New video on Bong Sau by Alan Orr

[geezer]

This is a long one with a lot of talk, but for me it was really worth watching. I find that over the years I have started viewing bong much the same way. I wish I'd started working this way a lot sooner. Blinded by lineage, I guess. Check it out and post a comment!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Watched this the other day. Thought it was informative.

 

[Callen]

Thanks for sharing Geezer.

There's a lot of theory going on in this video... IMO, more than just his take on using the Bong. He's also talking about his interpretation of Wing Chun in general, and how it translates into the way he trains.

Blinded by lineage, I guess.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, what specifically did you relate to in this video?

 

[PiedmontChun]

I find it interesting around 6:40 ish, he says they do not always have forward pressure with Bong Sau, since sometimes the Bong collapses, deflects, and moves around an obstacle. The way I have been taught is to have forward pressure at all times, and in doing so that is how the body knows to give, yield, and move around an obstacle if able as Bong is very adaptable, and is a transitional movement by nature of being trained this way. I never viewed or have heard this described as the Bong 'collapsing' though.

So I'm not sure if his way is in reality very similar to the WT way and its just a different way of defining / explaining it, or if it's a different way altogether with a similar end result. Would love to train with him and feel what he is describing.

Around 7:21, him showing Bong used in extremely close range in order to control / leak in to attack is something pretty commonly used in WT so glad to see it exists in other lineages.

 

[geezer]

...So I'm not sure if his way is in reality very similar to the WT way and its just a different way of defining / explaining it, or if it's a different way altogether with a similar end result. Would love to train with him and feel what he is describing.

Around 7:21, him showing Bong used in extremely close range in order to control / leak in to attack is something pretty commonly used in WT so glad to see it exists in other lineages.

Piedmont -- As a guy who was trained in WT, I'm coming from exactly the same place. Alan makes a lot of statements (here and in other videos) that seem to specifically target and contradict the WT approach. Here you cite two examples. Yet when I carefully watch what he is doing, I don't see the contradiction. At least with the WT I do. I've been going off on my own for a long time but that's a different conversation.

Anyway, I don't see Alan abandoning forward intent. In the first example you cited, he just switches the pressure from the bridge to the elbow. And, as he says, he maintains pressure where it counts, with the body, hips and stance. The loose linking of arms, shoulders, waist and body he demonstrates looks like really good WC to me.

So like you, someday if he comes to the States, I'll have to take a seminar and see what's really going on here in person. Whoops, gotta get back to work now. More later.

 

[Marnetmar]

It's nice to see that Alan's ideas are becoming more and more accepted in the 'Chun world. It'll be a long time before we can get rid of the Chainpunch Brigade once and for all, though.

 

[Jake104]

Anyway, I don't see Alan abandoning forward intent. In the first example you cited, he just switches the pressure from the bridge to the elbow. And, as he says, he maintains pressure where it counts, with the body, hips and stance. The loose linking of arms, shoulders, waist and body he demonstrates looks like really good WC to me.

So like you, someday if he comes to the States, I'll have to take a seminar and see what's really going on here in person. Whoops, gotta get back to work now. More later.

I don't see Alan's forward intent go away either.. Matter fact it's virtually impossible to tell where his forward intent is or isn't from a video.. I would imagine it's always on, at his level. Forward intent is hard to spot sometimes even in person unless you feel it through touch. Forward intent should be there always like I already mentioned. It's not just moving forward. It can be 'on' even when retreating or when yielding. I think Alan has explained this before.

The delinking is very useful. I think Sifu Sergio has a video on this. IK he was originally from your lineage Steve but we all know he's been researching other mainland lineages now for a while...Anyway there's a two part video from ' the martial man' on YouTube where Sifu Sergio explains WC punching and delinking.. It's a interesting video. He explains how he can get power not only from the ground but he can create power without a base or root. He also shows hooking and uppercut type punching similar to what I learned from my first Sifu. That was also from a mainland lineage. So it kind of makes you think about WC and the different lineages and methods of doing Wing Chun out there.

 

[wingchun100]

I love how many ways there are to interpret wing chun. (Then again I am sure there are just as many ways to interpret ANY martial art, but I don't train in them.) For example this weekend I went to train with a bunch of my seniors at a chi sao get together. One gentleman told me how my main problem was that when my attack was stopped, I would "give up" and try to switch to attacking with the other hand instead of snaking through until I got my hit. Well, I always thought that, when your attack was blocked, that was it...time to go for a new angle of attack. His way of thinking made me feel like I had no idea what chi sao was about...completely short circuited my impression of everything, which is good because it means it has me looking at it all in a new way. Encountering different interpretations is what helps you come up with your OWN version of Wing Chun, which is hopefully effective.

 

[guy b]

Check it out and post a comment!

He doesn't appear to understand the bong lap drill.

 

[geezer]

He doesn't appear to understand the bong lap drill.

Don't know, ....but he clearly doesn't feel it is very useful in achieving his desired outcome.

 

[wingchun100]

Don't know, ....but he clearly doesn't feel it is very useful in achieving his desired outcome.

I think he feels it is all situational. Things that might work in the street won't work in the ring...meaning if someone confronts you on the street, they don't know that you have any fighting skills. However, when you are in the ring, they know it and are better prepared for it, so there are certain things you can't pull on them that you could to the unsuspecting opponent.

 

[geezer]

I think he feels it is all situational. Things that might work in the street won't work in the ring...meaning if someone confronts you on the street, they don't know that you have any fighting skills. However, when you are in the ring, they know it and are better prepared for it, so there are certain things you can't pull on them that you could to the unsuspecting opponent.

Actually, his problem with alternating drills like the typical "Lap-Bong" cycle is that they do not follow through with the attack. Rather than alternate offense and defense, he seems to be saying that a proper attack, even if countered, is followed by another and another. It doesn't give up the offense to the opponent.

Personally I see this as a problem in many drills, including some favored in my lineage of VT (which is a branch of the "WT" lineage). Our "lat-sau" curriculum includes many variations, but all start with a similarly alternating "pak-da" platform (or a punch to punch platform in the EBMAS branch).

I have to explain to my students that for all the positive attributes these drills train, they are fundamentally different from fighting since in fighting, your goal is not to give your opponent a chance to take over the offense. In order to remedy this, we use a lot of drills with a "feeder and responder". The feeder acts as the coach and the responder stays on the offense, attacking, countering and continuing to attack the feeder.

This is a method of training I picked up from my first Escrima coach, Rene Latosa, and a method preferred (along with sparring) in most competitive MAs that I've seen. Think pad work for example. Unfortunately, some WC/VT schools seem to have gotten away from this in favor of drills that "take turns". Sure, such drills have their place. It's really just a matter of emphasis.

 

[wingchun100]

Actually, his problem with alternating drills like the typical "Lap-Bong" cycle is that they do not follow through with the attack. Rather than alternate offense and defense, he seems to be saying that a proper attack, even if countered, is followed by another and another. It doesn't give up the offense to the opponent.

Personally I see this as a problem in many drills, including some favored in my lineage of VT (which is a branch of the "WT" lineage). Our "lat-sau" curriculum includes many variations, but all start with a similarly alternating "pak-da" platform (or a punch to punch platform in the EBMAS branch).

I have to explain to my students that for all the positive attributes these drills train, they are fundamentally different from fighting since in fighting, your goal is not to give your opponent a chance to take over the offense. In order to remedy this, we use a lot of drills with a "feeder and responder". The feeder acts as the coach and the responder stays on the offense, attacking, countering and continuing to attack the feeder.

This is a method of training I picked up from my first Escrima coach, Rene Latosa, and a method preferred (along with sparring) in most competitive MAs that I've seen. Think pad work for example. Unfortunately, some WC/VT schools seem to have gotten away from this in favor of drills that "take turns". Sure, such drills have their place. It's really just a matter of emphasis.

I am very sleep-deprived today so I am having a hard time imagining what you mean. I would love to see some footage of that.

 

[Jake104]

I think what Steve means is, the drill will not look like how it's presented to beginners (for training a skill) in a real fight? No way in a million years will you ever use it in that way against anyone other then a WC practitioner who is either just starting off on the first layer or a 'veteran' who is stuck at THAT layer who just ads useless moves to it.. Which in return turns a once useful drill into a choreographed Bruce Li fight scene.

 

[guy b]

Don't know, ....but he clearly doesn't feel it is very useful in achieving his desired outcome.

Here is what he says around 3.40:

This drill we don't really do because it doesn't really fit into the functionality of how we are going to apply our bong sau, or how we are going to fight

He then goes on a bit of a rant about people who claim that the drill is required and has a specific purpose, and dismisses it as a beginners drill. He claims he has "been there, done that" and moved beyond this beginners drill.

But the quote shows that he doesn't understand its purpose

 

[guy b]

his problem with alternating drills like the typical "Lap-Bong" cycle is that they do not follow through with the attack.

Which summarises the fundamental misunderstading at the heart of this clip

 

[guy b]

Some more core misunderstanding of VT from 11.00

 

[Jake104]

Yawn---—

 

[KPM]

But the quote shows that he doesn't understand its purpose

No. His quote simply shows that he doesn't use this drill or see it in the same way as WSLVT. Once again Guy, your version and your understanding of Wing Chun is NOT the gold standard!

 

[guy b]

No. His quote simply shows that he doesn't use this drill or see it in the same way as WSLVT. Once again Guy, your version and your understanding of Wing Chun is NOT the gold standard!

This drill we don't really do because it doesn't really fit into the functionality of how we are going to apply our bong sau, or how we are going to fight

Alan thinks the Lap Sau drill is an applications drill. This is a gross misunderstanding if one is practicing YM VT. Where then has Alan got this interpretation from, and how does it fit into his system without breaking it, assuming it derives from the same roots as YM VT?

If Alan's system is not related to YM VT then ok fine. But you guys always want to argue that we are all part of some kind of family, and that different interpretations are all equally valid. Difficult to see how you can have it both ways.