In boxing, you can build the bridge with fancy footwork, or any art.
"If there's a bridge, cross it. If there's no bridge, build one"
- Thread starter kung fu fighter
- Start date
IMO, the
- linear punch such as jab, or cross will have less chance for your arm to meet with your opponent's arm.
- circular punch such as haymaker, or back fist will have better chance for your arm to meet with your opponent's arm.
The reason is simple. The linear punch is harder to block than the circular punch. If your opponent dodges your jab, or cross, you won't have chance to build a bridge. Since anybody can block a haymaker or back fist, it will give your opponent more motivation trying to block it.
If you can "slow down" your bait and let your fish has chance to catch it, that will be even better.
Last edited:
Weeell, I'll give it to you again, since this is a different forum...
There's still the issue of taking it too literally and attempting to build a physical bridge of arm or leg contact between oneself and the opponent. Some people think "if there's no bridge, I have to build one" and attempt to make and maintain contact because from there they can in theory manipulate the opponent's limbs and strike them while controlling them.
As you know, I find this interpretation problematic, because a bridge is to facilitate crossing from point A to point B. If you stick to something you're stuck too. If it's with your legs, now you've limited your own mobility. If it's with your arms, it's an obstacle that you must first remove before you can hit. Doesn't sound much like the function of a bridge. Now if you say for example the lead arm controls so you can hit with the rear, that would be closer to the function of a bridge I suppose, but that is still not as efficient as it could be and fighting with two arms against one is not the skill to be developed.
Interpreting a bridge as any sort of contact, including fist-to-face as you do, also makes little sense. A punch is a punch. Why do you need to invent special terminology for it? "If there's no bridge, build one" = "If you haven't punched someone, punch them"? Why do you need an maxim to tell you that? Plus, if your fist on someone's face is the bridge, what is crossing the bridge? Putting your fist through their skull?
So neither of these interpretations are quite satisfactory to me. In my lineage, a bridge is simply the most direct and efficient route to the target. The CK form (seeking the bridge) teaches one how to find and take or create this path (cross or build the bridge metaphorically), and not how to search for arm contact in the middle of a high speed brawl. This is usually by means of a single arm with simultaneous dual functions of attack and protection (lin siu daai da / da sau jik siu sau), or with a helping action to clear the line for the strike if necessary (crossing or building the bridge, as the maxim states). Two such arms work in rotation to create a sustained assault until the threat is eliminated. No searching for arms, no sticking, etc., just taking the most direct and efficient path.
A lot of confusion, and dangerously impractical fighting tactics IMO, stems from taking the word "bridge" too literally or making it a verb and attempting to connectĀ or bridgeĀ two things, like arms and legs in a fight.
I see what you're saying LFJ. But I think we just have to conclude that this saying is just problematic in general! 
You seem to be saying that you interpret it as finding an opening to strike the opponent in the most direct fashion. I don't see that as much different that what I said. I essentially said...just hit the guy! If he puts up resistance or an obstacle, go around or through the obstacle so you can keep hitting him!
As we discussed back in KFO, you are interpreting "bridge" as empty space...as an opening. That is problematic because a bridge is a "thing"....something physical. I am interpreting "bridge" as some kind of contact. As I already pointed out and you noted as well, this is problematic because of course we are going to hit the opponent! We don't need to be told to do this! But likewise when seeing the "bridge" as an opening, we shouldn't need to be told to look for an opening! Intepreting "bridge" as specifically being contact with the forearms in a Chi Sau-like situation (which I suspect may be the original intent) is problematic because its better to just hit without contact whenever possible, and we may be using kicks!
So again, I think we are left to conclude that this particular Kuen Kuit is rather ambiguous and open for interpretation.
If I was going to restate it, I would say...."Strike the opponent immediately if you can! If he puts up an obstacle in your way, go around or go through it and continue to strike!" Now, if someone put that into poetic Chinese, we'd have something. ;-) But again, do we really need to be told to do this?? I'm becoming less and less impressed with the usefulness of this particular Kuen Kuit as time goes on.
You seem to be saying that you interpret it as finding an opening to strike the opponent in the most direct fashion. I don't see that as much different that what I said. I essentially said...just hit the guy! If he puts up resistance or an obstacle, go around or through the obstacle so you can keep hitting him! As we discussed back in KFO, you are interpreting "bridge" as empty space...as an opening. That is problematic because a bridge is a "thing"....something physical. I am interpreting "bridge" as some kind of contact. As I already pointed out and you noted as well, this is problematic because of course we are going to hit the opponent! We don't need to be told to do this! But likewise when seeing the "bridge" as an opening, we shouldn't need to be told to look for an opening! Intepreting "bridge" as specifically being contact with the forearms in a Chi Sau-like situation (which I suspect may be the original intent) is problematic because its better to just hit without contact whenever possible, and we may be using kicks!
So again, I think we are left to conclude that this particular Kuen Kuit is rather ambiguous and open for interpretation.
If I was going to restate it, I would say...."Strike the opponent immediately if you can! If he puts up an obstacle in your way, go around or go through it and continue to strike!" Now, if someone put that into poetic Chinese, we'd have something. ;-) But again, do we really need to be told to do this?? I'm becoming less and less impressed with the usefulness of this particular Kuen Kuit as time goes on.
Pretty much I would follow what I put in my video series. I'm going to try to hit the guy...in combos...multiple times....to different targets. If he puts up a block or obstacle of some sort, I'm going to "bridge" past it so I can continue to strike. This may look "Chi Sauey" but only for 1, at most 3 beats. If the obstacle drops, I'm not going to continue to try and "stick" in any way, I'm just going to break his structure and work him with multiple punches until he is out! If he is the aggressor and coming at me, I will try to change the angle and evade in order to strike him first if possible without having to "block" or "parry". If I have to do a defensive action...therefore give him an obstacle to "bridge" past, I am going to try to be attacking him at the same time, or setting it up so that I "bridge" through the contact we have together before he does! So....if the opponent is unable to offer much resistance...I'm going to bang the crap out of him like a boxer! A Wing Chun boxer that is! If he puts up a defense I'm going to neutralize it, and then bang the crap out of him! I'm not going to be doing any of the rather elaborate and fancy things you see in so many videos of people doing Chi Sau. In my experience that just doesn't work against a non-Wing Chun guy intent on taking your head off! ;-)
I'd perhaps rather say opportunity than opening, as finding an opening sounds like picking shots western boxing style, which is not what I'm talking about.
That's why it's metaphorical. It's the most direct and efficient "route" to the target, like a bridge from point A to point B. It's not about the physical structure, but the function of facilitating direct and efficient crossing potentially rough waters to the target. In other words, you're focussing on the pointing finger if you take it literally. Just like your "path in life" doesn't refer to which physical route you take to work every day... Metaphors, you know...
Of course. The CK form isn't teaching us how to simply pick shots, but how to angle, chase, cut the way, open the line for striking, etc.. It's about fighting strategy and tactics; how to take the most direct and efficient path, simultaneously and thoughtlessly clearing the line for the next strike. It's a simple approach to fighting, but the system is more involved than just picking open shots.
This maxim as I understand it makes perfect sense within the system I train. It won't be ambiguous if it is connected to a sound fighting strategy. It is, however, only words that help teach the system's ideas. Of course we can teach or be taught the same without using these sayings. Without clear instruction for it to accompany though, many mistaken theories (interpretations) can be invented through speculation of its meaning. So if one's understanding of it is potentially problematic, it's probably best to discard it, or certainly not try and base one's fighting strategy on it.
PiedmontChun
Purple Belt
Really? My experience is that with elbows in and Man Sau / Wu Sau guard covering center- linear punches are can be deflected or bridged utilizing even the just the straight punch. My lineage teaches to bridge this way, 1) punching and maintaining low elbow force when on the outside of the opponent's punch, and 2) to lock out the elbow when on the inside of the opponent's punch. This is taught to brand new guys, before even moving on to Tan / Gan / Pak / etc as defenses. Some difficulty lies in a forming this bridge when it is a punch that is quick and then retreats immedietely (like a fast boxer's jab), but even then when something retreats or there is nothing in the way, there is nothing keeping your bridging hand from springing forward and striking.
In my experience, very telegraphed haymaker type punches are easy to deflect, but a true hook at close range is very difficult to deal with. I'm certainly not arguing with you, I would just think with a proper guard, deflecting linear attacks is kind of WC/WT's bread and butter, but maybe I am missing something in what you are saying.
kung fu fighter
Green Belt
Thanks for the reply Keith!
My intent is also to hit the guy, If he puts up a block or obstacle, my strike turns into man sau wu sao so I can bridge past it and continue to strike. The difference I see in our approach is that I use my footwork to cut off the ring, converging and intersecting with the opponent from angles in order to initiate close range fighting right away (very similar to WSL's approach). Where as you remain in boxing range using angles to hit with combos until the opponent close the distance with you at which point your wing chun bridging skills kicks in. Just some observations!
That's the main point. You want your opponent to have easy time to block your punch. When you go fishing, you want to use those bait that fish likes to eat.
To me, to establish that "bridge/clinch" is more important than to "hit the guy". To others, it may be the other way around.
Last edited:
