Breaking The Bridge

[futsaowingchun]

Well I am not really that old in the world of Wing Chun with little to no experience to boot. (way less than 30 years).

My question however is this, why go force against force here? If he is strong but has no forward intent, can you not just move to his side? Seems like he is already pushing you in that direction anyway.

If he however shows forward intent why not let his force pass and not be in its way?

If using muscles give an advantage as it seems you are stating here, why would you ever condone a soft way? For me the reason for softness (not skin soft but not brutal force either) has been to sense direction of force so that when your opponent redirects yours you know it. Why not use the weakness that seems to be the case when people use brutal force?

Sorry a lot of questions but for this video alone it feels like this was a technique or set of techniques rather than a concept and based on a lot of "What if...". What if he uses the strength you put up to match his to take a step to his left and attack?

The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.

 

[seasoned]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful

Wes Yager
Senior MT Moderator.

 

[JPinAZ]

Watch the video..its very easy to understand. The guy in the video who is a beginner understands so why can't you.

It's fine if you don't know 'why' things work/don't work, but you would be doing everyone and yourself a favor if you ditched the attitude. There's no need, it's only a discussion

Not that I expect a reply at this point, but the clip wasn't difficult to understand, just difficult to agree with. And your early reply to my questions made things even more confusing so I asked you to re-clarify. After 30 years experience, you would think you would be able to discuss your wing chun easily - and without the snide comments...

FWIW, the 'beginner' might 'understand' because he doesn't know any better - he's just doing as sifu says at this point. IMO, the down-side of teaching WC from a technique-orientated POV is you either have to 'take sifu's word for it' (right or wrong) or figure things out for yourself over many years of trial and error. This is typically a much longer process and often relies on a lot of faith, resulting in the student not really understanding the the hows and whys of what makes things work and not being able to explain why things work or don't work - they 'simply work'.. ..well, sometimes

 

[JPinAZ]

My question however is this, why go force against force here? If he is strong but has no forward intent, can you not just move to his side? Seems like he is already pushing you in that direction anyway.

If he however shows forward intent why not let his force pass and not be in its way?

The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.

Phobius, it seems to me that you were talking exactly about static postures in the bolded portion of your post quoted above.

Anyway, I think you've posed some great questions Phobius! I personally don't see the point of focusing on doing anything on a 'static type' opponent when in reality no-one is going to remain static.. (unless they are KO'd LOL). Besides, one of WC's most basic principles is about having fwd energy/intent on centerline.... why would someone want to ignore that?

 

[Jake104]

The problem I see with this kind of thing is too much "chi-sau" type thinking. Many people think they can take their chi-sau ideas straight into fighting,

IMO it's the reverse. Taking Chi Sao "IDEAS" straight into fighting is exactly what chi sao is for. Taking Chi Sao techniques or set routines into fighting is completely wrong. Maybe this is what you meant? If not I disagree.

Now, transitioning from chi sao to free fighting is not always easy. For me it was easy because we didn't do chi sao from day one like a lot of WC schools. We learned fighting at distances first. Starting from outside in. Eventually we did dan chi sao after 6 months then Poon Sao after that. At my original WC school if day one was chi sao. I would of took another art. I had fighting experience already and I wouldn't of understood the purpose of chi sao.

 

[Jake104]

The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.

Static still should have foward? Forward never goes away. It may hide or pretend to be invisible. But it's always there in good WC or any MA for that matter.

 

[LFJ]

IMO it's the reverse. Taking Chi Sao "IDEAS" straight into fighting is exactly what chi sao is for. Taking Chi Sao techniques or set routines into fighting is completely wrong. Maybe this is what you meant? If not I disagree.

It depends on what those ideas are. What I meant was these ideas some people have that when fists are flying at speed in free fighting, they're going to be able to stick to their opponent's arms and read some tactile information from them and determine whether to push or pull or change to whatever else.

That kind of thinking only works in chi-sau when your partner is agreeing to do the same thing with you, or maybe in grappling where both guys are grabbing and trying to do the same thing. But when someone is trying to knock your head off with a barrage of strikes, the whole sticking and sensitivity ideas go out the window.

That is not what chi-sau is for and it's nonsense to make up riddles to solve like this. There's a reason that kind of thing is only shown in technique demos with compliant partners like we have here, and it is never seen in fighting, or even free sparring clips... Only "masters" who have "nothing to prove" seem to be able to do it, but they aren't showing.

 

[Jake104]

I agree then. IMO chi sao or sticky hands in application happens in the clinch mostly. Most chi sao demos or game type chi sao is in punching range. So why not just punch? That's what I meant about in the beginning of my WC journey, I really wouldn't of known the purpose of chi sao. Instead we learned to punch or Chinese box. Now I get chi sao and how useful it can be under proper circumstances. It's basically grappling IMO.

 

[Jake104]

To elaborate a bit more on how I use chi sao. I use it disrupt take your balance and for energy training. I don't like to strike or train techniques when I do it. Then you need another WC guy to do that with. I train chi sao with anybody and everybody. Mostly non Wing Chunners. I let them do what ever they like. From contact they can punch throw trip takedown. Doesn't really matter. Cause I'm training in a realistic manner. So I'm learning to read and stay a step ahead.

I use sensitivity but not in the traditional way. I track, I pressurize and compress. In boxing when punches are flying at you, you either exchange blows or you tie up and clinch. I train my chi sao in the clinch. I train it like I fight. I can roll with WC people. When I do, there strikes don't do anything. Why cause I'm controlling there COG. I'm in good position and my timing is better. Which allows me to come in and choke or break something. Or I could just disengage and throw bombs. I'll eat a punch or two to get to the opponent. Like I say, that was there turn. Now it's mine. So if you come at me with a pak punch. It better KO me. Because when it's my turn that's what's happening to you.

 

[Phobius]

The whole point of the video is not to go force against force but to use a different approach. I was not talking about forward energy in the video but a static type.

Thanks for your response as well as making this thread for us to discuss. Please do not feel offended by my questions nor the fact that some may not agree, in this case me included.

I said it before, I think this is great in terms that it allows us all to share thoughts and opinions. Some may contain more vinegar than others but please be part of sharing ideas as you do with your videos.

Anyways back to question, do you have a scenario in mind for static type force. Maybe intend to get past someone only interested in blocking you, but not fighting? Once again I am not sure I agree in such scenario but I have also not trained for anything like that so what would I know. To add also I am curious to know more about not only the art but how you and others interpretate the concepts or contexts where it may be used.

 

[Jake104]

Thanks for your response as well as making this thread for us to discuss. Please do not feel offended by my questions nor the fact that some may not agree, in this case me included.

I said it before, I think this is great in terms that it allows us all to share thoughts and opinions. Some may contain more vinegar than others but please be part of sharing ideas as you do with your videos.

Anyways back to question, do you have a scenario in mind for static type force. Maybe intend to get past someone only interested in blocking you, but not fighting? Once again I am not sure I agree in such scenario but I have also not trained for anything like that so what would I know. To add also I am curious to know more about not only the art but how you and others interpretate the concepts or contexts where it may be used.

Even know this question is directed to OP. I'm curious in what you mean by static force and only blocking? If someone is only blocking it's real easy? Throw a barrage of punches at them. There's no way they will block more then the first 1-2. After that they'll be overtaken. Problem with this scenario is if someone doesn't want to fight back and you throw a bunch of punches at them. That's called assault. So not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate?

 

[futsaowingchun]

Thanks for your response as well as making this thread for us to discuss. Please do not feel offended by my questions nor the fact that some may not agree, in this case me included.

I said it before, I think this is great in terms that it allows us all to share thoughts and opinions. Some may contain more vinegar than others but please be part of sharing ideas as you do with your videos.

Anyways back to question, do you have a scenario in mind for static type force. Maybe intend to get past someone only interested in blocking you, but not fighting? Once again I am not sure I agree in such scenario but I have also not trained for anything like that so what would I know. To add also I am curious to know more about not only the art but how you and others interpretate the concepts or contexts where it may be used.

What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.

 

[Phobius]

Even know this question is directed to OP. I'm curious in what you mean by static force and only blocking? If someone is only blocking it's real easy? Throw a barrage of punches at them.

To clarify I was not the one stating about static force, it was a response to my previous question. Since static force was mentioned my follow-up question was more about what scenario this was intended to occur. Also in self defense scenario it may not be the best option always to beat down your opponent, sometimes you may just need to get away or past them depending on if they try to lock you in somewhere.

Sadly I do not believe in static force type scenario unless you yourself are the aggressor or you attempt to attack where the path is not clear. In the later you perhaps should simply find another opening rather than attempt to outspeed your opponent in two moves before he reacts.

 

[LFJ]

What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.

Again, I think this is asking the wrong question and giving yourself more problems than you need. Why are you attacking a guy if he's just on-guard? If he attacks you, he will open doors to you, or there will be doors that can be more easily opened. You need not stubbornly break down that one sealed door.

 

[JPinAZ]

What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.

My question would then be - why are you bridge and enter in on someone that has a static structure that low in the first place? why not occupy the upper gate and just strike him?
As is already mentioned, it seems you are just chasing a bunch of unnecessary scenarios vs. really understanding what it is your are asking in the first place.

 

[PiedmontChun]

My question would then be - why are you bridge and enter in on someone that has a static structure that low in the first place? why not occupy the upper gate and just strike him?
As is already mentioned, it seems you are just chasing a bunch of unnecessary scenarios vs. really understanding what it is your are asking in the first place.

If opponents strong guard is low and you simply enter by punching high, then whats stopping him from punching low just as efficiently? Then you are just trading blows, not controlling at all.

Whether you agree with the way Futsau puts forward in the video, it is useful to have ways of bypassing someone's guard that is unyielding, so I think its silly so many want to call BS on the scenario or consider it a made up problem. I didnt listen to the sound the whole way but I didnt think he specifically said this was preemptive or for entry only; I see this as something that could easily happen mid-fight where there is a pause and this type of static unyielding guard is presented to you. While you might wait for the initial hit or rush in a self defense situation before countering, once its a fight, it is a fight and you do what you need to in order to win including being the aggressor if needed (I would think).
The simplest (to me, at my level) might be an aggresive Pak and punch, and allow their guard to move me around them to a better angle if needed, or step "through" to disrupt their balance or as an excellent setup to bypass their guard and tie up the neck.

 

[Vajramusti]

What about someone who has a strong guard? how do you get past it? The video provides one type of way to deal with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
a pseudo problem:A "strong" guard is likely to be full of holes- go in or go around.

 

[geezer]

Whether you agree with the way Futsau puts forward in the video, it is useful to have ways of bypassing someone's guard that is unyielding...

The simplest (to me, at my level) might be an aggressive Pak and punch, and allow their guard to move me around them to a better angle.

Simple is good. This is a good response that I know Jake will appreciate.

 

[JPinAZ]

If opponents strong guard is low and you simply enter by punching high, then whats stopping him from punching low just as efficiently? Then you are just trading blows, not controlling at all.

I agree. But then, I didn't say you can't also engage and neutralize the low bridge at the same time. Actually, I wasn't specific for a reason, as we could go all day about what-ifs.
The reason I asked is I see a problem with exploring an idea of what to do with a low 'static guard' while completely ignoring the upper gate. I'm not sure why one would chose to essentially chase hands to bridge that low while not also occupying the upper gate at the same time...

Whether you agree with the way Futsau puts forward in the video, it is useful to have ways of bypassing someone's guard that is unyielding, so I think its silly so many want to call BS on the scenario or consider it a made up problem. I didnt listen to the sound the whole way but I didnt think he specifically said this was preemptive or for entry only; I see this as something that could easily happen mid-fight where there is a pause and this type of static unyielding guard is presented to you. While you might wait for the initial hit or rush in a self defense situation before countering, once its a fight, it is a fight and you do what you need to in order to win including being the aggressor if needed (I would think).
The simplest (to me, at my level) might be an aggresive Pak and punch, and allow their guard to move me around them to a better angle if needed, or step "through" to disrupt their balance or as an excellent setup to bypass their guard and tie up the neck.

I also agree it is useful to have ways of bypassing a 'strong guard'. I just didn't completely agree with the way the 'problem to be solved' was set up, nor some of his solutions to it. Heh, even in the clip it was demonstrated how what was being shown as a solution wouldn't work at times, which is why I was looking for clarification on the thread.

Unfortunately answers were not always forthcoming, sometimes were contradicting and ultimately resorted to short snippy answers. Maybe he's just not comfortable discussing his art if someone doesn't agree with him or asks him to explain his methods? Surprising for someone with an often claimed '30 years' experience, but what'cha gunna do!

 

[PiedmontChun]

I agree. But then, I didn't say you can't also engage and neutralize the low bridge at the same time. Actually, I wasn't specific for a reason, as we could go all day about what-ifs.
The reason I asked is I see a problem with exploring an idea of what to do with a low 'static guard' while completely ignoring the upper gate. I'm not sure why one would chose to essentially chase hands to bridge that low while not also occupying the upper gate at the same time...

It came across as "the guard is low so strike high" which, even if being non-specific intentionally, is oversimplified to the point of devoid of meaning beyond face value.
The guy in the vid didnt really have a low guard, its a fairly typical WC guard. Almost everything after 2:00 is some combination of Lop and strike to the chin / face, is striking the head ignoring the upper gate as you say, even if its not the way you would do it?