[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1016602]***THIS is an interesting post. While I am always inclined to want to know someone’s credentials based upon their experience and their schooling…this point that Mysterious raises about “providing no bridge” is very thought provoking.
Hummm…[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I think it says a lot!
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1016809]Look at T as an example. He admittedly spent 17 years learning WCK and after that amount of time, still felt he needed to look somewhere else because he realized he hadn’t learned anything. Time spent sometimes doesn’t mean anything. And after getting 100 hours of what he calls ‘good instruction’ is still all over the yard at times. :o
If Mysterious wants to remain just that and still post here, I see no problem with it. Badgering him 3 times in a row demanding he prove his credentials and knowledge otherwise he’s labeled as a troll is a bit much, 'specially from someone of such ‘high standing and experiencs’ as R.Chu. :rolleyes:
Mysterious’s posts should, and IMO do, speak for themselves. A person’s knowledge is based on the present - what they say and do - not where they’ve been. Robert shouldn’t have to reminded of that by me..[/QUOTE]
Exactly and most importantly it’s not like you can’t lie about your history anyway lol
credentials mean nothing all that whats matter is what you can do when some one is trying to knock your block off and nothing else.
i dont know why guys on here think posting their real names or lists of who they supposedly studied with makes them look legit
if anything it makes them look like they are trying a bit too hard
no matter what we say we are all still hiding behind a computer
[QUOTE=goju;1016816]Exactly and most importantly it’s not like you can’t lie about your history anyway lol
credentials mean nothing all that whats matter is what you can do when some one is trying to knock your block off and nothing else.
i dont know why guys on here think posting their real names or lists of who they supposedly studied with makes them look legit
if anything it makes them look like they are trying a bit too hard
no matter what we say we are all still hiding behind a computer[/QUOTE]
Here it is: The official history of me,
I studied directly with Yim wing chun. Actually, not to brag or anything, but I was the brains behind the operation. I taught her everyhing but liberal media bias gave the credit to her to improve the standing of women at the time. My lawyer from the shaolin temple had his license taken away because the they did not want the truth to come out which was that Ms. Yim was just a pretty face and could do more push ups than the average woman. I lived for years in bitterness and in that time I learned to harness my anger and frustration into true power. Levitation? Done that. Brick breaking? I invented it but some Japanese s
fisherman told me he wanted to impress a woman and kneeled in front of me for discipleship. I taught him the secret if brick breaking but he was lazy. Wood was easier. At the time I did not suspect the extent of Japanese entrpreneurialship(sp?). He wbt back to Japan and invented something called Karate. His real name was Marian(John Wayne’s real name) but he decided to be called Funokoshi.
The seducing of millions of women with my Kung Fu power? Who do you think pushed China’s population to a billion?
Those are just some of the ways I harnessed internal Kung Fu. Then I was drafted into world war 1 and died
[I]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
***THIS is an interesting post. While I am always inclined to want to know someone’s credentials based upon their experience and their schooling…this point that Mysterious raises about “providing no bridge” is very thought provoking.
Originally posted by JPinAZ
Hummm…
Agreed. I think it says a lot!
[/I]
It is a good point, but not so easy to do.
As like it or not, as soon as you enter your oponents space to strike, you are in fact creating a bridge.
That is unless:
you’re fighting a scrub..
You have magical chi powers that can destroy your oponents without actual contact or having to be in striking range.
You hit 'em in the back of the head without them knowing. Aka… jumping them like a gangster initiation ritual or some Ninja technique.
Of course we do try our best to make the bridge a one way street. 
Took it very literally, huh Duende? 
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1016837]Took it very literally, huh Duende? :D[/QUOTE]
Yeah Victor… It seems so. Haha.
Best,
Alex
[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1016147]That entire paragraph brought up another good point. This uprooting only really happens during contrived drills like chi sao. No one gets uprooted during sparring, only hit.[/QUOTE]
Absolute nonsense.
People get jammed into the ground, and have their base lifted constantly in sparring and fighting.
You clearly don’t have the slightest clue.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1016870]Absolute nonsense.
People get jammed into the ground, and have their base lifted constantly in sparring and fighting.
You clearly don’t have the slightest clue.[/QUOTE]
I have been thrown before and knocked over while sparring. You do not have to do “structural drills” to pull of what my sparring partners did to me. In fact none of them ever have done wc structural drills.
How did Babe Ruth hit all those homeruns? Not by doing structural drills. He practiced hitting. To hurt another human being you do not need the wc curriculum at all. The wc curriculum presents another way of hurting someone but somewhere along the way wc teachers began feeling like the wc prospective was superior. That is how it is presented. The wc curriculum, in my opinion, tries to force people to adapt unrealistic and unnatural hand motions and reactions.
So is getting thrown uprooting? Yes. But it is not the same as two people standing with their hands together uprooting the other person.
[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1016882]I have been thrown before and knocked over while sparring. You do not have to do “structural drills” to pull of what my sparring partners did to me. In fact none of them ever have done wc structural drills.
How did Babe Ruth hit all those homeruns? Not by doing structural drills. He practiced hitting. To hurt another human being you do not need the wc curriculum at all. The wc curriculum presents another way of hurting someone but somewhere along the way wc teachers began feeling like the wc prospective was superior. That is how it is presented. The wc curriculum, in my opinion, tries to force people to adapt unrealistic and unnatural hand motions and reactions.
So is getting thrown uprooting? Yes. But it is not the same as two people standing with their hands together uprooting the other person.[/QUOTE]
YOu miss the point.
The standing with hands together is unrealistic. But that does not discount either jamming someone onto the ground causing them to be in a vulnerable position or getting them to stand taller through forcing their centre of mass higher thus making them more vulnerable.
There are many techniques to do it, but the ultimate goal is to have that person in a position where they absorb the greatest amount of kinetic energy without being able to dissipate it, thus the greatest amount of damage is caused. That is all that is meant by the uprooting.
[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1016882]I have been thrown before and knocked over while sparring. You do not have to do “structural drills” to pull of what my sparring partners did to me. In fact none of them ever have done wc structural drills.
How did Babe Ruth hit all those homeruns? Not by doing structural drills. He practiced hitting. To hurt another human being you do not need the wc curriculum at all. The wc curriculum presents another way of hurting someone but somewhere along the way wc teachers began feeling like the wc prospective was superior. That is how it is presented. The wc curriculum, in my opinion, tries to force people to adapt unrealistic and unnatural hand motions and reactions.
So is getting thrown uprooting? Yes. But it is not the same as two people standing with their hands together uprooting the other person.[/QUOTE]
You don’t understand the system.
[QUOTE=duende;1016828]
As like it or not, as soon as you enter your opponent’s space to strike, you are in fact creating a bridge.
[/quote]
Does not compute..
You could be standing a quarter inch from him but if there is no contact there is no bridge..
Also to T’s point: You can make contact with their arm but contact does not equate to breaking their structure.. And if you strike their arm on the outside as in pak sao (for safety) and their structure is not broken there is nothing safe about it, in fact it’s uber risky and it’s a lost beat…
However, attacking their center can break their structure. It also forces them to deal with an actual real threat and that can also create a real bridge and a real chance to break their structure..
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016889]Does not compute..
[/QUOTE]
no kidding
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016889]
You could be standing a quarter inch from him but if there is no contact there is no bridge..
[/QUOTE]
If you can jump across a river to the other side.. Do you still need a bridge? The distance itself becomes the bridge for all intents and purposes.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016889]
Also to T’s point: You can make contact with their arm but contact does not equate to breaking their structure.. And if you strike their arm on the outside as in pak sao (for safety) and their structure is not broken there is nothing safe about it, in fact it’s uber risky and it’s a lost beat…
[/QUOTE]
For one thing.. it’s not T’s point! THAT’S BASIC WC101!!!
Seriously, what the hell do you guys think Chum Kiu means? Do you think one pak is a single beat? Haha… Do you not flow with energy?
To put it simply… Inside/outside, live side/dead side, techniques, beats… it all don’t mean $hit if your running away from the energy. And you can’t break structure unless you take your medicine and get it over with!
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016889]
However, attacking their center can break their structure. It also forces them to deal with an actual real threat and that can also create a real bridge and a real chance to break their structure..[/QUOTE]
Sure… if you can get past their guard. Otherwise, they’ll just laugh at your “real threat” and bounce you off like a fly.
Or worse, they’ll just happily trade some punches with you on the outside lines. You up for that??
Didn’t think so.
[QUOTE=duende;1016893]
If you can jump across a river to the other side.. Do you still need a bridge? The distance itself becomes the bridge for all intents and purposes.
[/quote]
No connection–no bridge.. The distance to make a bridge does not mean you have one–hell, having a bridge doesn’t mean you can make use of it.
[QUOTE=duende;1016893]
For one thing.. it’s not T’s point! THAT’S BASIC WC101!!!
[/quote]
First off it’s not even clear what T means…and the key to any of this stuff actually working is in the details..
Secondly your tone suks.. Reaching out and hitting an arm may be your 101 but it’s not mine and not many others..
[QUOTE=duende;1016893]
Seriously, what the hell do you guys think Chum Kiu means? Do you think one pak is a single beat? Haha… Do you not flow with energy?
[/quote]
What is this supposed to mean?
In this case a single action is a single beat time.
Attempting to hit someone’s arm doesn’t equate to flowing, bridging or anything else.. Anyone who has sparred with a decent boxer will laugh at the notion of “simple 101 hitting their arm” to “break their structure”…
[QUOTE=duende;1016893]
To put it simply… Inside/outside, live side/dead side, techniques, beats… it all don’t mean $hit if your running away from the energy. And you can’t break structure unless you take your medicine and get it over with!
[/quote]
Right we just need to “take our medicine”.. Thanks for clearing that up for me..
“Don’t run away”.. Very profound.
[QUOTE=duende;1016893]
Sure… if you can get past their guard. Otherwise, they’ll just laugh at your “real threat” and bounce you off like a fly.
[/quote]
Half the point of actually attacking is to meet their guard to gain contact…not get passed it but to make a strong connection to it..
THAT’S Chun 101…
Bounce me off like a fly if I attack with real energy but (trying) to hit their arm is going to incapacitate them?
Right, more likely it will make them belly laugh…
[QUOTE=duende;1016893]
Or worse, they’ll just happily trade some punches with you on the outside lines. You up for that??
[/quote]
So, trying to “strike” their weapon won’t leave you open for the same huh? Not only will it leave you open but you didn’t force them to deal with a real threat.. A real threat (and that doesn’t have to mean a SDA) might actually have offered a brief moment of safety in order to continue the attack..
Sparred a lot of boxers eh?
Sure–let’s see video of ANYONE doing this against a decent fighter.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016889]Does not compute..
You could be standing a quarter inch from him but if there is no contact there is no bridge..
Also to T’s point: You can make contact with their arm but contact does not equate to breaking their structure.. And if you strike their arm on the outside as in pak sao (for safety) and their structure is not broken there is nothing safe about it, in fact it’s uber risky and it’s a lost beat…
However, attacking their center can break their structure. It also forces them to deal with an actual real threat and that can also create a real bridge and a real chance to break their structure..[/QUOTE]
If his one inch away, there is a bridge already because your in distance to hit.
Bridge does not mean you need to have to touch him, it means “your in striking distance”.
Thats why another term is “bridging the gap”.
Thats what i have been taught. Different schools vary. Different interpretations. I think we should all just move onto JKD and stop all this bickering. All these problems we address has already been addressed by Bruce Lee.
[QUOTE=Niersun;1016904]If his one inch away, there is a bridge already because your in distance to hit.
Bridge does not mean you need to have to touch him, it means “your in striking distance”.
Thats why another term is “bridging the gap”.
Thats what i have been taught. Different schools vary. Different interpretations. I think we should all just move onto JKD and stop all this bickering. All these problems we address has already been addressed by Bruce Lee.[/QUOTE]
Bickering is what it’s all about.
Bridging the gap has nothing to do with bridging in its standard use. Bridging refers to a physical connection… You must bridge in order to effect your opponent.
And while I love Bruce’s stuff–whatever he did has nothing to do with this either.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016905]Bickering is what it’s all about.
Bridging the gap has nothing to do with bridging. Bridging refers to a physical connection…
And while I love Bruce’s stuff–whatever he did has nothing to do with this either.[/QUOTE]
Just a different interpretation.
Its hard to explain, i guess you have been taught that “if there is no bridge (too much distance between you”, then create one", i.e. pounce and strike and make him block, thus having a physical connection.
That is only one side of the coin. If he is in distance to be hit, then the bridge is already there, its just invisible. 
[QUOTE=Niersun;1016906]
Its hard to explain
[/QUOTE]
Actually it’s not hard to explain.. I understand exactly what you mean, I just think it’s obtuse.
[QUOTE=Niersun;1016906]
i guess you have been taught that “if there is no bridge (too much distance between you”, then create one", i.e. pounce and strike and make him block, thus having a physical connection.
[/quote]
Overly simplistic generalization… I am simply giving you a standard definition of the term as used in Chinese arts.
Bridging the gap is a generic term.
The term bridge has special significance in Chun as a verb and noun.
[QUOTE=Niersun;1016906]
That is only one side of the coin. If he is in distance to be hit, then the bridge is already there, its just invisible.
[/QUOTE]
I know you think that’s clever but I think it’s silly.. Not being in contact does not mean that the contact is there but “invisible”..:rolleyes:
In fact if you’re in range and have not bridged you’ve probably goofed.. LOL
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016909]
I know you think that’s clever but I think it’s silly.. Not being in contact does not mean that the contact is there but “invisible”..:rolleyes:
In fact if you’re in range and have no bridge you’ve probably goofed.. LOL[/QUOTE]
I take the word bridge to mean “in range” as well as “contact” and not limiting it to “contact”.
So its not silly.
In regards to having goofed. Im just going off your example of being “half an inch, but with no contact, no bridge” statement.
Anyways… Hows the weather in your neck of the woods??? 
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016897]No connection–no bridge.. The distance to make a bridge does not mean you have one–hell, having a bridge doesn’t mean you can make use of it.
[/QUOTE]
A bridge is just a means to an end. Fighting is random, you take advantage of opportunities when you can.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016897]
First off it’s not even clear what T means…and the key to any of this stuff actually working is in the details..
Secondly your tone suks.. Reaching out and hitting an arm may be your 101 but it’s not mine and not many others..
[/QUOTE]
If you are not clear what T means… then why did you bring him up an quote him for that matter??
My tone sucks, because I don’t know in what light you are quoting T (positive or negative) and either way, it’s irritating… because I really don’t care to be involved with your ongoing argument with him anyways.
Facing, intercepting, sinking the bridge are the first three critical elements to WC strategy. That’s the 101.
Yes, there are many details to these understandings, and one sure isn’t going to be able to pick them up on a forum.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016897]
What is this supposed to mean?
In this case a single action is a single beat time.
[/QUOTE]
No it’s not. A single beat is a collection of actions. NOT simply one action. Our whole body moves together!
A Pak Sau like any engagement techniques should strive to demonstrate an element of “Chum Kiu”, or at least influence your opponent. Otherwise they are not doing there job. And what you are left with is men playing patty cake.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016897]
Attempting to hit someone’s arm doesn’t equate to flowing, bridging or anything else.. Anyone who has sparred with a decent boxer will laugh at the notion of “simple 101 hitting their arm” to “break their structure”…
[/QUOTE]
You are not understanding what is being said here. One can Jam up a Boxer’s timing, range, and facing. All this can work in our favor.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016897]
Right we just need to “take our medicine”.. Thanks for clearing that up for me..
“Don’t run away”.. Very profound.
[/QUOTE]
It is VERY profound. Face the music… take your medicine and get it over with… embrace the reality of combat…
All these sayings pretty much mean the same thing.
Running away from energy is giving up vital space, leverage, and momentum.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016897]
Half the point of actually attacking is to meet their guard to gain contact…not get passed it but to make a strong connection to it..
THAT’S Chun 101…
Bounce me off like a fly if I attack with real energy but (trying) to hit their arm is going to incapacitate them?
Right, more likely it will make them belly laugh…
[/QUOTE]
Again… wake up! Don’t bring your argument with T to me.
You attack an opponents center… of course… no $hit. But you also attack their COG, and neutralize their energy transmission as well. Otherwise you most certainly will get bounced off..
The guard is just an obstacle or bridge to these goals… Not the end goal itself.
You are confusing attacking an opponents weapons, with bridging an opponents weapons.
FYI… A strike can be a bridge, as well as a block… all at the same time if you know how to occupy space with proper structure and energy awareness.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1016897]
So, trying to “strike” their weapon won’t leave you open for the same huh? Not only will it leave you open but you didn’t force them to deal with a real threat.. A real threat (and that doesn’t have to mean a SDA) might actually have offered a brief moment of safety in order to continue the attack..
Sparred a lot of boxers eh?
Sure–let’s see video of ANYONE doing this against a decent fighter.[/QUOTE]
Again… Go find T and argue about with him.
I’ve explained things as clearly as I’m going to at this point.
[QUOTE=duende;1016952]
A bridge is just a means to an end.
[/quote]
No, it’s a term.
[QUOTE=duende;1016952]
If you are not clear what T means… then why did you bring him up an quote him for that matter??
[/quote]
So you don’t want to discuss but you want to know why I brought him up… Uh huh.
[QUOTE=duende;1016952]
My tone sucks, because I don’t know in what light you are quoting T (positive or negative) and either way, it’s irritating… because I really don’t care to be involved with your ongoing argument with him anyways.
[/quote]
Yet you keep replying.
[QUOTE=duende;1016952]
Facing, intercepting, sinking the bridge are the first three critical elements to WC strategy. That’s the 101.
[/quote]
Doesn’t address the issue…
[QUOTE=duende;1016952]
Yes, there are many details to these understandings, and one sure isn’t going to be able to pick them up on a forum.
[/quote]
Many details can be discussed and are.. Don’t want to discuss? Then stop discussing.. LOL
[QUOTE=duende;1016952]
No it’s not. A single beat is a collection of actions. NOT simply one action. Our whole body moves together!
[/quote]
It’s a single action time or timing.. That doesn’t mean you can’t use more than one action/tool in a single beat. I didn’t make up the term..
[QUOTE=duende;1016952]
A Pak Sau like any engagement techniques should strive to demonstrate an element of “Chum Kiu”, or at least influence your opponent. Otherwise they are not doing there job. And what you are left with is men playing patty cake.
[/quote]
Whatever… I’d rather discuss with those who want to discuss–not with those who discuss theory and b1tch about doing so..:rolleyes: