What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[LFJ]

This is not what I said, with clearing space I was referring to why you do the bong-sau.

That is a simple concept, not a "this vs that" application.

Hate to say it but all techniques are non-specific.

A lifting bong-sau was mentioned earlier as a remedial upward block. That is specific.

Each type of bong-sau that was mentioned has a specific function, and one would be used where another one would not. That is specific.

Why you do bong-sau I do hope is dictated by what specifically your opponent is doing. Sounds dangerous otherwise.

What's dangerous is chasing hands. Why I do bong-sau is dictated by position, not a specific technique to use it against.

It could be a number of things. Surely you haven't forgotten what I've been repeating to you countless times already in this thread??

Needed function can change your technique, without being application based.

That's the very definition you just gave of "application based".

If the concepts dictate something you may identify the need for a specific outcome/result. As such you change how a move is done to affect the result to your benefits.

What concept? If bong-sau can be to "hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull", then it has no clear concept.

Imagine this, you know this person is weak due to an injury in one arm. Instead of following what you would normally do you instead take advantage of the injury to your benefit.

So instead of punching them in the face, I chase their arm?

Application based is if you have a specific technique done towards you dictating that you change your bong-sau from this to that. Rather than it being the way to adhere to your concepts.

That's exactly what "hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull" is all about. You wouldn't cover what you would lift. That means you are changing the bong-sau to perform a different function against this or that.

Just because a technique can to two things and there can be a decision on what to do, does not mean it is application based. You could just as well break them down to two separate techniques, one for hacking, one for pulling. They are in fact different movements.

You wouldn't hack what you would pull. They are dictated by whatever they are being applied against. It's application based by your own definition.

 

[Juany118]

Sorry for keeping the bong sao discussion going, but I remember seeing this video a while back and found it interesting.

Start @ 5:00
while this video is on specifically chi sao he states "not for fighting"

Not like any tan or bong explanation I'd ever been given. Anyone care to comment on it?

Or better yet are there any Hawkins Cheung people in the house?

He is absolutely correct in the video and is in line of what I noted because he is talking about center to center striking. The only thing I have issue with is I have always hated to "no resistance" video assistant

 

[Juany118]

Each type of bong-sau that was mentioned has a specific function, and one would be used where another one would not. That is specific.
.

Only because you refuse to look past your preconception. Your view of the bong in the context you have created means that the mention of any other use must be by nature a 1:1 use. The thing is though that only works if the person is saying, categorically "you use a bong for this period." No one is saying that. They are saying that due to relative positioning, and the goal you have in mind, a bong can be more efficient and thus more natural. The two key words are CAN BE, in case you missed it.

As for needed function = application based... you were the one who stated that the lifting nature of the elbow and how it creates issues with the function you see is key, punching, makes a bong a remedial technique. So now you contradict yourself.

 

[LFJ]

The thing is though that only works if the person is saying, categorically "you use a bong for this period." No one is saying that.

Use a bong like this to hack that.
Use a bong like this to pull that.

"Hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull".

Those are just multiple 1:1 applications.

As for needed function = application based... you were the one who stated that the lifting nature of the elbow and how it creates issues with the function you see is key, punching, makes a bong a remedial technique. So now you contradict yourself.

Changing how bong is done to function a certain way dictated by a specific thing it's used against is application based.

I don't do anything like that.

And I didn't say the elbow rising makes bong a remedial action. That is why it is not a primary or auxiliary action. What makes it remedial is it's purpose, not how it's done.

 

[guy b]

They are saying that due to relative positioning, and the goal you have in mind, a bong can be more efficient and thus more natural. The two key words are CAN BE, in case you missed it.

The goals you have presented have been hand chasing for the most part. Why would that be your goal?

 

[Juany118]

Just to ram it home.

Punching is the goal. It clears the way for punching.

okay I think WC, having take downs Chin Na etc can have other goals depending on your purpose at the time but okay.

My bong-sau is simply elbow rotation to retake space/ regain lost position. Not an application against any specific thing.

Well according to Merriam Webster's an Application is...an act of applying:a (1) : an act of putting to use <application of new techniques> (2) : a use to which something is put <new applications for old remedies> so it is an application, though I will agree it is not against anything specific. What should dictate the application of any technique is the goal, in your case punching, and then biomechanical efficiency.

If punching is our primary action, auxiliary actions are secondary that help deliver the punch when still in an advantageous position (e.g. paak, jat).

Remedial actions are used to recover from disadvantageous positions where primary and auxiliary actions aren't possible (e.g. bong, laap, biu).

hmmm seems again you are using particular applications of techniques to achieve a specific goal. Whether they are auxiliary or remedial, if you truly see WC/VT as conceptual, then what dictates the application of techniques should not be a preconceived notion as to what is and what is not, primary, auxiliary or remedial. Rather your goal of the moment and the relative positioning of yourself and your opponent, should determine what is auxiliary and what is remedial.

 

[guy b]

okay I think WC, having take downs Chin Na etc can have other goals depending on your purpose at the time

The goal of VT is llhs lsjc

if you truly see WC/VT as conceptual, then what dictates the application of techniques should not be a preconceived notion as to what is and what is not, primary, auxiliary or remedial. Rather your goal of the moment and the relative positioning of yourself and your opponent, should determine what is auxiliary and what is remedial.

Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing

Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing

 

[Juany118]

Use a bong like this to hack that.
Use a bong like this to pull that.

"Hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull".

Those are just multiple 1:1 applications.

No less so than the examples I quoted from you above

Changing how bong is done to function a certain way dictated by a specific thing it's used against is application based.

I don't do anything like that.

And I didn't say the elbow rising makes bong a remedial action. That is why it is not a primary or auxiliary action. What makes it remedial is it's purpose, not how it's done.

so for the first bit you admit, finally that it is about how YOU see a bong should be done. It actually has NOTHING to do with all your blather about concepts and the like. You have a dogma, "bong is this" Thank you, underlined btw.

The goals you have presented have been hand chasing for the most part. Why would that be your goal?

Nope not even a little. It is no more hand chasing than using what you two may refer to as auxiliary techniques to enable punching. The only difference is, as evidenced clearly by your prior post, the idea of doing anything more than striking in WC/VT is alien to you, and that makes me sad because you are missing the full glory of the art with your myopia.

Good day to you both.

 

[Juany118]

The goal of VT is llhs lsjc



Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing

Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing

Is any other technique used to open a path to strike in the most efficient manner? I explained under what circumstances, the bong is exactly this. I also see they are apparently alien to you from your rather snarky and ad hominem filled response that I received initially. For you using a bong in such a manner would require thought, thus = hand chasing, because you don't see WC/VT as an art which should be using such techniques which I find odd, even sad, since the take downs, Chin Na and such are built into the art so we can use them when required. However without said prejudice it isn't hand chasing. When it is the most biomechanically efficient way to accomplish the task, and that is indeed not always the case, it is as natural and automatic as using any other technique to open the way for a punch.

 

[guy b]

it is about how YOU see a bong should be done. It actually has NOTHING to do with all your blather about concepts and the like. You have a dogma, "bong is this" Thank you

Bong is that for conceptual reasons. Bong done other ways tends to be hand chasing, as your examples show

It is no more hand chasing than using what you two may refer to as auxiliary techniques to enable punching.

Auxilliary actions are used to help the punch. Punch is still the goal- not hand chasing. In your examples you are doing things other than chase centre, eat space, hit down open lines, therefore you are chasing hands. In one example you even talk about moving the arm so that you can apply an arm standing arm lock technique to the same arm. Not only is this extremely unlikely to work, but it is almost like peak hand chasing, the perfect example.

 

[Juany118]

Auxilliary actions are used to help the punch. Punch is still the goal- .

And as I said, this is your problem, you are so myopically focused on punching that you fail to see, if punching is not your goal, that other techniques come into a more natural place. Are these "core" techniques of the art? I quite go that far, but in the WC I study they are definitely trained and tested for.

What is even funnier is you miss something. The scenario where I gained distance, the take down? Those were both achieved with strikes. The distance gain is obvious imo but the only thing that turned the takedown into that and not a simple strike to the neck? My body position in relation to his. So it's not even like I did some Judo or Jujutsu techniques. It was all WC striking focused in those two scenarios, just to get their, biomechanically a bong was more efficient.


When I learn any art I refuse to myopically focus on a specific technique. Ignoring the forest for the trees is simply not my style regardless of how big a particular tree may be.

 

[LFJ]

okay I think WC, having take downs Chin Na etc can have other goals depending on your purpose at the time but okay.

VT is a striking method.

Well according to Merriam Webster's an Application is...an act of applying:a (1) : an act of putting to use <application of new techniques> (2) : a use to which something is put <new applications for old remedies> so it is an application, though I will agree it is not against anything specific.

lol! Trying to be clever now and say my method is application-based because I "use" bong-sau?

Application-based martial arts are ones that use "this vs that".

VT is not.

if you truly see WC/VT as conceptual, then what dictates the application of techniques should not be a preconceived notion as to what is and what is not, primary, auxiliary or remedial.

These are concepts. What dictates use of any action is position, not a category.

It just so happens that if you use a remedial or auxiliary action as a primary, you are chasing hands and will be in danger or at least in violation of directness and efficiency principles.

Rather your goal of the moment and the relative positioning of yourself and your opponent, should determine what is auxiliary and what is remedial.

Correct, but as Guy requested;

"Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing

Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing"

No less so than the examples I quoted from you above

Nothing you quoted me on was "this vs that".

so for the first bit you admit, finally that it is about how YOU see a bong should be done. It actually has NOTHING to do with all your blather about concepts and the like. You have a dogma, "bong is this" Thank you, underlined btw.

?

Did you even read what you underlined? Clear "this vs that" application based thinking.

I don't do that. What you call "dogma" are VT principles that make it optimally functional.

 

[Juany118]

VT is a striking method.



lol! Trying to be clever now and say my method is application-based because I "use" bong-sau?

Application-based martial arts are ones that use "this vs that".

VT is not.



These are concepts. What dictates use of any action is position, not a category.

It just so happens that if you use a remedial or auxiliary action as a primary, you are chasing hands and will be in danger or at least in violation of directness and efficiency principles.



Correct, but as Guy requested;

"Please explain a way in which bong can be used as a primary or auxilliary action that is not hand chasing

Please explan a way in which jut or pak can be used as a primary action that is not hand chasing"



Nothing you quoted me on was "this vs that".



?

Did you even read what your underlined? Clear "this vs that" application based thinking.

I don't do that. What you call "dogma" are VT principles that make it optimally functional.

All questions asked, and answered, myopic focus on punching is the issue because, as I said above, the scenario where I gained distance and did a take down were actually using strikes. The bong came out of exactly what you state...my position relative to theirs, and my particular goal. In each case it was actually to strike, just with a different consequence.

Please reference my forest for the trees comment. This has actually been amusing to be honest, I have never seen someone talking about "concept" so much and yet so stuck on Dogma as well (don't know enough about VT to know if it is inherent in the art or if it is self created though since both happen). However as amusing as it has been I need so sleep as I have to work again this evening.

I wish you both success in your endeavours.

 

[LFJ]

Again, what you call "dogma" are universal Wing Chun principles that make it optimally functional. That's the reason I adhere to them. You can call me dogmatic while you violate these principles all you want. Just do like other members on this forum and tap dance around the issue to stay content with what you do.

 

[Juany118]

Again, what you call "dogma" are universal Wing Chun principles that make it optimally functional. That's the reason I adhere to them. You can call me dogmatic while you violate these principles all you want. Just do like other members on this forum and tap dance around the issue to stay content with what you do.

Sir the only person tap dancing is you. Why? Because when backed into a corner by the inherent contradictions of your own statements you speak of "universal principles".

The problem with you claim is this. If 20 people are in a room, 2 say "this is a universal principle of something we all study" and 18 call shenanigans, 99. 999999.......% of the time it is the two that are wrong because universal principles are just that because the majority say "these are universal principles". Hence the term universal.

As I said before, good luck in your endeavours

 

[LFJ]

You disagree that directness and efficiency are universally recognized principles in all Wing Chun lineages?

Very indirect, inefficient, and arm-chasing technique applications have been suggested in this thread by yourself and some others.

The best tap dance step was your response to Guy in post #389, saying basically it's not hand-chasing if your goal is to chase the hand and you don't think about it.

Or when you had to pull out a dictionary entry to say application means "use" therefore my method is application-based too because I "use" bong-sau!

 

[geezer]

The goals you have presented have been hand chasing for the most part. Why would that be your goal?

Now, now, now. That's a just trolling. You asked, "Why is your goal chasing hands?" ...in response, how about this: "Hey Guy, when did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[Phobius]

I wonder, why did I even bring up the whole bong sau thing in this thread? I just honestly wanted to make a very simple and easy yes or no question.

At least we got something to discuss a lot.

 

[geezer]

Again, what you call "dogma" are universal Wing Chun principles that make it optimally functional.

1. Obviously these principles (at least as you understand them) are not so universal if only your PB-WSL-VT lineage reliably applies them.

2. "Optimally functional" is just a more latinate and sophisticated-sounding way of saying "My way is the best!". Isn't it odd that a person with such a fine command of English as you should be so clueless about the social norms of communication? Really, raving about how superior your approach is does not tend to make people want to listen to you. And, of course, that may not concern you.

But if effectively communicating and sharing ideas is not a priority, why are you wasting your time on a "friendly" forum like this?




Don't worry about answering, as I fear it would be pointless. Let's just consider this a rhetorical question I'm posting too early on a Sunday morning. Must be time for coffee...

 

[geezer]

For those who are interested in a different "concept based" use of bong sau that is absolutely NOT "1:1 application" oriented, I will again throw out the "WT" approach to bong sau. The underlying concepts, which apply to the way we move the entire body from arms to stance and steps, are basically as follows:


1. Maintain forward intent.

2. Be elastic and springy, compressing with force received and snapping forward when released (basically loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung).

3. Follow your opponent's center.

4. Do not try to execute a pre-conceived technique. Your opponent will show you how to hit him!



If you apply these concepts, you will use your opponent's incoming energy and form a bong (essentially='bent spring") as needed (loi lau hoi sung). Depending on the situation and energy received, that bong will move with your opponent's energy to deflect his force to the side, upwards and aside, or downwards and aside.

--As the incoming energy is released, it slips free and snaps forward as a fak-sau, a punch, etc. (lat sau jik chung).

--Or, if your opponent crashes into you, his energy may bend your bong double and you release your energy back at him as an elbow strike.

--Or if he grapples your arm at the wrist and elbow yanking it downward... perhaps you can release your energy with a shoulder punch.

In short, the techniques can be infinite and as such are unimportant. The process and effect is the same if you follow the concepts. We are not talking about techniques at all, but about a way of moving, of receiving and returning energy.

Now we all know that LFJ and Guy reject this particular approach as useless and impractical, basically discounting it as a method "born of too much chi-sau and not enough fighting". Whatever. My point is simply that this is another example of concept-based rather than technique-based movement.

....Of course it may not be so universal or optimal as some other approaches!