The Reason for bridge

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
,
21

The reasons for bridge

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1159195]um, yoshi, you’re doing it again… Can’t you even try to find it yourself? I mean, you’re the one that put the clip up in the first place!

He quoted your post and said ‘second video’ and even gave a description. All you have to do is go back to your first post and watch ‘the second video’ as he stated, and you’ll know what he’s talking about. I found it in 6 seconds, it’s not too hard bro ;)[/QUOTE]

JPinAZ , thanks alot for explaining to yoshi about what video I ’ m talking about ,
atleast you ’ re observant .

22

The reasons for bridge

[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;1156925]Fair enough my friend…thanks for your opinion…AS for insult on Stan. I have alot of respect. I would love to see the video clips of your sparring if you will and show me what you do?[/QUOTE]

Yoshi , for me the bridge is basically my tool to get into the oppnents’ inside range . If he throws me a right punch to the face , I bridge with my right hand , and if I move in with my left punch to connet with his face , and he blocks it with his left hand , then with my left hand I can trap his left retaliating hand against his right hand and create a trapping move .

But if I block the attacking hand left hand from the inside of the opponent , with my left hand , and throw a right punch to his face simultaneusly . And if his left hand blocks my right attacking hand as I move in , then I just use a left outside pak sao to guide the opponents’ left attacking hand away from me , so that I can apply a right vertical fist punch to his left ribcage area .

To me bridging is mainly making contact with the opponents’ attacking lead right or left hand . If it ’ s the inside position then , I call it just regular blocking and striking . Bil Jee or taun sao can be used to bridge the gap from the inside to inside of the opponents’ structure .

Sticking to the opponent means continuously attacking the opponent , until you blast the opponent to the ground .

23

[QUOTE=lance;1159605]JPinAZ , thanks alot for explaining to yoshi about what video I ’ m talking about ,
atleast you ’ re observant .[/QUOTE]

sorry when i am at work i was responding…i cant look at videos at work thats why i asked…ne way when i went home i pulled video two…it didnt look like what you described…

The video i believe your talking about is when the guys are in street. an three guys rush him…is that correct. As for them falling before the get to him…Really i didnt see that…

24

I absolutely agree…couldnt have said it better. I disagree with tan sau bridging the gap. Me from personal experience I dont suggest Tan Sau to bridge the gap of someones lead hand. But i could be wrong. I think of Tan Sau and Fok Sau as more of secondary techinques where you apply them if your opponent changes while you have a bridge. For instance…My opponent throws a right cross or sun punch. I bil sau or bong sau depending on the punch. From contact i instaneously Tan Da to turn off the force.

but I find this works best against street fighters and boxers who I sparred with. Tan Sau usually leaves you open when bridging the gap. I perfer Tan Sau on the outside only when I have his flank. But i dont use it as intial technique purposely.

Entry technique I might Wu or Bil the opponents lead hand and turn into Tan to create an opening. But this is done in one motion. Tan Sau is not leading technique.

[QUOTE=lance;1159607]Yoshi , for me the bridge is basically my tool to get into the oppnents’ inside range . If he throws me a right punch to the face , I bridge with my right hand , and if I move in with my left punch to connet with his face , and he blocks it with his left hand , then with my left hand I can trap his left retaliating hand against his right hand and create a trapping move .

But if I block the attacking hand left hand from the inside of the opponent , with my left hand , and throw a right punch to his face simultaneusly . And if his left hand blocks my right attacking hand as I move in , then I just use a left outside pak sao to guide the opponents’ left attacking hand away from me , so that I can apply a right vertical fist punch to his left ribcage area .

To me bridging is mainly making contact with the opponents’ attacking lead right or left hand . If it ’ s the inside position then , I call it just regular blocking and striking . Bil Jee or taun sao can be used to bridge the gap from the inside to inside of the opponents’ structure .

Sticking to the opponent means continuously attacking the opponent , until you blast the opponent to the ground .[/QUOTE]

25

[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;1159648]I absolutely agree…couldnt have said it better. I disagree with tan sau bridging the gap. Me from personal experience I dont suggest Tan Sau to bridge the gap of someones lead hand. But i could be wrong. I think of Tan Sau and Fok Sau as more of secondary techinques where you apply them if your opponent changes while you have a bridge. For instance…My opponent throws a right cross or sun punch. I bil sau or bong sau depending on the punch. From contact i instaneously Tan Da to turn off the force.

but I find this works best against street fighters and boxers who I sparred with. Tan Sau usually leaves you open when bridging the gap. I perfer Tan Sau on the outside only when I have his flank. But i dont use it as intial technique purposely.

Entry technique I might Wu or Bil the opponents lead hand and turn into Tan to create an opening. But this is done in one motion. Tan Sau is not leading technique.[/QUOTE]

I would agree that taan and fook aren’t typically used as engagement tools, and can somewhat agree that taan is used to turn or ‘spread’ energy after initial engagement, on both the inside and outside.
But, I would also include bong sau in that list with taan & fook (among others) - they are typically secondary ‘actions’. If you advocate ‘blocking’ with a bong sau, you probably don’t understand what bong sau is for. Like your example for taan sau, bong our shapes’ turn into bong’ depending on the energy if and when a bridge has been made. Thinking of bong as an engagement tool is technique-level thinking imo.

On the flip side, in HFY we do have a training platform specifically focusing on how you can engage with taan sau from center line or 5-line. But, this is more of a focus on HFY’s box theory engagement vs. ‘using a taan sau to engage or block a punch’. So more concept oriented focus vs. a technique oriented one

26

I would say its very possilbe to utilize tan sau as entry technique. But Im not fond of it…Because I don’t like the way energy in Tann flows when use as technique to bridge the gap or intercept a punch or gain entry. I will use it more so as entry technique rather than to intercept a punch or bridge the gap…but as for bong…I agree with you on it being a secondary tool too. But I also utilize as intial contact to cut into a persons structure.

For instance someone is throwing a punch I might intercept with a bong sau…But I will also utilize a cover hand like Wu Sau to accompany the Bong Sau. Also say im exchanging techniques with someone. I leave one hand back to because instinctively cross over with a left side pak sau to block the opponents left jab. An then he throws right cross. I will Cross Pak Sau and then bong sau the cross coming on my left side. to recover from the uncomfortable posistion of being crossed up for a second. You can’t always do things on the fly as you would in a drill. You add live.

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1159672]I would agree that taan and fook aren’t typically used as engagement tools, and can somewhat agree that taan is used to turn or ‘spread’ energy after initial engagement, on both the inside and outside.
But, I would also include bong sau in that list with taan & fook (among others) - they are typically secondary ‘actions’. If you advocate ‘blocking’ with a bong sau, you probably don’t understand what bong sau is for. Like your example for taan sau, bong our shapes’ turn into bong’ depending on the energy if and when a bridge has been made. Thinking of bong as an engagement tool is technique-level thinking imo.

On the flip side, in HFY we do have a training platform specifically focusing on how you can engage with taan sau from center line or 5-line. But, this is more of a focus on HFY’s box theory engagement vs. ‘using a taan sau to engage or block a punch’. So more concept oriented focus vs. a technique oriented one[/QUOTE]

27

The reasons for bridge

[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;1159648]I absolutely agree…couldnt have said it better. I disagree with tan sau bridging the gap. Me from personal experience I dont suggest Tan Sau to bridge the gap of someones lead hand. But i could be wrong. I think of Tan Sau and Fok Sau as more of secondary techinques where you apply them if your opponent changes while you have a bridge. For instance…My opponent throws a right cross or sun punch. I bil sau or bong sau depending on the punch. From contact i instaneously Tan Da to turn off the force.

but I find this works best against street fighters and boxers who I sparred with. Tan Sau usually leaves you open when bridging the gap. I perfer Tan Sau on the outside only when I have his flank. But i dont use it as intial technique purposely.

Entry technique I might Wu or Bil the opponents lead hand and turn into Tan to create an opening. But this is done in one motion. Tan Sau is not leading technique.[/QUOTE]

Yoshi , well you have your own way of using wing chun techniques , and I have my own way of using wing chun techniques . For me , I can ’ t be too selected over what tecjniques to use in a certain combative situation , all I do know is when the attack comes time to react to it .

Because , when you first make contact with the opponents’ attacking hands , you going apply 1 - block and one strike right ? But you can always exchange hand technques , in other words if the opponent attacks with the right hand you going react to it with the WC techniques of your choice , then the samething with the left hand . So to me it really does ’ nt matter what hand techniques I use , as long as I can react to the attack .

28

Again Not disagreeing with you. In some instances I might even do the same exact thing you do. But in reality it wouldnt be intentional. It would be out of instict or a reaction at the time to defend my centerline. But I try my best to use the best tools at the time for the right jobs. Sometimes you may misintrepret a strike or what you feel so you do something different, wrong or counter productive to structure. If you do that there are techniques to correct your mishaps.

But again Not disagreeing…you have some very valid points. I just change my outlook on certain things due to experience when sparring with different people an how certain techniques react to different pressures!

[QUOTE=lance;1159807]Yoshi , well you have your own way of using wing chun techniques , and I have my own way of using wing chun techniques . For me , I can ’ t be too selected over what tecjniques to use in a certain combative situation , all I do know is when the attack comes time to react to it .

Because , when you first make contact with the opponents’ attacking hands , you going apply 1 - block and one strike right ? But you can always exchange hand technques , in other words if the opponent attacks with the right hand you going react to it with the WC techniques of your choice , then the samething with the left hand . So to me it really does ’ nt matter what hand techniques I use , as long as I can react to the attack .[/QUOTE]

29

[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;1159775]I would say its very possilbe to utilize tan sau as entry technique. But Im not fond of it…Because I don’t like the way energy in Tann flows when use as technique to bridge the gap or intercept a punch or gain entry. I will use it more so as entry technique rather than to intercept a punch or bridge the gap…but as for bong…I agree with you on it being a secondary tool too. But I also utilize as intial contact to cut into a persons structure.

For instance someone is throwing a punch I might intercept with a bong sau…But I will also utilize a cover hand like Wu Sau to accompany the Bong Sau. Also say im exchanging techniques with someone. I leave one hand back to because instinctively cross over with a left side pak sau to block the opponents left jab. An then he throws right cross. I will Cross Pak Sau and then bong sau the cross coming on my left side. to recover from the uncomfortable posistion of being crossed up for a second. You can’t always do things on the fly as you would in a drill. You add live.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for sharing.
I think you and I understand WCK very differently. A lot of what I read from you is very technique oriented. But that’s not good or bad I guess, but very different from how I approach WCK and training/fighting. I don’t train to ‘exchange techniques’ with anyone - this is very far removed from what I understand of WCK… For me, the techniques that come out are a byproduct/result of understanding the WCK principles combined with time/space/energy at the moement, not because I think in terms of using Technique A against attack C.

As for Taan Sau, I never said I would use it to enter or to bridge the gap.
In HFY, our 5 taan sau training platform focuses on how to engage an opponent’s attack, but most likely, very little footwork is used and it’s not used to enter - we are using it as a means of covering space, ‘accept what comes’ and engage with box theory (whether it’s on center line or 5-line). If the time/space are read correctly, this should put me in a position I can hit with both hands equally with very little footwork on engagment. So, not an ‘entry technique’ at all, but very much and engagement strategy.
If the punch isn’t commited, then yes, footwork might then be used to follow up based on the energy on the bridge (escort what goes) and jeui ying principles. Again, not because I’m simply trying to enter with a technique.

You confuse me with your bong sau comments. You say you agree that it is a secondary action, and then in the next sentence you say you use it to engage, and then go on to explain how you would do just that. So which is it? And engagement technique/tool (which I disagree with) or a secondary action based on principle? If it’s an engagement tool, what principles/concepts point to why and how it is used for engagement?

30

okay i agree i am more technique based than you. But also I agree with concerning utilizing principles when sparring/fighting. First off let me state when i spar or do chi sau or even fight i am not focusing on what technique to utilize. I do what ever comes natural from lots of drilling, san shou, chi sau and solidary practice. I try to engrain technique and structure into my being long before I actually apply it in sparring. When you spar techniques come intuntively. or atleast they should if they are ingrained in you…

But when your sparring its too much going on to try an focus on techniques for this punch an that punch. The drilling and focus practice should allow you to react instinctively to various attacks. I also focus on principles when ever I spar. Some things I focus on the most is the Flow, Contact and Defend simultaneously constantly, Sticking and bridging aka forward intent and forward pressure. Controlling the centerline, Elbow, or his structure. Attacking the blind side. ETC. I focus on these principles and strategies when fighting. I don’t think first do a front kick, then a chain punch and then a down punch back to side kick and do some techs from Sil Lim Tau. No i go with the flow of the opponent. I follow the opponent to know when to hit and when to deflect.

Thank you very much for sharing your view points on Tan Sau. I wont go in details on it…thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding…There are people out there that use Tan Sau differently. You may not be one of them I am simply sharing how i feel from experiences I have had.

Bong Sau for engagement?

I dont like the word engagement because it insinuates my intial technique is bong sau. It is not. When sparring or fighting the principle i follow is this. Attack First, Attack relentlessly, Stick, Flow and control your opponents structure. This is my mantra when sparring. What I use a bong sau for is to deflect or intercept a punch. Look at Yip Man’s Dan Chi Sau. You start off with a Tan Sau then low palm strike. As you hit your targer your opponent releases contact and punches you in the face. Before he can you bong sau to obstruct or cut off the energy of his punch. Bong Sau Intercepts your opponents attack. I dont attack with a bong sau in the air. Bong sau is primarily a defensive technique.

So No i do not use Bong Sau for intial engagment. But i do use bong sau if I am compromise an the only or best way I can prevent from getting hit is to raise my bong to cover my centerline. So Bong Sau is intercepting or cutting technique not engagement so to speak. I pray my words make sense to you?

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1159870]Thanks for sharing.
I think you and I understand WCK very differently. A lot of what I read from you is very technique oriented. But that’s not good or bad I guess, but very different from how I approach WCK and training/fighting. I don’t train to ‘exchange techniques’ with anyone - this is very far removed from what I understand of WCK… For me, the techniques that come out are a byproduct/result of understanding the WCK principles combined with time/space/energy at the moement, not because I think in terms of using Technique A against attack C.

As for Taan Sau, I never said I would use it to enter or to bridge the gap.
In HFY, our 5 taan sau training platform focuses on how to engage an opponent’s attack, but most likely, very little footwork is used and it’s not used to enter - we are using it as a means of covering space, ‘accept what comes’ and engage with box theory (whether it’s on center line or 5-line). If the time/space are read correctly, this should put me in a position I can hit with both hands equally with very little footwork on engagment. So, not an ‘entry technique’ at all, but very much and engagement strategy.
If the punch isn’t commited, then yes, footwork might then be used to follow up based on the energy on the bridge (escort what goes) and jeui ying principles. Again, not because I’m simply trying to enter with a technique.

You confuse me with your bong sau comments. You say you agree that it is a secondary action, and then in the next sentence you say you use it to engage, and then go on to explain how you would do just that. So which is it? And engagement technique/tool (which I disagree with) or a secondary action based on principle? If it’s an engagement tool, what principles/concepts point to why and how it is used for engagement?[/QUOTE]