Okay, that section is called paau-bong (throwing bong), but it is not different from the other sections. There is only one bong-sao concept as an elbow rotation. In the 2nd CK section it is coupled with wu-sau to form kwan-sau, which is the bong and punch together, although not completed. It is trained this way for simultaneity of the step, elbow, and punch to improve speed, timing, and full body power.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Eddie Chong's Sil Lim Tao
- Thread starter Marnetmar
- Start date
Okay, that section is called paau-bong (throwing bong), but it is not different from the other sections. There is only one bong-sao concept as an elbow rotation. In the 2nd CK section it is coupled with wu-sau to form kwan-sau, which is the bong and punch together, although not completed. It is trained this way for simultaneity of the step, elbow, and punch to improve speed, timing, and full body power.
@Argus
To illustrate my point, at this section of CK we're discussing, DP says it represents having your hands down when suddenly attacked and that your elbow has a shorter distance to travel than your hand and is more likely to save you. Fine idea if you're lucky, but this is the only interpretation he gives and he also says in reality it will be done stepping backward or laterally, but it is done stepping forward in the form to train you on the idea of always advancing. That seems quite odd to practice such a technique with the wrong footwork, don't you think? It's not a satisfactory explanation and leaves you desiring. Turns out there is a more abstract idea behind it. It is the same case with almost every movement of the forms he shows.
To illustrate my point, at this section of CK we're discussing, DP says it represents having your hands down when suddenly attacked and that your elbow has a shorter distance to travel than your hand and is more likely to save you. Fine idea if you're lucky, but this is the only interpretation he gives and he also says in reality it will be done stepping backward or laterally, but it is done stepping forward in the form to train you on the idea of always advancing. That seems quite odd to practice such a technique with the wrong footwork, don't you think? It's not a satisfactory explanation and leaves you desiring. Turns out there is a more abstract idea behind it. It is the same case with almost every movement of the forms he shows.
@Argus
To illustrate my point, at this section of CK we're discussing, DP says it represents having your hands down when suddenly attacked and that your elbow has a shorter distance to travel than your hand and is more likely to save you. Fine idea if you're lucky, but this is the only interpretation he gives and he also says in reality it will be done stepping backward or laterally, but it is done stepping forward in the form to train you on the idea of always advancing. That seems quite odd to practice such a technique with the wrong footwork, don't you think? It's not a satisfactory explanation and leaves you desiring. Turns out there is a more abstract idea behind it. It is the same case with almost every movement of the forms he shows.
It makes sense to me, but what is your more abstract explanation of paau bong?
So LFJ, can you elaborate about that "abstract idea"?
Otherwise, regarding bong sau, in our lineage we generally use it in response to opposing force. Contact with heavy force bends our arm into bong, as Yak described, much like a flexible piece of rattan or bamboo.
This is an example of what my old sifu called "objective" versus "subjective" technique. "subjective" technique requires no contact with the opponent's limbs to initiate. you perceive an opening or a threat and you move of your own accord to respond. Since the response is initiated by you, "the subject" it's "subjective".
An "objective" reponse is one that occurs in response to an outside or objective force. In our WC we seek to be as "objective" as possible so that ideally our opponent's energies directly initiate our responses. His punch literally creates our tan or bong by bending and pushing our arms into that position. Such an objective response is desirable for several reasons:
First, it uses the opponent's energy and doesn't crash force. Borrowing the force this way conserves energy and makes it possible to effectively handle powerful opponents.
Second, as the opponent initiates our response by physically pushing or bending our arm into position, the response is very fast. Since our response occurs as a result of a direct mechanical linkage, there is no "reaction time" lag while your nervous system processes stimuli received.
Finally, if you are responding "objectively" to the energy that you receive rather than to visual cues, you are not succeptible to visual fakes.
Now all this may sound a bit abstract, but it is just our understanding of: 'Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung."
Otherwise, regarding bong sau, in our lineage we generally use it in response to opposing force. Contact with heavy force bends our arm into bong, as Yak described, much like a flexible piece of rattan or bamboo.
This is an example of what my old sifu called "objective" versus "subjective" technique. "subjective" technique requires no contact with the opponent's limbs to initiate. you perceive an opening or a threat and you move of your own accord to respond. Since the response is initiated by you, "the subject" it's "subjective".
An "objective" reponse is one that occurs in response to an outside or objective force. In our WC we seek to be as "objective" as possible so that ideally our opponent's energies directly initiate our responses. His punch literally creates our tan or bong by bending and pushing our arms into that position. Such an objective response is desirable for several reasons:
First, it uses the opponent's energy and doesn't crash force. Borrowing the force this way conserves energy and makes it possible to effectively handle powerful opponents.
Second, as the opponent initiates our response by physically pushing or bending our arm into position, the response is very fast. Since our response occurs as a result of a direct mechanical linkage, there is no "reaction time" lag while your nervous system processes stimuli received.
Finally, if you are responding "objectively" to the energy that you receive rather than to visual cues, you are not succeptible to visual fakes.
Now all this may sound a bit abstract, but it is just our understanding of: 'Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung."
It makes sense to me, but what is your more abstract explanation of paau bong?
It makes sense to you to practice a technique with wrong footwork 1k times in training which would make it dangerous if you reacted this way in reality? Not to me! Deliberately training wrong footwork is a "wonky" idea, to borrow your term from earlier.
The action, as I explained, is not an application. It's an incomplete action done to train the simultaneity of the step, elbow rotation, and the punch to develop speed, timing, and full body power. It also trains bong and the punch to always be a couple and includes tactical ideas of wu placement and taan-concept punching.
None of these ideas are taught by DP. He only had training time to receive fast track application ideas, as evidenced by what he teaches. As he said in that clip you posted, WSL didn't keep secrets but taught individuals based on what he thought they could absorb at the time. Someone who steps into his school for 5 mins once a year is not going to be able to absorb abstract training methods for fighting strategy and tactics which need constant development and refinement throughout the system. It's not just a "when they do that, you do this" sort of thing. WSL's early and longterm students didn't teach that way either. But visiting students needed something to take home. Some of the ideas may not be "wrong", but they are at best secondary or even last line of defense options.
@geezer
Yip Man is quoted as saying something along the lines of it being the opponent who shows you how to hit them. I don't understand this in a passive way though. Fakes and such are not a problem because we fight the person and not the arms. The type of attacking we use makes it possible to unthinkingly clear obstructions as we strike and recycle, should there be obstructions, affect the opponent's facing and disrupt their balance so that we fight their flanks and take away their ability to counter effectively. As they react to reface or defend, it "shows us how to hit them". The idea is to sustain an unbroken cycle of attack striking and clearing the way for the next strike simultaneously. We don't have passive/defensive reactions but we also don't meet force with force.
Yip Man is quoted as saying something along the lines of it being the opponent who shows you how to hit them. I don't understand this in a passive way though. Fakes and such are not a problem because we fight the person and not the arms. The type of attacking we use makes it possible to unthinkingly clear obstructions as we strike and recycle, should there be obstructions, affect the opponent's facing and disrupt their balance so that we fight their flanks and take away their ability to counter effectively. As they react to reface or defend, it "shows us how to hit them". The idea is to sustain an unbroken cycle of attack striking and clearing the way for the next strike simultaneously. We don't have passive/defensive reactions but we also don't meet force with force.
@geezer
Yip Man is quoted as saying something along the lines of it being the opponent who shows you how to hit them. I don't understand this in a passive way though. Fakes and such are not a problem because we fight the person and not the arms. The type of attacking we use makes it possible to unthinkingly clear obstructions as we strike and recycle, should there be obstructions, affect the opponent's facing and disrupt their balance so that we fight their flanks and take away their ability to counter effectively. As they react to reface or defend, it "shows us how to hit them". The idea is to sustain an unbroken cycle of attack striking and clearing the way for the next strike simultaneously. We don't have passive/defensive reactions but we also don't meet force with force.
Nice. I find this a pretty good description of quality WC across lineages. In my example of the yielding bong-sau, the WC practitioner maintains not only forward pressure, but a strong forward intent and offensive mind set. A spring will only bend if there is forward pressure.
