Bong Sau

[PiedmontChun]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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: 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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Punchy]

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]

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]

---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]

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]

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]

I


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?

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]

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 laaping? 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]

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]

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 laaping? 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]

---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...

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: