"If there's a bridge, cross it. If there's no bridge, build one"

[Argus]

I agree! However I personally believe wing chun to be a bladed system. I recall Yip chun once said "if you put two blades in your hands, you will see the flaws of your empty hand techniques". So You have to be careful not to have a double kill as they say in FMA.

Yeah. The "double kill" is something that some Historical Fencers are concerned with as well, as fencing theory emphasizes simultaneous attack and defense. This leads some fencers to adopt a very cautious approach, while others are overly aggressive in tournaments. Personally, I feel that any "double kill" is just the result of poor execution on the part of both practitioners, and against skilled opponents, is something to be expected. But it's also a bit of a tournament phenomenon, as people are more likely to gamble for points, but are much more conservative when their life is at stake, and therefore less likely to gamble for a badly timed counter, but rather more apt to displace first.

Some very good points! And I think this works really well against an opponent who aggressively comes at you, but I was referring specificly to an opponent who does not want to engage you, and you have to bring the fight to them?

Are you from WSL's line?

I'm from Ip Ching's line, but I admit that I am strongly influenced by WSL's philosophy, and my exposure to fencing. I do practice some with other martial artists outside of WC, and I find that I still have the best success when I focus on chasing center with an attack; conversely, I almost always meet with bad results when I chase hands. Even entering with a simple pak-da, for example, gets me in trouble if I focus on paking the lead hand first; the opponent will usually just remove that hand and hit you with the rear before your own punch has time to connect. However, I have pretty good results when focusing on bridging with a good punch that is aimed at connecting with my opponent.

The distance game is a hard one, though, and I'm not good at it myself. But, at the end of the day, the opponent has to come in if he wants to connect with you, so I usually wait for him to feed me a more committed attack, and don't respond to feints or out-of-distance jabs. One thing that can help is to keep your arms a little closer in when you're out of contact; if your hands are too far forward, it encourages your opponent to pick at you from a distance as opposed to closing in.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was referring specificly to an opponent who does not want to engage you, ...

IMO, the major difference between CMA and boxing is in CMA, you should always "手不空回 (Shou Bu Kong Hei) - pull your punching back without empty handed". If you can put a "fishing hook" on your opponent's body, when he moves back, his body will pull your body with him.

If your punch has been blocked by your opponent's arm, it gives you a good opportunity to slide your arm along his arm and pull his blocking arm back.

 

[mook jong man]

I would dispute the premise of the video in the O.P , that in my opinion is a load of crap.
I like how these videos that try and point out flaws in Wing Chun principles never seem to have a proper grasp of the principles that they are saying won't work.

Hands up , if in your Wing Chun the goal is to make pretty and complex trapping sequences .
Hands up , if your goal is to punch the bastard square in the face as soon as there is a gap.

Don't know about anyone else but mine is the latter.

If you have a proper understanding of "Forward Force" you will not engage in messing around with peoples arms , because if you have been taught chi sau properly both your arms will be instinctively searching for gaps to hit through.

Who cares if the guy moves back or moves , around and throws punches from different trajectories as you move in , that is why you practice ''four corner deflection and bridging the gap with kicks , or you should be.

Until you are in proper range , and hitting and controlling his hands it is always going to be dangerous.
As you are moving in , you have to be focused on your attack , and let your training take care of anything you might have to intercept on the way in.

One of the strengths of Wing Chun is that the techniques are not committed , any of it's attacking techniques can be interrupted and instantly convert into a defensive technique.

 

[drop bear]

I would dispute the premise of the video in the O.P , that in my opinion is a load of crap.
I like how these videos that try and point out flaws in Wing Chun principles never seem to have a proper grasp of the principles that they are saying won't work.

Hands up , if in your Wing Chun the goal is to make pretty and complex trapping sequences .
Hands up , if your goal is to punch the bastard square in the face as soon as there is a gap.

Don't know about anyone else but mine is the latter.

If you have a proper understanding of "Forward Force" you will not engage in messing around with peoples arms , because if you have been taught chi sau properly both your arms will be instinctively searching for gaps to hit through.

Who cares if the guy moves back or moves , around and throws punches from different trajectories as you move in , that is why you practice ''four corner deflection and bridging the gap with kicks , or you should be.

Until you are in proper range , and hitting and controlling his hands it is always going to be dangerous.
As you are moving in , you have to be focused on your attack , and let your training take care of anything you might have to intercept on the way in.

One of the strengths of Wing Chun is that the techniques are not committed , any of it's attacking techniques can be interrupted and instantly convert into a defensive technique.

They were at his waist when he was getting nailed. Which is generally a fighting faux pas. But I assume that is the difference between chasing hands and staying tight.

 

[KPM]

I liked the format KPM used in his "HOw to box with wing chun" videos. I wonder what his take is on "If there's a bridge, cross it. If there's no bridge, build one"

I like to think of the "bridge" as any contact with the opponent. So if there is no "bridge", I am going to build one by striking the opponent! The second my fist contacts his face, I have built a "bridge"! If he manages to stop my punch with a block of some kind, then we are again in contact and therefore have a "bridge", so now I must "cross it" to continue my attack. If the opponent is attacking me, I am going to "build a bridge" by defending and therefore establishing contact, and then "crossing" with my own counter-attack...preferably at the same time. If I plan to attack the opponent and he has his guard up as a barrier, then I am likely going to have to contact his arms in some way (building a bridge again) before I can get my attack through.

Now traditionally, "bridge" often referred to the forearm. So this saying may have originally referred to establishing contact with the opponent forearm to forearm as in a Chi Sau-like situation. So in my opinion, this saying is not a perfect rule and can be taken too far in interpretation.

My interpretation of "bridge" as any kind of contact has problems because I'm sure many of you are thinking..."well duh! How are you going to do anything without contacting the opponent???"

But the interpretation of "bridge" as forearm contact has problems because you can obviously hit someone without contacting their forearm first, which would be the ideal! Or you could kick them, which doesn't use the forearm at all! So in this case, the saying may assume that you are facing an opponent with his guard up and ready and therefore you are going to have to "bridge" past his guard in some way. It seems to almost assume you are going to be in a Chi Sau-like situation with an opponent. Where I prefer to think in terms more like a boxing-like situation throwing multiple punches and not worrying so much about bridging with the forearms unless the opponent has stopped me and I must remove an obstacle in order to keep on punching!

Hope that makes some kind of sense!

I know LFJ has a different interpretation of what a "bridge" means. I'm surprised he hasn't posted yet, and would like to hear his explanation again.

 

[KPM]

IMO, the major difference between CMA and boxing is in CMA, you should always "手不空回 (Shou Bu Kong Hei) - pull your punching back without empty handed". If you can put a "fishing hook" on your opponent's body, when he moves back, his body will pull your body with him.

If your punch has been blocked by your opponent's arm, it gives you a good opportunity to slide your arm along his arm and pull his blocking arm back.

John, this may work with an opponent using fairly committed defenses and bigger motions. But against someone using fast motions with only very brief contact (like a fast Pak Sau), or someone good at a not only blocking but at controlling the elbow and gaining your center at the same time....it just isn't going to work very well. Against a boxer who covers up or evades your punch and then comes back very quickly with his own punch, there is going to be nothing to grab. This approach also keeps you from just throwing your own combination of punches to take the opponent out. So while it may be useful in some situations, I don't see it as useful as a general rule.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

John, this may work with an opponent using fairly committed defenses and bigger motions. ...

Since every time that your throw your punch out, you have to pull your punch back any way, it doesn't cost you anything extra if you try to pull something back. The WC Fu Shou can be used as that "fishing hook".

I always assume that to control your opponent's leading arm while punching/kicking him at the same time is a very "common" WC strategy.

If your force is A, your opponent's body momentum is B,

when your opponent is

- moving forward by your pulling, your punching force will give you A + B > A.
- not moving, your punching force will give you A = A.
- moving back, your punching force will give you A - B < A.

The "head on collision" is definitely the best for the striking model. In order to create a "head on collision", you either have to

- wait for your opponent to come in toward you, or
- pull him toward you.

 

[KPM]

John, I didn't say we would never do it. What I objected to was the "every time" and "should always" comments. I think it works, but only in certain circumstances, not all the time and after every punch. And you don't have to pull him towards you to create a collision. More often than not he is coming towards you already!

 

[LFJ]

I know LFJ has a different interpretation of what a "bridge" means. I'm surprised he hasn't posted yet, and would like to hear his explanation again.

Oh, would you?

I read the topic. It's not about what bridge means but how people prefer to do it. I don't even understand bridge as a verb, so I didn't bother as my comments would be off topic.

 

[drop bear]

John, this may work with an opponent using fairly committed defenses and bigger motions. But against someone using fast motions with only very brief contact (like a fast Pak Sau), or someone good at a not only blocking but at controlling the elbow and gaining your center at the same time....it just isn't going to work very well. Against a boxer who covers up or evades your punch and then comes back very quickly with his own punch, there is going to be nothing to grab. This approach also keeps you from just throwing your own combination of punches to take the opponent out. So while it may be useful in some situations, I don't see it as useful as a general rule.

Dutch hand trap,you use the tight guard.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WAVxYY0hf-4

 

[Vajramusti]

True. Lots of confusion when action verbs are interpreted as nouns!!

 

[KPM]

From the Oxford On-line Dictionary:

noun
1A structure carrying a road, path, railway, etc. across a river, road, or other obstacle: a bridge across the River Thamesa railway bridge

Something intended to reconcile or connect two seemingly incompatible things: a committee which was formed to create a bridge between rival party groups
verb
[with object] Back to top
1Be or make a bridge over (something): a covered walkway bridged the gardensearlier attempts to bridge St George&#8217;s Channel had failed


Doesn't seem all that difficult to me!

 

[LFJ]

We realize "bridge" in this context is a translation from the Chinese word kiu, right? It doesn't matter that the English word has another meaning when it functions as a verb. That would be a different word in Chinese. In Chinese it is only a noun and can never be an "action verb". Trying to interpret it through the ambiguity of English terminology, a different idea entirely results.

 

[KPM]

We realize "bridge" in this context is a translation from the Chinese word kiu, right? It doesn't matter that the English word has another meaning when it functions as a verb. That would be a different word in Chinese. In Chinese it is only a noun and can never be an "action verb". Trying to interpret it through the ambiguity of English terminology, a different idea entirely results.

Good points LFJ. I didn't know that the word "Kiu" didn't function as a verb in the original language. So what is the closest English translation of the word "Kiu"?

 

[LFJ]

Bridge! (noun)

 

[Argus]

Good points LFJ. I didn't know that the word "Kiu" didn't function as a verb in the original language. So what is the closest English translation of the word "Kiu"?

&#27211; simply refers to a physical bridge, as in the kind that spans a body of water and people drive or walk on it. There's not much more to the word than that, as far as I'm aware.

 

[KPM]

&#27211; simply refers to a physical bridge, as in the kind that spans a body of water and people drive or walk on it. There's not much more to the word than that, as far as I'm aware.

Ok. Thanks guys! Then I don't see any conflict here.

 

[kung fu fighter]

I like to think of the "bridge" as any contact with the opponent. So if there is no "bridge", I am going to build one by striking the opponent! The second my fist contacts his face, I have built a "bridge"! If he manages to stop my punch with a block of some kind, then we are again in contact and therefore have a "bridge", so now I must "cross it" to continue my attack. If the opponent is attacking me, I am going to "build a bridge" by defending and therefore establishing contact, and then "crossing" with my own counter-attack...preferably at the same time. If I plan to attack the opponent and he has his guard up as a barrier, then I am likely going to have to contact his arms in some way (building a bridge again) before I can get my attack through.

But the interpretation of "bridge" as forearm contact has problems because you can obviously hit someone without contacting their forearm first, which would be the ideal! Or you could kick them, which doesn't use the forearm at all! So in this case, the saying may assume that you are facing an opponent with his guard up and ready and therefore you are going to have to "bridge" past his guard in some way. It seems to almost assume you are going to be in a Chi Sau-like situation with an opponent. Where I prefer to think in terms more like a boxing-like situation throwing multiple punches and not worrying so much about bridging with the forearms unless the opponent has stopped me and I must remove an obstacle in order to keep on punching!

Keith, What does all this looks like in application? do you apply this exactly like in your "how to box with wing chun" videos? or does your pure application of wck look different to what's presented in those videos regards to building a bridge or closing the gap?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why do you want to build a "bridge" for?

How many times that you can knock your opponent down by your 1st punch? 99% of the time, your opponent will block your 1st punch. If you know that your 1st punch will be blocked most of the time, you don't want to commit 100% on your 1st punch. You may just want to commit 30% of your force into it. Since you know that your opponent will block it, you try to take advantage on his blocking.

- You knock on the door,
- when your opponent open that door,
- you then enter.

That "door knocking" in

- boxing, it's called jab/jabs.
- CMA, it's called "build bridge".

 

[Touch Of Death]

I would say about 98% of wing chun training focus on how to cross a bridge, but how do you build the bridge in order to cross it?

What's the most effective way you've found to build a bridge?

when building a bridge do you prefer arm to arm contact, or to strike the opponent's center line directly as in boxing?

Trapping works well when an opponent aggressively comes at you, but how do you build a bridge against an opponent who does not want to engage you?

I agree with what this video speaks about in regards to trapping only being done against a stationary opponent, it becomes way more difficlut to apply against a moving opponent with a boxing type structure

I'm late on this discussion, but defanging is my go to method.
Sean