Just as an aside.....this is also exactly what Robert Chu teaches in his Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.
Bong Sau
- Thread starter Hong Kong Pooey
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
kung fu fighter
Green Belt
what about Barry Lee? i heard he was WSL's best student.
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
Purple Belt
Well said Yak. This is whats most important!
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
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:
, 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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
I don't agree with everything Fernandez shows in his videos, but I think he has a very practical version of WT.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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?" Both strategies can work. Each has it's advantages.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
