Bong Sau

[LFJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[LFJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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.



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.



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.

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]

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!