On Kiu Sao
Robert Chu, February 18th, 2008
The term Kiu Sao is refers to the distance from the fingers to the elbow, but can also relate to bridging the gap.
Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun’s 12 major keywords (Daap, Jeet, Chum, Biu, etc.) and Gu Lao Wing Chun Kuen’s keywords (Kuen, Kiu, Jeung, Bong, Jee) are all Kiu Sao concepts. (As are my own conceptual keywords.)
Kiu Sao, however, is a term used in virtually all Southern fist like Hung Gar, Bak Mei, Lung Ying, Southern Mantis, Choy Lay Fut, etc. For example, Hung Gar has the 12 Kiu Sao: Gong, Yau, Bik, Jik, Fun, Ding, etc.Bak Mei has Mor Kiu, Shui Kiu, Lan Yiu… Choy Lay Fut has Poon Kiu, Chuen Kiu, Pak Kiu, etc. Mantis has various Gwaat Siu, Mor Siu, etc. They are all ways to link up and join in with your opponent.
We have a saying, “Have bridge, cross bridge; no bridge, build a bridge.”
Of course, various systems have their own definitions, but this is my understanding from Southern Fist and Wing Chun Kuen.
I’d like to ask everyone to ‘open their minds’ a bit wider especially considering what ’styles’ Chu Sifu has mentioned here and possibly even integrated into his own style of teaching.
Kiu Sau is a general term that Wing Chun practitioners use, some more so than others. In the practises I have seen and the language I have heard I’m quite confident that I would understand how other styles interpret this term. Styles like Hung Gar, Bak Mei, Lung Ying, Southern Mantis, Choy Lay Fut all originated from a similar source to Wing Chun (if not the same!?) Most have more mythical stories than our WCK and less real evidence, but that’s another thread.
So, my question is, if your WCK terms also include many of these ‘other styles’ terms and practises are you still practising Wing Chun Kuen?
It makes sense to me that the style with least forms is probably the most recently developed due to the nature of stripping things down to the bare bones. I’d also like to suggect that WCK is only WCK because of all our predecessors.
We are all the same family imo and no family should have claim over others when the languages spoken are exactly the same. We are all Martial Artists in the end.
Very nice TiFei!
Wing Chun Kuen, even in legend, began as a hybrid (be it, depending on the legend, Shaolin Snake and Crane, Ng Mui’s Shaolin Crane with Mui San’s Emei, etc. or the Red Junk Weng Chun + Pole with Leung Bok-Lao’s Wing Chun + Knives).
Indeed, Wing Chun Kuen simply must have come about through the addition and combination of the historical and traditional arts before it. Wing Chun Kuen’s history is one of refinement and progress, so I think it would be hard to have any other attitude other than continual, cautious evaluation towards progressive development.
We can even see this in the Kuen Kuit, where some sayings, like Sien Faat Jai Yan, Yan See Yee Gong can be traced back as far as Sun Zi and the 36 Strategies.
I remember visiting my late Sigung at the tail end of the 1990s. He was in his 70s and had been constantly and actively training WCK for 60 years. And when I visited, he was explaining a subtle change he’d made to one movement in Chum Kiu to help better close the distance on Western boxers.
Likewise, he often sought out wrestlers, Chinese and Western, to try out his WCK, and tweak the movements to help his students better prepare and engage the new styles and strategies coming South in Guangdong and across the sea into China.
How can any artist ever be satisfied with anything less?
(And as Lotus vs. Excel proved, no one can patent or trademark the obvious — be it cultural language or the simplest way for a biped to move in a certain situation).
Thanks for your personal insights yet again Rene.
The refinements your Sigung made, I think I can almost guarantee, were made with full knowledge of the WCK foundation so rightly justified imo. Many Sifus have made these types of ‘minimal’ modifications without secure knowledge which is where things can go wrong.
On a personal note, Man Sifu taught me/us the way he taught us due to him seeing ‘very little change’ in the modern WCK practitioners. This isn’t to knock any of them, as they have all gained much skill in what they do, but they had become stagnant and in need of ‘updating’.
Perhaps by passing on literature and terms used for our curriculums etc he only done his best to prepare us for the now overbearing push of general Wushu into the UK. His forms did not (but once did) look like a traditional Ip Man version, as he was still very active and powerful when he taught me. So I couldn’t say he ‘adjusted’ anything for specific purpose, just that he operated them with a different foundation than most making the general ‘image’ of the forms look a wee bit more fluid, stable and powerful. Actually, I just remembered that we first demonstrated in public in 1997, when HK was handed back to China. Coincidence??
Interesting to hear you mention the ‘original hybrid style’ too! I’ve heard this before from other elders who insist on the ’snake/crane’ combination being the FIRST ever developed by Shaolin. It’s a wonderful thought, but somehow I feel that this will never be proven right or wrong like so many other folklore tales and legends I suppose…
Since I have trained in many systems, I have had exposure to many central ideas of combat. However, I do not say Hung Gar is WCK, or that Bak Mei is WCK, etc. I have not integrated these arts into my WCK. My WCK is WCK - researched thoroughly through various elders and practitioners in the Yip Man art, and the Gu Lao and Yuen Kay Shan systems. All arts have their fine points.
I really do not subscribe to the myth that all arts have their source in the Southern Shaolin, or that we all came from the same source. I think this story is an old Chinese marketing slant as Chinese revere what is old.
Chinese arts have 3 stages of learning - that which is fixed; that which is alive; and that which is changing. The Japanese also have the same concept in the words Shu, Ha , Ri. Fixed is the start - you can even say that what your sifu taught you is just a start, a beginning, even if you’ve learned Siu Nim Tao to the Baat Jaam Dao. Alive level - you’re finally making the art your own - you have the timing and fluidity and power and can express it. Finally, you reach the changing stage - where you can see the Bien fa (myriad variations and changes/transmutations) - and even though it may not look like WCK you were taught, it still is through the power generation mechanics, timing, positioning - you fit in the moment, you’re always at the right time and place and can “create” timing.
Many martial artists don’t realize even if they learned the “entire” curriculum - they’re still not complete. How can they make their art alive? An after they’re a good exponent - how can they take it to the next level?
I’m sure this is the level of true mastery, not just skilled technicians.
I like the ‘3 stages’ of learning ideal you talk of here Robert, as it sounds very familiar to me. Not to dismiss it completely, but we prefer to use a 5 element approach to learning at The Academy, using 5 ways which are basically ‘keywords’ to progression. Very similar, but distinctive imo. I don’t normally discuss such things, but like I said your 3 stage ideal is a good one, just not the only one in Chinese studies (more linked to the three treasure concept of TCM imo)
The closest type of translation we found were:
1. Learn
2. Practice.
3. Skill
4. Use
5. Change
One of my ‘not so famous’ sayings back then was used on brand new students, even if they had studied WCK before. ‘Learning how to learn’ was our first stage, followed by Learning how to practice, learning how to be skillful, learning how to use followed by learning how to change. A stage could not be missed. One could never change without being able to use the knowledge, never use without skill, never have skill without practice, never practice without learning!
We concentrated more on ‘how to’ than anything else, as otherwise we would just lecture on the terms instead of showing a WCK interpretation of what we meant. The basic idea behind this is that Learning has a cycle of 5, practising has a cycle of 5 etc. I suppose that once you are Changing how to change you would be classed as a true master?!
All theoretical I know, but a very simple and efficient way to understand how we learn physical and mental skills in Martial Arts imo. VERY similar to your three stage approach, which I view as our stage 1, 3 and 5.
Have you heard of this type of thing before by any chance?
TiFei,
Chinese metaphysics (or Daoist concepts) are a part of the Chinese Martial arts. Your school’s fascination with The Daoist Five elements philosophy is an old one, stemming from the Han Dynasty. (BTW, it is not from Shaolin.) The five element philosophy is a flexible one and can be suggested to all phenomenon when applied in a 5 point paradigm.
Each of the 5 elements (better called 5 phases) suggests movement. Wood is growth and learning, Fire is understanding and consumption, Earth is stabilization or structuring, Metal is contraction and solidification, and Water is changing and fluidity.
So if that’s what floats your boat, that’s fine. The terms are flexible and can suggest your five as well. Wu Xing is a philosopy, a paradigm of organization, not the only one. You say 5, I say 3. It’s all fine.
Thanks for the comments Robert. I am aware that the 5 Elements has an older History than Shaolin, and it’s refreshing to see that you understand their characteristics too. Mind you, you should, being a TCM Practitioner and all.
This is where, I believe, this information leaked into my understanding of Wing Chun here in London. Lee Shing himself was a well known Sifu of medicine(practising on his students!) and on a recent visit to one of my local schools clinics I was not surprised to see the whole spectrum of ‘metaphysics’ being discussed for diagnosis purposes, from 1-12 and possibly more on the horizon!
What I’m suggesting here is that this information seems to be the backbone of how Lee Shing taught (not just the 5 element theory) He ‘diagnosed’ each student and decided his/her WCK ‘treatment’, if you know what I mean!?
I do attempt to do the same, as you must be aware, these ’stages’ or holistic theories can be used in everyday life just as they can be used for precise Martial Arts instruction. It’s just having the eye for how the info translates into the body of a Kung Fu man!
As an example, and in an attempt to get back on subject, let’s take Kiu Sau and see what happens (or what questions students should be asking!)
1. How do I learn Kiu Sau?
2. How do I practise Kiu Sau?
3. How do I gain skill in Kiu Sau?
4. How do I use Kiu Sau?
5. How do I change Kiu Sau?
This, imho, is a pretty substantial book in itself and can be used to research and clarify any technique or theory of WCK. Personally, I rarely see cohesive practises and uses of Kiu Sau (2&4), maybe because the idea hasn’t been learnt properly and skill has been ‘cheated’. What happens if this is then changed?? Chaos.
How Lee Shing students practise and use their Art has not been public knowledge before, but you may regularly see how we learn, some skillful sifu and some individuals that have changed their curriculums to suit themselves, or the times.
I’ve shared many ideas online, but still it would be better for me to show ‘living examples’! That’s what The Yum Yeurng Academy is for…
Lee Shing was a chef, I thought…not a Chinese Medicine doctor…or perhaps he knew some Dit Da? Very interesting.
As for Ba Gua and other Chinese metaphysical terms, they are quite present in the teachings of Gu Lao WCK…they are not “theories” - just applications of Chinese philosophy. A noted Daoist Medicine practitioner Jeffrey Yuen, once remarked Chinese Medicine is Chinese philosophy applied. This can be spoken of the martial arts as well. Chinese Martial Arts is Chinese philosophy applied.
But then, the problem is application is the key. Too much philosophizing, not enough application, its BS! So application must be the way to prove it or not. Its not “science” as the “science” paradigm did not exist in Ancient China. Chinese thought has been around for over 5000 years; science as we have it now as a paradigm, perhaps only 150 years or so, and it is still growing. What we see in many WCK variations and subsystems and offshoots is a new experiment, perhaps entrenched in other paradigms and philosophizing…
I agree, all instructors tailor fit a teaching o the individual - some are smart, some are slow, some kinesthetic, others auditory, some visual… you provide for the individual, not one size fits all. It is like giving medicine to a patient - it must be appropriate for the patient and ailment. That is why one-size-fits-all does not suit WCK. Sure we have a framework in the system, but it must put an individual through various funnels of knowledge to have the lessons stick.
I would like to say, all this talk about Kiu Sao is really focused on a branch of the WCK tree. What is important is not Kiu Sao or Chi Kiu or Chi Sao, but Chi San (Sticking Body)- the body being the base of a tetrahedron and sticking to the opponent’s blows or using the opponent’s limbs against them. This is the pinnacle of body structure methods.
If one has no base for a bridge, its a poorly suspended bridge, and difficult to cross.
So its Chi San that’s important, not Kiu Sao. Kiu Sao is only a start for systems based only on hands.
Yes, a great Chef Lee Shing definately was! But you must understand, he was known as a Restaurant Owner. A very clever businessman who ran a very tight ship!(He ran the 1st ever 24hr Restaurant in Londons Chinatown apparently)
He used his extensive catering knowledge when he cooked herbs and soups for his students (some of them) and possibly even created some of his own recipies, like dit da jow formulae. Mainly though I think he liked the diagnosis and soup/accupuncture mix. Similar to what you mention, I think Chinese Medicine is applied Chinese philosophy which in turn can be applied to Martial Arts. A true Yin/Yang. The Healing and Killing Arts imho. Uncle John Ho (an early student of Lee Shing) did practise medicine however and still operates a Chemist in North London I believe. He was also very close to Sigung.
Man Sifu used to tell us stories of the horrid smells from the kitchens, as they used to train in the restaurant basements. Sigung may have left recipies etc with his Wife and family, but I’m unsure.
On the ‘Chi San’ note - it’s nice to finally ’see’ someone say it. I feel we may have more in common that I first thought…
Chi San is really more important than Chi Sao, the only thing is, most people only get it hit or miss, through trial and error, and have no systematic means to develop it. That is why I have used a ifferent training methodology to develop it.
As for good herbalists, they never have just a fixed formula - it changes according to availability and circumstances. Just like good WCK!
This was one of the best read Replies that I had been privilege to view.great material guys keep it coming.
Thanks for the comment ‘Joe’, as strange as that is for me to say here! Feel free to input some of your own experiences too.
Robert - I know what you mean by the herbalist never having just a fixed formula, but you couldn’t have spoken to Wong Sifu about this as wasn’t he ‘famous’ for using one formula on everybody??! (Sourced from Ip Chings Bigraphy)
This has been a good thread, but it still has unclear meaning to me, especially with regards to Kiu Sau. The branches you mention wouldn’t happen to be the TWC/HFY thread that overtook the KFO forum for an eternity?? I tried to add my views, but again was disregarded I feel.
Each to their own I suppose…
Spencer,
All good herbalists have perhaps a favourite herbal Rx, which they can use and modify for many conditions, for example, Tao Hong Si Wu Tang can be used as a basis for Dit Da or Gynecology, but it would be unconscionable as a medical professional to give one Rx for everyone/every disease. The problem is the layman misinterprets the knowledge and passes it along.
With regards to this thread, Kiu Sao is present in WCK and has been a part of it since its creation. It is part of the Southern fist paradigm. And again, we can choose keywords of how to cross the bridges, for example, in Yuen Kay Shan WCK, we use Dap (Join), Jeet (Intercept), Chum (Sink), Biu (Dart), Chi (Stick), Mor (Rub/Touch), Kou/Saat (Hook/Trap and Finish), etc. It seems that modern WCK has misunderstood that Kiu Sao is in all branches of WCK, and not the sole property of any one particular branch.
Thanks for sharing the 8(?) terms of YKS Kiu Sau. I know this must be quite arduous for you, but I do understand what you’re saying here, and I have heard of ALL these Kiu Sau you mention. They were a speciality of the Chum Kiu form. Baat Kiu, as we referred to it, were understood to be the essential bridges exercised in the second form although the names you mention do not appear to be identical and the Sau character was translated more as arm than hand meaning that the forearms were utilised as well.
I’m also familiar with the Saap Yee Kiu of Hung Kuen, although again I haven’t gone outside my Family to look into it further it’s just something that Man Sifu is familiar with due to all his old friends (sparring partners!)
To my knowledge, Kiu Sau was in the Wing Chun Lee Shing learnt, but the origins of the terms are not known to me. I would have presumed that most people knew of this type of training, as without it I would not have had an understanding of Chum Kiu (Lan Kiu is an example)
I do see a massive ‘lack’ of this sort of knowledge though in all honesty, as again it is only something I covered due to the intense study that was expected of me. Just talking to you here has re-lit my old studies in a way, so I am very grateful and can see why your reputation preceeds you! It’s all gold imho and something I would welcome in future discussions.
In Chinese, we refer to the bridge arms as “Kiu Sao”. In fact, all of WCK is abbreviated, when we say “Tan Sao”, for example, we really mean “Tan Kiu Sao”. It is just short nomenclature to make things less cumbersome. The “Kiu” is implied. “Chi Sao” is really “Chi Kiu Sao”, and so on…
The analogy of the bridge is you are one side of the water, I am on the other side. For me to get to your side (your body), I have to cross over a bridge.
Bruce Lee referred to it as “bridging the gap”, but it means the same thing. Basically, for me to hit you, I need to cross over and pound you from no man’s land.
WCK favors the bridges, as we transfer body power to the bridge arms to strike and knock the opponent down, or unbalance them, or set them up for further strikes.
Of course, we can inquire the way (called “Mun Lou Kiu” in Cantonese), or “Dai Kiu” (Guide bridge). They are all conceptual - they have a central focus, but have many means (i.e. techniques) by which to express these concepts.
I think non-Chinese speaking people have a difficult time with the terms, also the Western thought of something must only mean this, and not that. In Chinese, there are implications, but these are in nuances of all languages.
The Hung Gar 12 Bridges are something I learned and have more than a passing familiarity with - it has its own understanding and present in all of Hung Kuen passed down from Wong Fei Hung in all the forms. They are conceptual bridges and not individual techniques - for example Wun Kiu (Sending/Issuing bridge) can be done wth many methods, not just one of 12 techniques.
Thank you for your kind comments, I am just happy to discuss WCK and martial arts in general. We are all the inheritors of the art and mst work together to preserve them all.