Bong Sau

[geezer]

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?

 

[Punchy]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Punchy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[LFJ]

*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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Punchy]

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.



"Wing arm structure"? What even is that ?


-

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.