm is mechanically bent into bong so there is no reaction time lag. _If _you can do this, you _will_ be faster than someone who has to use reflexive action to effect this transition, just as someone who can respond instinctively and reflexively will, in turn, be faster than someone who has to think and make a conscious decision.

In short, this is the distinction between reacting consciously (slowest method), reacting relexively (faster), and reacting mechanically using "spring-force" (fastest method). In WT, the first two types of reaction are sometimes referred to as a _subjective response _since they require the defender to engage in subjective mental processing at the conscious or unconscious levels. By contrast, the third, "springy" method is an _objective response _since it is a_ direct mechanical reaction_ triggered by the energies provided by the attacker and requires no subjective mental processing.

Now honestly, for most of us who've trained in WT or its derivatives, the percentage time when our reactions are truly _objective _is quite small. Our goal is to increase this percentage and in so doing increase our speed and efficiency.

@LFJ: My reason for explaining this is simply to clarify some of the reasoning behind the LTWT approach, not to declare it as the ultimate "truth" or to attempt to convince you of its "correctness". We each have our own perspectives and we practice what we feel works for us.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2014)

geezer said:


> Actually, the WT position is that if all other factors are equal, the practitioner with the more elastic or springy quality will be faster in making this transition. Those who are depend on force have to feel the obstruction then then react and change to another technique such as bong sau. Even if this transition is trained into "muscle memory" and is reflexive it is subject to the limitations of human reaction time.



Where is the elastic or springy quality in the Fernandez video where he changes to _taan-sau_ and steps around with a punch? Even with limitations of human reaction time, _jat_+punch is more direct than step around+punch. I'm sure even if my reaction is slow I can _jat_+punch faster than someone can take a full step around me. In this case, I need only shift with the _jat_ like in CK and cut with the punch to take care of both arms, while my punch would generate more power through core rotation than a fully stepping and turning punch. It's more direct and has knockout power. I think this will make up for any limitations of human reaction time.

Plus, he's moving forward until he meets an obstruction then turns around it while stepping through with the right leg. I think in order for him to do this fast and smoothly, he would have to have this attack in mind as he's moving forward prior to contact. If he were really fighting "objectively" as you put it and his arm were mechanically morphed into _taan-sau_ I think fighting at high speed he would trip over his feet to keep up if he were not already intending to take that step. Even if the arms are connected to the legs and the energy is felt in the whole body, while the arm may automatically change shape, it does take personal volition to step with the correct pattern.

I think this "objective" fighting theory might theoretically sound faster, but actually allowing force to come into your body and then dictate how you step would be slower than immediately stepping in relation to positions in the most direct way, if realistic at all. Instinctive reaction when well developed with the most direction responses, I feel, will be faster than any yielding, elastic, mechanical reaction while the footwork and body methods are indirect. It sounds like a fighting method that was devised through playing about in _chi-sau_, rather than in reference to actual no pre- or prolonged arm contact, high speed free fighting.


----------



## geezer (Nov 24, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Instinctive reaction when well developed with the most direction responses, I feel, will be faster than any yielding, elastic, mechanical reaction while the footwork and body methods are indirect.



Flexing/yielding can be used with a variety of footwork. Both subjective or "reflexive" and objective or "mechanical" responses can be fast and effective. The reflexive responses are easier to develop and apply. And even so, they aren't easy. Nothing worthwhile is. The mechanical response is tougher and harder to execute under stress. But it _does_ _happen_ and _does work_. And, I don't believe it's unique to _WT_. In fact I don't believe it's unique to _WC_ in general. I've personally experienced it in _Escrima _as well, and have seen it occur in other arts too.



LFJ said:


> It sounds like a fighting method that was *devised through playing about in *_*chi-sau*_*,* rather than in reference to actual no pre- or prolonged arm contact, high speed free fighting.



_Probably true_. We put a lot of weight on the value of chi-sau and what can be learned from it. And we believe that it improves our sparring and fighting skills. I would agree, however that such skills need to be tested and further developed through sparring. That has been done. Plenty of guys like Fernandez, Emin Boztepe, and Victor Gutierrez do like to fight. Maybe not in the ring or cage with MMA rules, but they do test out their stuff.


----------

