What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[LFJ]

VT punches cut the way as they strike (lin-siu-daai-da principle). That's the primary weapon of VT.

If I'm "only in VT for the punching", switching to Western Boxing wouldn't teach me this.

 

[Juany118]

There's an important distinction to be made between auxiliary and remedial actions.

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).

These distinctions are clearly defined. Not semantics.



I trust you now understand what I mean when I say remedial and auxiliary.

Many people use bong-sau as an auxiliary action with various specific functions applied against various specific things. I would not use bong-sau here because I can still use other auxiliary actions without raising my elbow.

Nobody Important mentioned two types of vertically rising bong-sau used as a remedial block. The rest sound like auxiliary actions. Fine by me if that's what he wants to do. It's just not how the VT I do was designed to function.

To me, bong-sau is recovery from a disadvantageous position (hence remedial), but not an application "against" anything specific, like an upward block at an arm. It's a direct attack on space to get me back to punching position, if that makes any sense to you.

Well at least it seems we have agreement on the fact that we all see bong as simply being a way to open the path for our primary action, to be offensive.

That said then you view of a bong is not to far removed from the 1:1 argument you raise or you have your mind closed to the fact there are other offensive actions beyond a punch.

A bong may be more advantageous as what you call an auxiliary action for a number of reasons.

1. Your goal may be to gain distance to go for a tool, even escape a superior opponent. The transition from bong to lan, which can generate that distance is quite simple.

2. Your goal may be to do a takedown. If you and your opponent are in opposing stances (right vs left) the easiest way to execute a takedown is, in response to a straight punch from the leading side, is to bong the strike, step in behind their lead leg, then fak sau

3. If the goal is Chin Na, depending on the opponent's arm positions a bong may place the arm in a more advantageous to move in to support the initiating hand in applying the lock.

4. You can initiate attacks from kicking range, as you enter kicking range raising a bong preemptively can act as a shield of sorts for a sudden counter attack until you close into punching range where other techniques may be more optimal (some exceptions being noted above.)

If you only see punching as the correct path of offense/fighting, you are limiting yourself to an incredible extent.

 

[Juany118]

VT punches cut the way as they strike (lin-siu-daai-da principle). That's the primary weapon of VT.

If I'm "only in VT for the punching", switching to Western Boxing wouldn't teach me this.

All WC teaches this. The point is illustrated by my post immediately above. If all you think of is setting up the punch, and none of the other tools available at your disposal, then why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques.

 

[Nobody Important]

• Article about a Hung Gar sifu who practices Fung Gar. There are some YouTube clips, unfortunately they are strictly Hung Gar sets. Perhaps someone here could shed a little more light.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Home
• Sign In

Articles

Kong Pui Wai: the lineage holder’s burden
arild200
August 2013 edited September 2013 in Articles
Articles
Feb102012

Being the Hung Kuen lineage holder is a ‘burden’, but one that Kong Pui Wai bears with a happy heart. In this classic interview, he explains why. It was first published in New Martial Hero Magazine in Chinese in 2002 (that’s him on the cover there, above), then in Inside Kung-Fu in Steve Bookless’s English version in 2005

KONG PUI WAI became interested in studying the art of traditional kung fu as a young boy growing up in Hong Kong. He began training orthodox Hung Kuen (Hung Gar) kung fu under the tutelage of Hong Kong Hung Kuen master Chan Hon Chung. Master Chan was a disciple of the famous Lam Sai Wing, who was in turn a disciple of the legendary Wong Fei Hung.

The Hung style was developed by Hung Hei Gung, one of the five ancestors to escape the burning of Shaolin. This southern style emphasises strong, low stances and powerful bridge hands, combining the external with the internal.
Kong Pui Wai trained Hung Kuen in the old, traditional way in his sifu’s kung fu school, the Hon Chung Gymnasium, which opened in Mong Kok, Kowloon, in 1938. This old style of kung fu training meant a total commitment to one’s sifu and the art.

Kong Pui Wai reflects: “Training was different at that time; it was total commitment and not taken lightly. Chan Hon Chung was very famous in Hong Kong and represented what was best in his generation of masters. He held incredible knowledge and had the full Hung Kuen system passed down from Lam Sai Wing.”
Diligent practice and devotion combined with his natural abilities to quickly propel Kong Pui Wai to the position of assistant instructor in the Hon Chung Gymnasium and saw him teaching junior and senior students while still young himself.

Kong sifu stayed with his master and became a senior member of Chan Hon Chung’s kung fu family. He learned all aspects of the Hung Kuen system from Master Chan, including the forms, techniques, lion dance, traditional Chinese medicine (Kong Sifu is a permanent member of the Hong Kong Chinese Herbalist Association) and the spiritual aspects.

When Master Chan passed on in 1991 Kong Pui Wai accepted the awesome responsibility of carrying on his Hung Kuen teachings and traditions. “When sifu died I accepted that I would carry the burden, including the spiritual one, of this position,” he said. “Unless one is in this situation, and understands it as an inner family member, they cannot appreciate all that this meant, which is why I use the term ‘burden’. Chan Sifu held and promoted the knowledge he had been given by the ancestors and I accepted that I would do the same.”

English Hung Kuen sifu and student of Chan Hon Chung Jim Uglow remembered: “When Sifu died in ’91 I asked Kong Pui Wai to take over my training. Many people can say they have finished the Hung Kuen forms, but only the sequence. These have to be chap sau’d and then there is the internal and the spiritual. The family and my brothers told me the only person who has this is Kong Pui Wai. He doesn’t just have this; he can pass it on.”

Later, Kong Pui Wai would also accept the responsibility of being the chairman of Hong Kong’s most important kung fu organisation, the Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association.

The Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association was formed in 1970 by Chan Hon Chung with the intention of co-ordinating and promoting Chinese martial arts in Hong Kong. This organisation has brought together over 90% of Hong Kong masters and represented every style in the former British colony.
The offices of the HKCMAA are hallowed kung fu ground in Hong Kong. Imposing black and white photos of past and present members stare down from the walls and one can note the faces of such kung fu royalty as Chan Hon Chung, Kwan Tak Hing, Yip Man, Lee Koon Hung and so many other great and famous masters. For the kung fu enthusiast it is truly a special place.

Kong Pui Wai’s photo is placed among the privileged few who have been the organisation’s chairman, a position first held by his master and one that Kong Sifu has now held for a decade. The chairman oversees all aspects of the organisation and works to promote Chinese martial arts and lion dance (traditional and competition) throughout Hong Kong and the world. Kong Sifu’s duties continually take him to countless countries around the globe (Canada, UK, Germany, China, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Venezuela, Italy and Malaysia in just the recent past) in an effort to promote Chinese martial arts. He also works closely with the International Olympic Committee dealing with coaching standards, practices and sports promotion.

The Hong Kong government are strong backers of the Association and provide funding and support. They are working with the organisation to develop courses to improve sports coaching activities and to help promote martial arts. From the government’s point of view it’s a win/win situation as the organisation does so much to promote Chinese heritage and culture while improving the overall health of the people.
More interest in Chinese heritage and culture means more tourists visiting Hong Kong (the lion dance is becoming an important symbol for the Hong Kong tourist industry) and a more vibrant population means less tax dollars being spent on health care. Kong Pui Wai is a firm supporter of the health benefits of Chinese martial arts and enjoys promoting them throughout the world. Under his leadership the Association has worked hard to remove any negative connotations about martial arts which, in the past, have sometimes clouded some Hong Kong residents’ view on kung fu.

While senior members praise his leadership, Kong Pui Wai is modest when speaking of his role within the Association. “The achievements come from the efforts of all the members,” he says. “The HKCMAA works as a unit together, to motivate and develop. My role is to initiate co-operation between all. Credit for any success belongs to everyone.”

As well as being chairman of the HKCMAA, Kong Pui Wai is also the president of several martial arts associations around the world, along with being the president of the Guangzhou Lion Dance Association and the president of the JPC Mong Kok Police District. If that’s not enough he is also chief kung fu instructor for several Hong Kong Police boroughs and head wushu consultant for the Hong Kong Police Chinese Wushu Club.
It’s rare to see a kung fu or lion dance function, competition or display in Hong Kong which doesn’t have him as an honoured guest. He is so highly respected in Hong Kong because his kung fu ability and mind are remarkable. Few have his aptitude for all aspects of traditional kung fu.

Hong Kong Police kung fu instructor and HKCMAA vice-president Wong Siu Tsun (Tony) explained Kong Sifu’s abilities: “Many sifus in Hong Kong are very competent in their own style but Kong Pui Wai transcends individual style and understands all aspects of kung fu because he deeply understands Shaolin; including all internal and external aspects and how to best position and move the body to create power. With his knowledge he can quickly apply these principles and correct anyone’s posture, positioning and angle and help them to mix hard and soft to create power.”

This in-depth understanding of the formula of kung fu was applied by Kong Sifu when he created the Jin Ying form for the HKCMAA. The form combines many different styles (Wing Chun, Praying Mantis, Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut etc) in the one form. The creation of this form cemented his leadership in the HKCMAA as masters of each style in Hong Kong realised the chairman not only understood the principles and movements of their individual styles, he was able to chap sau the forms to create the most power from the postures, techniques, angles and movements.

A simple discussion of punching power with Master Kong reveals many important kung fu ideals. “If you look at a punch, the goal is to get the power through,” he says. “Too many people defeat the power before they begin the movement. They don’t understand the formula. There’s so much in a proper kung fu punch and few can execute one properly. People end up fighting or changing that which should be natural. You are working with four things: speed, power, angle and the attack point. These four elements, the basis of any punch, transmit to all aspects of kung fu.”

About 20 years ago Master Kong started to learn a little-known spiritual kung fu style called Fung Gar from Hong Kong Fung Gar master Liu Tak. This style is an esoteric and ancient form of kung fu few have heard of. Even in China it has always been kept secret with the student never exposing knowledge of the art; resulting in very few knowing of its existence.
It is a significant development that Kong Pui Wai has begun to talk openly of Fung Gar in Hong Kong. Spiritual kung fu is an unknown concept to many in the west. Any practitioner of this kung fu would have to be calm, compassionate, have a good heart and be prepared to give up everything to follow the rule of the art.

Kong Sifu has begun to teach Fung Gar to a small number of individuals. He combines it with his Hung Kuen and exposes a select few students to this Hung/Fung. In his words, the main goal of the art is to “keep peace inside”.
Fung Gar contains no forms. It has bridge work and finger attack with a focus on single skill practice and the yin-yang (sun and moon) hands. It is incredibly powerful and fast. Kong Pui Wai explains: “Fung Gar contains three factors; form, power, and rule. Form relates to how you do exactly as asked. Power is gained through proper kung fu practice.
“Rule is the most important. Intangible and invisible, it surpasses the human mind and develops extreme power. You can open a door to absorb and gain the potential natural power into your body to achieve a higher level. The physical and spiritual must be practised together and anyone who is learning would have to be very kind, decent and honest.”

As the Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association’s reputation continues to grow and traditional Chinese martial arts and lion dance gain in popularity, Kong Pui Wai sees a bright future for Chinese martial arts practice around the world.
“Different faces, different cultures, different colours, same heart,” he says. “In kung fu there is no difference. Martial arts study will benefit anyone from any culture, gender or age group. It will give good health and vitality to the breath, mind and body and is an excellent method to relieve tension, stress and anxiety.”

As a senior member of the Association in Hong Kong says: “Everything Kong Sifu has done has been positive for the organisation and we are very lucky to have his guidance, vision and leadership. The best thing for the Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association is to continue with Kong Pui Wai as the chairman.”


Sign In or Register to comment.
Full Site Sign In
Powered by Vanilla

 

[guy b]

If all you think of is setting up the punch, and none of the other tools available at your disposal, then why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques.

Because VT punching is not like western boxing punching. I think LFJ already said this.

 

[guy b]

Your goal may be to gain distance to go for a tool, even escape a superior opponent. The transition from bong to lan, which can generate that distance is quite simple

Hand chasing

Your goal may be to do a takedown. If you and your opponent are in opposing stances (right vs left) the easiest way to execute a takedown is, in response to a straight punch from the leading side, is to bong the strike, step in behind their rear leg, then fak sau

Bong the strike? Application based thinking. Hand chasing

If the goal is Chin Na, depending on the opponent's arm positions a bong may place the arm in a more advantageous to move in to support the initiating hand in applying the lock.

Application based thinking. Hand chasing

You can initiate attacks from kicking range, as you enter kicking range raising a bong preemptively can act as a shield of sorts for a sudden counter attack until you close into punching range where other techniques may be more optimal (some exceptions being noted above.)

Application based thinking. Completely impractical

 

[Juany118]

Because VT punching is not like western boxing punching. I think LFJ already said this.

Okay, you are both dodging the point because it doesn't address the rest of the art.

That out of the way LFJ's entire argument regarding the bong appears to revolve around a myopic focus on punching. This myopic focus has him telling people (paraphrased) "my art is unique to yours because you do not see the bong as I do. The problem with this argument is that he has made a universal statement about a technique in the art when his lens appears to be limited to only one aspect of that art.

I can appreciate the fact he may prefer he mechanics behind a WC/VT punch. I think we all do, otherwise we would not be studying it. There is a lot more to the art than simply punching though.

Hand chasing



Bong the strike? Application based thinking. Hand chasing



Application based thinking. Hand chasing



Application based thinking. Completely impractical

No it isn't hand chasing, that is a dodge on your part. It's called having plans or goals, sometimes required by Law, that don't just involve beating the hell out of someone.

I am not hand chasing when I say at work "I need to get distance and draw my gun" while being attacked. If, while being attacked, the easiest way to accomplish this is with a lan, and my relative position to the suspect permits a bong, the easiest transition to a lan from a deflection can indeed be a bong. This is simple biomechanics as a lan and a bong both have bent elbows it is more efficient to transition from bong to lan than other defensive techniques.

If I need to get the subject down so I can restrain for cuffing and out relative positions are as I noted and he is punching me, the best way to do that is with a bong followed by a fak. Why? Again, basic biomechanics. The bong and the fak come from the same arm. Due to the fact your bong has your elbow bent already, after you step behind their leg, your arm is already in a position to flow into a fak to the neck and drop the person.

I don't know about the VT you two guys study but the WC I study prioritizes efficiency, over any specific definition of when a technique should or should not be used. There are circumstances, when you have a plan/goal when a bong is simply more efficient from a biomechanical perspective.

Now are these ALWAYS possible? Of course not, they are dependent on the relative positions of both actors. However to simply say "a bong is only a remedial action" is to be myopic and not realize that there are times when a bong is the best choice for what LFJ calls an auxiliary action.

The above btw, they aren't theory, or "arm chair" WC debating. I have put them into practice multiple times in real fights, as well as finding a bong more efficient to allow me to accomplish Chin Na for a wrist lock takedown in certain circumstances.

If anyone is doing Application based thinking it is LFJ because he is the ONLY person in this thread who has made a categorical statement regarding the application of a specific technique, namely the bong, being "only a remedial action." I wonder if he realized that when he liked your post?

 

[LFJ]

If anyone is doing Application based thinking it is LFJ because he is the ONLY person in this thread who has made a categorical statement regarding the application of a specific technique, namely the bong.

You and N.I. give it various applications against specific things, then deny that's application based thinking...

I have not given it any 1:1 application against anything.

 

[guy b]

Okay, you are both dodging the point because it doesn't address the rest of the art.

Someone asked "why not take up western boxing". The reason is that VT punching is not like Western boxing punching. You then asked "why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques", as if you didn't understand the first answer. To be clear there are no extraneous techniques in VT. All is there for a reason.

No it isn't hand chasing, that is a dodge on your part. It's called having plans or goals, sometimes required by Law, that don't just involve beating the hell out of someone.

I am not hand chasing when I say at work "I need to get distance and draw my gun" while being attacked. If, while being attacked, the easiest way to accomplish this is with a lan, and my relative position to the suspect permits a bong, the easiest transition to a lan from a deflection can indeed be a bong. This is simple biomechanics as a lan and a bong both have bent elbows it is more efficient to transition from bong to lan than other defensive techniques.

If I need to get the subject down so I can restrain for cuffing and out relative positions are as I noted, the best way to do that is with a bong followed by a fak. Why? Again, basic biomechanics. The bong and the fak come from the same arm. Due to the fact your bong has your elbow bent already, after you step behind their leg, your arm is already in a position to launch the fak at the neck and drop the person.

Sounds ike you just need to learn grappling and stop messing around with application based thinking in your VT.

However to simply say "a bong is only a remedial action" is to be myopic and not realize that there are times when a bong is the best choice for what he calls an auxiliary action

Bong is not used as an auxilliary action because it raises your elbow. There are better choices when already in an advantageous position

as well as finding a bong more efficient to allow me to accomplish Chin Na for a wrist lock takedown

Sounds insane. Why don't you just learn a proper grappling system? Anyway, not VT.

If anyone is doing Application based thinking it is LFJ because he is the ONLY person in this thread who has made a categorical statement regarding the application of a specific technique, namely the bong

You just detailed several unlikely sounding police scarious where you use wing chun applications while arresting people. LFT is the only person on this bizarre thread who is talking any sense.

 

[Juany118]

You and N.I. give it various applications against specific things, then deny that's application based thinking...

I have not given it any 1:1 application against anything.

Umm saying a technique is only used as X period is application based thinking. So if you say a bong is "only" remedial it is application based thinking.

Second I did not say anything was 1:1. I said IF relative body positions permit it a bong can be the most efficient response depending on what your goal is.

You may not have thought of this before but some people have specific goals, and rules mandated by Law, when engaging people in fights in real life. The Bouncer just wants to get the trouble maker out of his Club. The Emergency Room Security Officer wants to restrain the tweeked out patient or the heroin OD that suddenly woke up, thanks to Narcan, who's pissed off you took away his high. The Police Officer wants to detain and/or arrest a suspect. These goals are not accomplished, legally, by simply Zening your way to beating them into immobility. It requires takedowns, Chin Na etc and due to basic biomechanics there will be times a bong is more efficient.

This is not however based on specific practice, or 1:1, your rote response to contrary theories. The fact these very fact these series of maneuvers, when possible, are biomechanically more efficient, also makes them flow naturally, you don't even think about them, it just happens. I never had someone demonstrate bong to lan to create distance. My Sifu is an ex-cop but I am the only one in the school and he teaches for all. I simply found that happening one night. I knew I needed distance and bong>lan just happened because of relative position. Same with the take down.

So you can retreat to 1:1 as much as you want but the person making a categorical statement about the purpose of a technique appears to be you.

 

[Juany118]

Someone asked "why not take up western boxing". The reason is that VT punching is not like Western boxing punching. You then asked "why study a Martial Art with so many apparently extraneous techniques", as if you didn't understand the first answer. To be clear there are no extraneous techniques in VT. All is there for a reason.



Sounds ike you just need to learn grappling and stop messing around with application based thinking in your VT.



Bong is not used as an auxilliary action because it raises your elbow. There are better choices when already in an advantageous position



Sounds insane. Why don't you just learn a proper grappling system? Anyway, not VT.



You just detailed several unlikely sounding police scarious where you use wing chun applications while arresting people. LFT is the only person on this bizarre thread who is talking any sense.

Ahh, now attack the source instead of the points raised. Humorus.

First: So your WC doesn't have takedowns and Chin Na? Odd because the people I know who study VT in my area do and my WC certainly has them and we have to test them.

Second: Why do I study WC. Because it is a comprehensive martial art. It includes all aspects of MA; striking, take downs and Chin Na. Most grappling arts are skimpy on the striking. It is not a good idea for a Cop to go right into grappling range. This gives a violent suspect the opportunity to try for the tools on your belt, especially if they are bigger/stronger and I am skinny as all hell.

Case in point, the bong>lan scenario. I had pulled the guy off a victim, he started to grapple with me and went for my gun (he was wanted by State Parole for a prior Aggravated Assault on an Officer, unbeknownst to me at the time), I broke free of the grapple, he went to strike. My response occurred because, since he went for my gun once, I was justified in deadly force. He complied at gun point btw.

WC is useful because you can use strikes to disrupt the opponent's centerline, making the application of the takedowns and Chin Na easier. Additionally...

1. The structure fits in naturally with a standard interview stance so I can have my structure ready without suspects knowing. I can even have my hands up. I tend to talk with my hands anyway.
2. The fact the defenses of deflects and not blocks benefits my slim build.
3. The centerline theory, striking methods and speed benefit my physical strengths minimize my weaknesses.

Add in the Kali for the knowledge of knives (you defend better when you know how to use them) and specialized knife defense as well as the use of weapons (baton) and I believe, like my former LEO Sifu, that it is actually the ideal combination for LE. But don't let a combined 45 years on the job in Cities with some of the highest per capita crime rates in the USA get in the way of you new defense. My Sifu, and his Sifu also are contractors who have taught WC based combatives to Federal and local LE, to include Federal Marshalls, DEA and the NYPD.

As for unrealistic. If you think someone striking out to set up a grapple, or someone punching at a Police Officer suddenly is unrealistic, well there isn't much I can say then because violent encounters of that sort aren't uncommon in the least.

 

[LFJ]

Umm saying a technique is only used as X period is application based thinking. So if you say a bong is "only" remedial it is application based thinking.

What do you think it's applied against then?

So you can retreat to 1:1 as much as you want but the person making a categorical statement about the purpose of a technique appears to be you.

Hack, lift, sweep, bar, pull, etc. are application ideas where one would be applied against specific things where another would not.

Having more than one possible function doesn't mean each function is not a 1:1 application.

 

[Juany118]

What do you think it's applied against then?



Hack, lift, sweep, bar, pull, etc. are application ideas where one would be applied against specific things where another would not.

Having more than one possible function doesn't mean each function is not a 1:1 application.

When you chose to not follow the "be vague> make unsupported fiat statements> ask questions and do not actually address the point made by a statement" answering mode we can continue. As that is highly unlikely however, have a pleasant morning/afternoon/evening as I don't know what time zone you are in.

 

[LFJ]

This is addressing your point... You said bong as only remedial is application based thinking. Explain exactly what you think it's being applied against then, if it is an application.

It was said that bong-sau is adapted to "hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull". That means the way bong-sau is performed is dictated by whatever specific thing it is being applied against. This is undeniably application-based thinking, and probably quite a bit of hand chasing.

For me, bong-sau is the same elbow rotation regardless of what the opponent is doing. So, not 1:1 application.

 

[Phobius]

One can say a bong Sau is whatever it needs to be. Saying it's purpose is solely to clear space is application. Just as much as it being to hack or such specifically. But it is only a shape that is being whatever it is based on what it needs to be.

LFJ, you seem close to saying that usage of any move is application based because that move was done as an application. All moves are at some point application.

You are all missing what application based means, it means you do a move because you need a certain application.

A concept based means you do a move in a certain application because it follows the concepts.

So it is the reason why you do a move in an application that dictates if it is application based. Otherwise all is application based.

So how can you say when someone gives an example that you know they are application based? They never state they always do the move, nor reason behind their example. It is just an example.

First when you say a technique is always and/or only for specific purpose then you become application based.

 

[LFJ]

Saying it's purpose is solely to clear space is application.

Having one simple and clearly defined concept for bong-sau (elbow rotation) doesn't make it application based.

What makes it non-application based is that how and why it's done is not dictated by what specifically the opponent is doing. It's non-specific elbow rotation. A simple concept.

You are all missing what application based means, it means you do a move because you need a certain application.

A concept based means you do a move in a certain application because it follows the concepts.

So it is the reason why you do a move in an application that dictates if it is application based. Otherwise all is application based.

If you change how you perform bong-sau for a needed function (this vs that), you are doing an application based style by your own definition.

You are changing your technique for a specific need. There is no clear concept to it that is followed. It's a hack when something needs to be hacked. It's a pull when something needs to be pulled. This is application based by your own definition.

 

[Phobius]

First of all, I am not saying remedial means application based. I have no interest in claiming your style is application based, doing so would just be silly and serve no point other than to aggrevate. I am certain most people here knows not to think in application based context at least most of the time.

Now to adress your points. (Below is my view on concept and application based. You can disagree or explain why you do not agree with it, fine by me)

Having one simple and clearly defined concept for bong-sau (elbow rotation) doesn't make it application based.

This is not what I said, with clearing space I was referring to why you do the bong-sau. How you do a technique is never concept nor application based. It is simply training and understanding the movement/technique and feels rather irrelevant here. I fail to see your point, it seems you did not understand correctly.

What makes it non-application based is that how and why it's done is not dictated by what specifically the opponent is doing. It's non-specific elbow rotation. A simple concept.

Hate to say it but all techniques are non-specific. It is when we decide to use them that makes them specific. No technique has a rule on them when they must be used. That is what a system may have if it is application based (also concept based but then the rules may be a bit more abstract(correct word?)). Techniques themselves are just that. You may take a technique from a completely different system and apply your own rules to them. The techniques themselves may have rules of their own but they are more or less tied to usage of muscles, bending, angles, rotational force, linear force, relaxation, speed... any parameter that helps define the movement.

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

If you change how you perform bong-sau for a needed function (this vs that), you are doing an application based style by your own definition.

Needed function can change your technique, without being 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. Duality of movements. Of course this idea may or may not be present in your lineage and as such you may have own rules that say you should only and always knock down your opponent as quickly as possible.

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. This would increase the efficiency of your move and have the expected result that would normally not be there if he/she had not been injured with a lot less cost in efficiency.

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.

You are changing your technique for a specific need. There is no clear concept to it that is followed. It's a hack when something needs to be hacked. It's a pull when something needs to be pulled. This is application based by your own definition.

A punch is a punch when something needs to be punched. The thing you seem to wish avoid realizing is that what you are talking about hacked, or pulled and so on. Same as saying bong or laap. Or whatever other thing you want to mention. Each has a time and place. Whatever dictates the time and place is what states if it is application based or not.

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.

Now I do not argue as to whether having two versions of bong-sau one for hacking and one for pulling is good thing and/or violating some concept. It is another discussion altogether and currently not given it much thought.

 

[Phobius]

Also have to admit I am not really sure how a bong-sau can be called pulling or hacking or whatever. Does not really align well with how I consider bong-sau. Could of course be due to missunderstanding so do not take this as criticism.

 

[Juany118]

This is addressing your point... You said bong as only remedial is application based thinking. Explain exactly what you think it's being applied against then, if it is an application.

It was said that bong-sau is adapted to "hack, cover, support, bar, lift, sweep, bump & pull". That means the way bong-sau is performed is dictated by whatever specific thing it is being applied against. This is undeniably application-based thinking, and probably quite a bit of hand chasing.

For me, bong-sau is the same elbow rotation regardless of what the opponent is doing. So, not 1:1 application.

While hopeless I will try one last time before I settle in.

First you actually didn't address in any substantive way the examples I raised. Perhaps because of tunnel vision, perhaps because they undermine your position. I don't know. That said AGAIN, no one is speaking of a 1:1. Simply saying "hack, cover..." etc doesn't indicate any real forethought at all. You are either unintentionally reading said intent or you are intentionally trying to troll. I will assume it is the former as I am still new around here. Your own expressed philosophy actually supports this, whether you realize it or not.

"How so? What are you talking about?" you may ask. Here is why.

You have stated on multiple occasions that you believe our primary focus should be to punch. You then state you see the bong in that context as a remedial action only because it changes the line of your elbow as it rotates. In the context you set, that of punching, I would agree. Why? Biomechanical efficiency. Biomechanical efficiency and physics is the core of WC/VT. It is more biomechanically efficient to go from many other techniques into a straight punch or palm strike than a bong for the exact reason you note. Because of this efficiency it is a far more natural action and so, once the muscle memory has been programmed via training it becomes an automatic response when our technique/goal is to punch.

Please note the following is determined on your situational awareness of the conflict. Your bodies position, in three dimensional space, relative to that of the opponent. These are NOT constants. Just prefaced to preemptively address your 1:1 trope.

The same principle applies to other techniques/goals. Some techniques/goals can see greater biomechanical efficiency in a transition from a bong than a punch would. Ergo, if you have the proper muscle memory AND no preconceived notions as to what is the right way and wrong way to use a bong, which creates a mental block, your chosen technique/goal (the ones I noted, gaining distance, take downs etc) may have you automatically and with very little, if any, thought using a bong as in that specific circumstance it is more biomechanically efficient, in the same way a punch may discourage it's use.

Now you may have never and perhaps will never use the other techniques that WC/VT provides us with. The concept of a takedown, gaining distance from an opponent or applying Chin Na may be things you simply know WC is capable of but they may still be things that you will never execute in anger. That is all well and good. That said if you ever find yourself executing them, your mental block regarding a bong may well see you executing these techniques in an inefficient and, even if only sub-consciously, forced manner, which we both seem to agree on as being bad WC/VT.

 

[paitingman]

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?