What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[geezer]

Are you retarded or something? I've said NO in at least a dozen posts now. WTF is wrong with you?

LFJ, please take a deep breath, slo-o-owly release it .....now repeat after me Aauuuooommmmmmm.... and again .....there now are you feeling calmer? Good.

I think part of your frustration is the continued verbal disconnect we all have been having. For example, when you describe your use of bong as a remedial technique. I believe I have been taking that somewhat differently from what you intended. And certainly, if you think (incorrectly) that I have been advocating a 1:1 technique to application approach, then I have not been making my position clear to you. Oh well, it's just a forum right? ...Aaauuuooommmmmmm....

Next, maybe you better straighten out Callen (from your perspective). The comment quoted below doesn't seem to agree with what you and Guy have been saying all this time. Or maybe it does. I'll await your response.

For certain there are other Yip Man students who understood the system. It's also important to remember that WSL changed what he was taught by YM to some degree. WSL's Wing Chun was largely derived in-part due to his own interpretations of the system.

.

 

[Grenadier]

Admin's note:

Please keep this discussion civil. While some leeway is granted when it comes to attacking a particular message, attacking the one bearing the message is forbidden.

 

[LFJ]

Remedial means used only to correct something, like lost position. So, when at range and in position to punch directly, or use auxiliary actions like paak or jat (always helping a punch) without raising the elbow, bong will not be used. So, no, again, it will not just be thrown at an incoming punch.

However, when the attack line is obstructed from above and inside range where none of the above is possible, bong-sau is necessary to clear the line for punching. What exactly the obstruction is doesn't matter. A static arm could be trying to grab or bar me. A moving arm could be striking or pushing. It could be any number of things. I don't know and don't care. Bong simply clears the line for the punch its coupled with. It's directed forward, and the rotation of the elbow works like a spinning top to cause a ballistic lateral displacement of the obstruction. It's not force against force and does nothing to your own shoulder if done correctly.

That's the last time I'm repeating this. If you want more information, read my previous posts where I already explained every detail of it.

 

[geezer]

Remedial means used only to correct something, like lost position. So, when at range and in position to punch directly, or use auxiliary actions like paak or jat (always helping a punch) without raising the elbow, bong will not be used. So, no, again, it will not just be thrown at an incoming punch.

....That's the last time I'm repeating this. If you want more information, read my previous posts where I already explained every detail of it.

Yeah, I did catch that, I was using the term remedial as an example of how mis-understood terms can lead to unnecessary disputes. As can obnoxious and arrogant attitudes. Let's cut each other a little slack, OK?



Now, how about what Callen said as quoted above? Are you and Guy still of the opinion that GM Yip Man only taught one unchanged version of VT/WC throughout his long career as a sifu, and that WSL-VT, as evidenced by it's unique systemic coherence and functionality, is by the argument of "probability" most likely the only unadulterated, pure Yip Man VT taught today?

And further, do you still believe that WSL did not vary or change his VT during his career, and that PB-WSL-VT is the only unadulterated and completely coherent version of WSL-VT that you have encountered so far?

...If you don't wan't to get into a debate (as I certainly don't) a simple "yes" or "no" ...perhaps with a few words clarification or correction should suffice.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Personally I have not met people occupying space with an extended static arm but then again I have far from met all people.

The beauty and value of the WC system is the "occupying space with an extended static arm" which is different from the boxing approach. The reason is simple. If you extend your arms in your opponent's striking path, his fist has to meet with your arm first before it cab meet your face.

1. You can use your arms to guard your head.
2. You can also use your arms to guard the space in front of you.

IMO, 2 > 1

 

[Nobody Important]

I don't know of any other systems with the same strategic approach to fight. Some people have other interpretations of the system and that is up to them. When I investigate these other ideas generally I find that they are incoherent and/or contradictory. This leads me to believe that they are misunderstandings of the system (probability argument). It is quite possible that other people besides WSL also understood the system, I have not met any though. I don't know where it came from, all we can do is speculate about that.

Guy I appreciate the reply, I respectfully disagree with your observation but can respect your stance. I apologize for my sarcasm, it's not a good show of martial virtue. I would like to start over.

 

[Nobody Important]

Remedial means used only to correct something, like lost position. So, when at range and in position to punch directly, or use auxiliary actions like paak or jat (always helping a punch) without raising the elbow, bong will not be used. So, no, again, it will not just be thrown at an incoming punch.

However, when the attack line is obstructed from above and inside range where none of the above is possible, bong-sau is necessary to clear the line for punching. What exactly the obstruction is doesn't matter. A static arm could be trying to grab or bar me. A moving arm could be striking or pushing. It could be any number of things. I don't know and don't care. Bong simply clears the line for the punch its coupled with. It's directed forward, and the rotation of the elbow works like a spinning top to cause a ballistic lateral displacement of the obstruction. It's not force against force and does nothing to your own shoulder if done correctly.

That's the last time I'm repeating this. If you want more information, read my previous posts where I already explained every detail of it.

LFJ, I find this interesting and would like to get some further information. For the sake of argument, let's say the bong you are describing is a vertical movement ( keeping descriptions generic & generalized).

Is that the only manner in which bong is used in your system, vertically?

In my lineage, bong has several angles and is used both vertically & horizontally, for much the same purpose as you describe. It is also not limited to the obstruction/incoming force being above the bridge, but can be used if this obstruction/incoming force is below the bridge.

Does your system approach this concept in the same manner or do you change the remedial bridging movement when the obstruction is under your bridge?

In short I am asking about the versatility of the bong you are using. Is it one dimensional or does it have multiple remedial actions?

 

[geezer]

LFJ, I find this interesting and would like to get some further information. For the sake of argument, let's say the bong you are describing is a vertical movement ( keeping descriptions generic & generalized).

Is that the only manner in which bong is used in your system, vertically?

N.I. you guys use bong vertically? ....as a lifting movement vaguely like an upward rising block? Please elaborate and clarify.

 

[Nobody Important]

N.I. you guys use bong vertically? ....as a lifting movement vaguely like an upward rising block? Please elaborate and clarify.

Lol, yes & no. We have several variations of bong, as it is one of our 3 main bridging concepts, Tan & Fook being the other 2.

For us, bong is essentially use of the forearm/elbow. We use it to hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull.

Many will call these actions as Gai Jou, Lan Sau, Jong Bong, Dai Bong etc. In my lineage we believe that all bridges stem from the 3 families Tan, Bong & Fook. Changing the angle of the bridge for us doesn't create a new bridge, it changes its energy. For example going from Cover (inside) to Hack (outside). The shape of the bridge isn't really any different, only the angle of use is changed, so still Bong, only Bong with different energy.

Changing the angle of the bridge allows us to economically change positions while simultaneously filling a gap, receiving force or clearing obstructions.

Kind of hard to explain without physical demonstration, but is actually very simple.

I hope that helps in some small way.

To answer your question directly, yes we have 2 bongs that are vertical, like a rising block. They are remedial like LFJ described, one for high coverage (under bridge) like a rising block for outer gate & one high (Jong Bong) for middle/centerline.

We do not enter into a physical altercation like Chi Sau is approached. When fists are flying the simplest method of bridging/blocking is used to deflect incoming force to clear a path for our assault. These bridging shapes are used defensively & offensively to cover ourselves from attack while at the same time deflecting incoming forces so we can attack. Again kind of hard to explain, but simple in application.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

N.I. you guys use bong vertically? ....as a lifting movement vaguely like an upward rising block? Please elaborate and clarify.

You can use it to break apart a "tight clinch". You can also use it to set up an "arm wrap".

 

[Phobius]

The beauty and value of the WC system is the "occupying space with an extended static arm" which is different from the boxing approach. The reason is simple. If you extend your arms in your opponent's striking path, his fist has to meet with your arm first before it cab meet your face.

1. You can use your arms to guard your head.
2. You can also use your arms to guard the space in front of you.

IMO, 2 > 1

Well I admit the statement was actually kind of incorrect by me. I did karate once and when I did some were using extended static arm as guard to occupy space. Also we have a lot of students that do the standard WC guard when fighting. I believe it is not used to occupy space but rather to force themselves mentally to keep with the WC way of fighting.

Problem is that in my view having the arm extended is giving it to the opponent and often it also telegraphs which arm you are gonna punch with when going in.

But to clarify also I do not only mean extended static arm, realize that part was unclear. I mean a guard that occupy space in such a way as described by LFJ might be target for a bong-sau. In karate the guard was often quite low and in WC the guard is uncommited so moving forward with a bong-sau would be sacrificing your own arm.

A soft arm while extended will not be affected as desired by the bong say. Instead it will bend by the elbow and perhaps continue as a backfist or some other movement, hard to say actually because it depends on incoming force. Problem is also that there is a second arm that may also react to the bong-sau. In such a case the move may be stopped dead in its tracks.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

so moving forward with a bong-sau would be sacrificing your own arm.

If you use your

- right Bong Shou to lift your opponent's left arm.
- left Bong Shou to lift your opponent's right arm.

You are not sacrificing your arms at all. His whole body will be opened for your attack. I assume the WC Bong Shou can be considered as the long fist "upward palm lift block". It has it's value.

 

[Callen]

Next, maybe you better straighten out Callen (from your perspective). The comment quoted below doesn't seem to agree with what you and Guy have been saying all this time.

Yikes, I feel like I might be fueling a fire here. My comment was meant to inspire thought, not to contradict anyone. Covering the topic of WSL's version of Wing Chun (VT) is probably not something that can be explained in a simple post. It's lengthy and requires a lot of historical references. LFJ did in fact respond to what I said though:

The man himself said he didn't make any changes and taught exactly what YM taught him, which is a system of clearly defined strategy and tactics with a coherent training methodology. So, where are you getting this idea, and what parts specifically do you think he reinterpreted?

LFJ is correct in his response, WSL was recorded as saying that he more or less taught the same method that he learned from YM. Here's a quote from WSL below:

"Basically I teach the same method I learned from Yip Man but I would say that I teach it in a more systematic way. At the same time, though, I’m still very intuitive in my teaching." - Wong Shun Leung

But as it is with all high-level practitioners, he knew how to make certain aspects of the system his own. Whether intentional or not, his intuitive way of teaching influenced the outcome. David Peterson once told the story of how WSL would speak to his students about not becoming a slave to Wing Chun. His quote follows:

"Wong Sifu is constantly warning his students against the dangers of blindly following an instructor, copying every move he or she makes and accepting everything that they say as gospel. 'You must become the master of your system, not its slave' is his often repeated motto. Using art as an example yet again, Wong Sifu says, “…Kung Fu is like painting a picture. When you learn to paint from your teacher you cannot be exactly the same as he or she because there are differences in age and experience, and so there must be personal differences." - Sifu David Peterson

I don't really want to sling any mud here. I was only attempting to point out that it was inevitable that WSL's version of Wing Chun (VT) would turn out slightly different from that of YM because if his own interpretations of the system. There are quite a few first hand accounts from early students (or even live-in students like David Peterson) illustrating how WSL had his own flavor of the system.

On the topic of other YM students that understood the system; Leung Seung, Lok Yiu and Chu Shong Tin all made their mark and have proven contributions towards the combat skill of Wing Chun.

 

[Phobius]

LFJ is correct in his response, WSL was recorded as saying that he more or less taught the same method that he learned from YM. Here's a quote from him below:

"Basically I teach the same method I learned from Yip Man but I would say that I teach it in a more systematic way. At the same time, though, I’m still very intuitive in my teaching." - Wong Shun Leung

Problem with that quote is that I do not read it as him saying he made no changes. All he said is "Basically" that means that on the more basic level everything is the same, that there might be differences but it is not intended to change the basics. Then he follows up by saying he has changed the way he teaches it to a more systematic way.

Not wanting to start a fight but that quote seems far from saying that there were no changes made whatsoever.

 

[Nobody Important]

Well I admit the statement was actually kind of incorrect by me. I did karate once and when I did some were using extended static arm as guard to occupy space. Also we have a lot of students that do the standard WC guard when fighting. I believe it is not used to occupy space but rather to force themselves mentally to keep with the WC way of fighting.

Problem is that in my view having the arm extended is giving it to the opponent and often it also telegraphs which arm you are gonna punch with when going in.

But to clarify also I do not only mean extended static arm, realize that part was unclear. I mean a guard that occupy space in such a way as described by LFJ might be target for a bong-sau. In karate the guard was often quite low and in WC the guard is uncommited so moving forward with a bong-sau would be sacrificing your own arm.

A soft arm while extended will not be affected as desired by the bong say. Instead it will bend by the elbow and perhaps continue as a backfist or some other movement, hard to say actually because it depends on incoming force. Problem is also that there is a second arm that may also react to the bong-sau. In such a case the move may be stopped dead in its tracks.

It's very hard to reply to comments when what if scenarios are factored into the conversation. It's also very hard to respond during an attack if the mind is scattered and thinking "I can't approach in this manner, because he might do this". In a fight it is impossible to tell what the other person is thinking or know how they will respond.

In discussions best to focus on concrete scenarios such as, opponent attacks with moves x,y,z then ask how do you respond. Leave out the what if they do this or that stuff. At that point it becomes too hypothetical and abstract.

I'm not singling you out Phobius, or disagreeing with your post, just using it as an example to illustrate how discussions can take a turn into complicated dialogue that is off course from the original statement/question/answer presented.

 

[Phobius]

It's very hard to reply to comments when what if scenarios are factored into the conversation. It's also very hard to respond during an attack if the mind is scattered and thinking "I can't approach in this manner, because he might do this". In a fight it is impossible to tell what the other person is thinking or know how they will respond.

In discussions best to focus on concrete scenarios such as, opponent attacks with moves x,y,z then ask how do you respond. Leave out the what if they do this or that stuff. At that point it becomes too hypothetical and abstract.

I'm not singling you out Phobius, or disagreeing with your post, just using it as an example to illustrate how discussions can take a turn into complicated dialogue that is off course from the original statement/question/answer presented.

I get your point but hard or not it was my point that I made, from a subject I brought up. That I decided to clarify, based on feedback from Kung Fu Wang.

Problem is that there is no x,y,z moves in any discussion for WC/VT/WT. We can not even explain the punch in detail to even find a starting point. Now as to my reply I was not trying to be abstract, just simply stating that if you touch a lower arm of a man sau that hand is not committed and may therefore roll with the contact and slide back instantly like for example a backfist movement. Of course this once more depends on the angle of the incoming bong and where it is heading. So you see, when we start thinking about it as x,y,z moves it is complicated. Instead if we just think "Ok the man sau arm may be soft and non-committed, what would a rolling into a backfist mean upon contact? How would that possible interfere with how I visioned a bong-sau?" Then you may reply with whatever thought that came up.

I may be incorrect but this is how I do it. Whenever I try to focus on x,y,z moves then I never get past the first point, what kind of punch was it?!

EDIT: Also to clarify, I do not need people to agree with me. Kung Fu Wang made a reply that shows he did not share my understanding. This means his experience differs from my own. In my belief we are both correct since we both have experience of it. Discussion ends because nothing more can be said.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was not trying to be abstract,

- You should not use right Bong Shou to deal with a right punch.
- If both you and your opponent have right leg forward (uniform stance), your leading right hand will have to contact your opponent's right arm before it can contact his left arm
- ...

Those are just simple examples that discussion should not be "abstract".

 

[Nobody Important]

I get your point but hard or not it was my point that I made, from a subject I brought up. That I decided to clarify, based on feedback from Kung Fu Wang.

Problem is that there is no x,y,z moves in any discussion for WC/VT/WT. We can not even explain the punch in detail to even find a starting point. Now as to my reply I was not trying to be abstract, just simply stating that if you touch a lower arm of a man sau that hand is not committed and may therefore roll with the contact and slide back instantly like for example a backfist movement. Of course this once more depends on the angle of the incoming bong and where it is heading. So you see, when we start thinking about it as x,y,z moves it is complicated. Instead if we just think "Ok the man sau arm may be soft and non-committed, what would a rolling into a backfist mean upon contact? How would that possible interfere with how I visioned a bong-sau?" Then you may reply with whatever thought that came up.

I may be incorrect but this is how I do it. Whenever I try to focus on x,y,z moves then I never get past the first point, what kind of punch was it?!

I understand what you're saying but the thought of what if this what if that , for me is over analytical. In a real life situation you don't have time to analyze outcomes, you simply need to respond.

For example: The attacker is facing me, slightly to my left. He throws a straight right at the left side of my head followed by a left uppercut to my midsection. How do I respond?

I would most likely use a left thrusting palm to the right side of his head. This thrusting palm acts as a Pak Sau to divert his right straight punch & as a strike to the right side of his head at the same time as it is above his forearm. I would follow up with a right side punch to his face or chest while simultaneously rotating to my right. This would automatically create distance on the inside line causing his left uppercut to miss. After that, chain punches, run away whatever.

I could also just simply rotate to my right as I throw an arrow punch at his solar plexus. Avoiding both the straight right and left uppercut but sacrificing my position.

How would you respond to the same attack?

 

[Phobius]

- You should not use right Bong Shou to deal with a right punch.
- If both you and your opponent have right leg forward (uniform stance), your leading right hand will have to contact your opponent's right arm before it can contact his left arm
- ...

Those are just simple examples that discussion should not be "abstract".

Yes I was thinking about own experience with right bong sau against left arm of opponent.

But to say what next move must be is impossible, because it requires more information. What I do is say what is my point of what can happen next. Then you can argue, comment, disagree or something else.
In this case my experience is that a non committed arm is not affected much by a bong sau. It will move with or around it but nothing says it has to or even is more likely to clear a path.

Now your experience may be different and if it is I trust you and think it might be because you, me and our opponents are all different.

 

[Phobius]

I understand what you're saying but the thought of what if this what if that , for me is over analytical. In a real life situation you don't have time to analyze outcomes, you simply need to respond.

For example: The attacker is facing me, slightly to my left. He throws a straight right at the left side of my head followed by a left uppercut to my midsection. How do I respond?

I would most likely use a left thrusting palm to the right side of his head. This thrusting palm acts as a Pak Sau to divert his right straight punch & as a strike to the right side of his head at the same time as it is above his forearm. I would follow up with a right side punch to his face or chest while simultaneously rotating to my right. This would automatically create distance on the inside line causing his left uppercut to miss. After that, chain punches, run away whatever.

How would you respond to the same attack?

We are not in a fight, we are discussing on a forum.

It is my experience that if anyone needs to analyze during a fight that person is being hit.

But if I don't want to analyze situations on a forum then I would not be able to find new things that I might have missed. In that case why be on the forums? I learn all else a lot more during training. I train when not on the forum mostly.

Also on a phone heading to bed. Will read about the scenario tomorrow earliest.