Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

[WC1277]

What do you guys think? Why doesn't the pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0OMkvvz3k&feature=channel_video_title

[WC1277]

Read the comments underneath the video if any of you are confused on what kind of conversation I'm trying to start here.....

[bennyvt]

Because he is not extending with his Pak. If he kept going into a jum then punch it should block it if you control it wit your elbow. This would also mean you would be in a better position to attack them when the being the hand back

[rett]

I thought the video is okay since the point is just get people thinking. If I was there I'd raise my hand enthusiastically and if teacher points at me here's my attempt at an answer:

That move isn't a block. It's not supposed to stop a straight punch that has power. At best it can deflect a few degrees of angle and establish touch contact. The guy on the receiving end should turn to evade the punch or make the punch hit him at an oblique angle so there's little power in the impact. It's okay if his chest gets touched if little energy is transferred. (not so good if the attacker is holding a knife though) If the punch is aimed at his head he should get his head out of the way, even if he uses a deflect/parrying motion. Then the hand that did the intercept may be in position to chop to opp neck or jaw, or something similar.

[HumbleWCGuy]

What do you guys think? Why doesn't the pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0OMkvvz3k&feature=channel_video_title

I assume that what you are getting at is people's inability to transfer things from stationary drills to a real time situation. It's too bad that the conversation is soo unproductive.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I thought the video is okay since the point is just get people thinking.

Yea, I am not sure what all the sniping is about. If you teach any striking art, people have trouble with their defense and it usually stems from the same couple of mistakes. The point of the video was to show it erroneously so that we could then see it correctly.

Judging by the comments, the follow up video strongly needs to be posted.

[n.mitch]

The timing could be off, if the pak only catches a bit of the attack the pak can still turn into a punch and hit the opponent. Turning the stance will help get the body out of the way. Or footwork to the side can do the trick as well

[couch]

The Pak Sau in the video doesn't work because he's chasing hands, not chasing Centre Of Mass.

[Violent Designs]

So what do you guys think is the difference between a WC pak sao and a parry in boxing (or how another style uses pak sao).

[YouKnowWho]

This is a good example that it's better to rotate the body to block a punch (body connected) instead of just move the arm without moving the body (body disconnedted).

Many years ago, the 7 star prey mantis master Brendan Lai challenged me in speed. He said that he could strike my back shoulder and I could not even use my leading arm to block it.

- We both started with right side forward with both arms down.
- His right leading hand striked at my left back shoulder.
- I rotated my body to my left.
- My right forearm blocked his right arm.

Brendan had tried 3 times and I had intersected all 3 of his punches.

Instead of trying to use my hand to intersect his punch, I moved my left shoulder out of his striking path. Whether my right hand could intersect his punch or not is no longer important at that moment.

[WC1277]

I definitely agree that

1 - he's 'passive' chasing

2 - he's not using his whole body

3 - most importantly, he's not invading the center. You can only be stationary and deflect effectively if you're connected. Otherwise you should be constantly trying to disrupt the opponents center by moving in. The act itself of taking over the line will give you the best odds of making it work.....

[Wayfaring]

What do you guys think? Why doesn't the pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0OMkvvz3k&feature=channel_video_title

Because he has no structure. His elbows are not supported by the alignment of the rest of his body, so he is trying to affect the center of gravity of his opponent with the strength of his arm alone.

[desertwingchun2]

3 - most importantly, he's not invading the center. You can only be stationary and deflect effectively if you're connected. Otherwise you should be constantly trying to disrupt the opponents center by moving in. The act itself of taking over the line will give you the best odds of making it work.....

I was going to post Pak Sau IMO should be played destructive. This one was a literal slapping hand. I think your #3 may be a little more lucid than my answer.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I definitely agree that

1 - he's 'passive' chasing

2 - he's not using his whole body

3 - most importantly, he's not invading the center. You can only be stationary and deflect effectively if you're connected. Otherwise you should be constantly trying to disrupt the opponents center by moving in. The act itself of taking over the line will give you the best odds of making it work.....

By virtue of what you were showing which was drilling slowly and then full speed. The core issue appears to be reaction time. Your student knows how to do the movement, he just can't execute it at full speed.

All of these suggestions about structure and basic execution are missing the point.

[WC1277]

Just to clarify in case there was confusion. This is NOT me nor my video. Something I found that thought would make good conversation.

[Violent Designs]

This is a good example that it's better to rotate the body to block a punch (body connected) instead of just move the arm without moving the body (body disconnedted).

Many years ago, the 7 star prey mantis master Brendan Lai challenged me in speed. He said that he could strike my back shoulder and I could not even use my leading arm to block it.

- We both started with right side forward with both arms down.
- His right leading hand striked at my left back shoulder.
- I rotated my body to my left.
- My right forearm blocked his right arm.

Brendan had tried 3 times and I had intersected all 3 of his punches.

Instead of trying to use my hand to intersect his punch, I moved my left shoulder out of his striking path. Whether my right hand could intersect his punch or not is no longer important at that moment.

was this a challenge? you gave him no face haha.

[Vajramusti]

was this a challenge? you gave him no face haha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late sifu Lai wasa good man. I used to buy CMA supplies from him.

joy chaudhuri

[YouKnowWho]

was this a challenge? you gave him no face haha.

It was not a true challenge. Brendan was my quest. Since Adam Hsu was also there, I had to try my best. If Brendan's hand could hit my back shoulder, his hand could hit my head too.

[Phil Redmond]

What block, technique, parry, etc., would work against a stationary target that is a beat behind an attack? Unless the video had another point it proves nothing. I know for sure that a pak can work in street fights and in competition.

[trubblman]

What block, technique, parry, etc., would work against a stationary target that is a beat behind an attack? Unless the video had another point it proves nothing. I know for sure that a pak can work in street fights and in competition.

Exactly. If you watch a lot of video demos carefully you see this mistake being made all the time. The attacker usually begins his attack before the defender. Most times it is imperceptible because the attacker is moving his feet or body before his hands. The defender is usually standing still. This is why the attacks always work. I call this the crash test dummy idea. As long as you have passive, stationary defender most techniques will get by a defense.

In the video the demonstrator should have had the defender stepping side to side or moving back and forth before he launched his attack. The defender would have had more advantage. I think a different convo would have been elicited on the board.

Having said that, all I have is the demo in front of me. The way I think I would have defended is not to wait for the attacker's punch. I would have tried to punch first, used a tan sao, or fuk sao, body dodge or head fake, rather than pak sao.

[Wayfaring]

Instead of trying to use my hand to intersect his punch, I moved my left shoulder out of his striking path. Whether my right hand could intersect his punch or not is no longer important at that moment.

Another good thing about turning your facing like this is that when you do now you have structure - your elbow is aligned correctly with the rest of your body giving support to the pak and allows you to pak thru the opponents center.

[HumbleWCGuy]

What block, technique, parry, etc., would work against a stationary target that is a beat behind an attack? Unless the video had another point it proves nothing. I know for sure that a pak can work in street fights and in competition.

I think that the solution that this teacher intends to get at is that it is necessary to stand at the correct fighting measure/distance. People stand stationary, doing drilling and forms slowly at first. It seems to me the first time that you start them on developing real-time maneuvers they stand to close where things like a pak are less effective just like the video. I think that it happens a lot.

[Violent Designs]

So what do you guys think is the difference between a WC pak sao and a parry in boxing (or how another style uses pak sao).

[HumbleWCGuy]

So what do you guys think is the difference between a WC pak sao and a parry in boxing (or how another style uses pak sao).

As a generalization the boxing parry is close to the body and just aids with a slip. the pak is a bit longer range and pushes the opponent's strike off the centerline. WC guys will also use the pak like a wind shield wiper to catch lead straights which is something that boxers will sometimes do if they don't catch it.

Now having said that, nothing really. Good WC men use it like a boxer at times, and good boxers use it like a WC man a lot too. At low levels you see some more distinction. At high levels not so much.

[Violent Designs]

As a generalization the boxing parry is close to the body and just aids with a slip. the pak is a bit longer range and pushes the opponent's strike off the centerline. WC guys will also use the pak like a wind shield wiper to catch lead straights which is something that boxers will sometimes do if they don't catch it.

Now having said that, nothing really. Good WC men use it like a boxer at times, and good boxers use it like a WC man a lot too. At low levels you see some more distinction. At high levels not so much.

Thank you for your input.

[YouKnowWho]

how another style uses pak sao.
The intention is different here. In that WC clip, the guy tries to reach his hand to his opponent's arm in a 90 degree angle. The prey mantis "掛(Gua) - comb hair" is applied in 45 degree angle (toward yourself) to your opponent's striking arm. As long as your opponent's striking arm passes beside your head, you don't care whether the punch missed just 1 inch or 1 foot. The purpose of "掛(Gua) - comb hair" is to change the incoming force vector a little bit so it will miss your head.

[imperialtaichi]

To make it work:

1. don't try to catch the punch. Start the move as soon as the opponent twitch.
2. don't try to catch the punch, cover the second gate (elbow).
3. don't try to catch the punch, charge in and knock the opponent off balance.

Boxers and punching specialists do feints and combos REALLY fast. Chasing hands is suicidal. Must knock down the opponent's momentum straight away so he has to deal with you, instead of you dealing with him.

[GlennR]

To make it work:

1. don't try to catch the punch. Start the move as soon as the opponent twitch.
2. don't try to catch the punch, cover the second gate (elbow).
3. don't try to catch the punch, charge in and knock the opponent off balance.

Boxers and punching specialists do feints and combos REALLY fast. Chasing hands is suicidal. Must knock down the opponent's momentum straight away so he has to deal with you, instead of you dealing with him.

Well put John, hows things anyway?

[Subitai]

My 1st reaction even before he threw the 1st "testing" punch was....

He's already in my range, he was too close to start with. He wouldn't be able to just do that without receiving something from me 1st.

It reminds me of some a-holes who kinda sneak up on you at a party, get REALLY CLOSE to you and say..."Oh you know Martial arts huh?" "Well what you would do if I did this...?"

Of course, i'm used to seeing this crap so the solution is to reach out quickly and give them a fast slap to the face, prefferably before they can even finish thier last sentence. They always react the same way saying: "Wait, I wasn't ready or What did you do that for?"

To which I respond, " you want me to wait for you to get very close so you can trick me?????" "Are you stupid?"


Also without a bridge, the guy receiving the punch should use more Periphirial Vision and not look at his hands. Already been said i'm sure.

too much to b!tch about...me no likey

[bennyvt]

The difference wit h boxing is with the forward pak sao not really the side one. It can be turned into a strike if controlled by the elbow. Which means that if it is a fake you just hit him, its only when it contacts with a really strong punch that you. Would need to stop it in the pak sao position

[imperialtaichi]

Well put John, hows things anyway?

Hey Glenn, I'm well. Almost met Sifu Beau the other day, but he was unwell so he didn't come. Did some Chi Sau with Sifu Karen. Very nice person. It was good.

Hope you're well.

John

[jesper]

The difference wit h boxing is with the forward pak sao not really the side one. It can be turned into a strike if controlled by the elbow. Which means that if it is a fake you just hit him, its only when it contacts with a really strong punch that you. Would need to stop it in the pak sao position

Funny my first thought was to say "because your not using it correctly, stupid". your so much more diplomatic compared to me :D

[Eric_H]

Funny my first thought was to say "because your not using it correctly, stupid". your so much more diplomatic compared to me :D

I was in the same boat - thought the only thing the awful video would bring to discuss is why they're doing pak sao so horribly wrong. Some decent comments about range and gravity control came out of it though.

[k gledhill]

Funny my first thought was to say "because your not using it correctly, stupid". your so much more diplomatic compared to me :D

A lot of guys said exactly the same thing but got deleted ....:o

[Phil Redmond]

Response to:
Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4

[GlennR]

Response to:
Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4

Nice... thanks Phil

[WC1277]

Response to:
Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4

Some good points Phil with regards to the William Cheung way. Nice job!

[wingchunIan]

Nice response Phil. As you say hopefully we'll get the follow up clip soon to understand what the guy was trying to demo / point he was trying to make as there are so many fundamental things wrong with the application of pak sau demonstrated in the original clip.

[k gledhill]

Pak is 1/2 an attack, the other half is the part everyone is ignoring , along with methods to shut down the fight .

[Phil Redmond]

Pak is 1/2 an attack, the other half is the part everyone is ignoring , along with methods to shut down the fight .
I think we all know that there should be an attack with the other hand like a pak da. But what if your other hand was injured and you had to defend with only the pak. Does that demo mean that pak doesn't work?

[LoneTiger108]

Response to:
Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4

At least your guy was doing paksau Phil!

I've avoided posting here coz the first clip was nothing more than a speed trick and the guy attempting paksau was actually doing something else (I will leave it to others to tell us what he was doing)

I generally like the Windy City clips as he has a good character and clear presentation style. But this one is worse than me messing about in my studio! :eek: Didn't he do a follow-up clip himself??

[k gledhill]

I think we all know that there should be an attack with the other hand like a pak da. But what if your other hand was injured and you had to defend with only the pak. Does that demo mean that pak doesn't work?

The idea of the striking hand is that it 'sweeps' the line ..lin sil di da regardless of the pak sao contact or not..... :D this is something we train. A punch that protects the center as it strikes. because we x the line with the wrists [as opening moves] the forearm becomes another barrier .

Pak deflects to the center line with the lead hand , not across the center line at the apex , pak only x'es the center line in rear pak sao , everyone knows that ! :D This is also another way to practice pak to the center then strike forwards , so you dont x the c-line and do back fists.

The deflective force is ballistic , like pole deflections , we slap arms OFF the punch path so the STRIKE can have a pathway to the targets jaw and we turn the opponent using their lever aka arm, why we use pak . One arm recycles back to become a new attack [wu] as the new lead striking arm makes the previous pak redundant.

Newtons cradle is an example of this kinetic transfer of energy to a lever aka an extended arm.
This ballistic force transfer will turn an opponent as well, so its tactically working an idea as well.
the dummy also becomes this kinetic transfer with relaxed recoil so the energy doesn't disrupt us too and makes us able to change force directions , actions quicker.

You can see in all the clips posted by the guy that he sticks to arms with hands , over traps, overturns and chases across his OWN center line, the two of them are chasing across each others lines, blind to the reasons they can be hit easily ....ergo they play the 'speed' game of action -eye/mind lag- reaction.
The clip shows a lack of lin sil di da knowledge, simply becasue the pak takes on this all or nothing idea, so it has to hold, control, due to the following punch hinging the elbow up and too far away to utilize anyway.

So many mistakes is embarrassing but , hey, they posted it and asked :D:D


pak and jum striking have similar energy to the centerline but not over it , this alignment is critical to the defense of the following hand. The elbow contraction is the handle to the whip at the tip of the apex.
Any deviation and the rear WU sao takes over.
This is also a glaring lack of understanding in the clip by trying to beat a bad pak sao with speed, rather than LETTING the bad pak sao stick all it wants and chase , then simply hitting on the other side of the line with the rear hand ...if he isnt punching with pak , then its even easier to end the fight.
This is letting the opponent show you how to hit him. By making simple mistakes we use as opportunistic openings, rather than set pieces.

1:16 pak sao use with striking drills... also earlier but too fast to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScdR_VLuyww

[WC1277]

The idea of the striking hand is that it 'sweeps' the line ..lin sil di da regardless of the pak sao contact or not..... :D this is something we train. A punch that protects the center as it strikes. because we x the line with the wrists [as opening moves] the forearm becomes another barrier .

Pak deflects to the center line with the lead hand , not across the center line at the apex , pak only x'es the center line in rear pak sao , everyone knows that ! :D This is also another way to practice pak to the center then strike forwards , so you dont x the c-line and do back fists.

The deflective force is ballistic , like pole deflections , we slap arms OFF the punch path so the STRIKE can have a pathway to the targets jaw , why we use pak . One arm recycles back to become a new attack [wu] as the new lead striking arm makes the previous pak redundant.

Newtons cradle is an example of this kinetic transfer of energy to a lever aka an extended arm.
This ballistic force transfer will turn an opponent as well, so its tactically working an idea as well.
the dummy also becomes this kinetic transfer with relaxed recoil so the energy doesn't disrupt us too and makes us able to change force directions , actions quicker.

You can see in all the clips posted by the guy that he sticks to arms with hands , over traps, overturns and chases across his OWN center line, the two of them are chasing across each others lines, blind to the reasons they can be hit easily ....ergo they play the 'speed' game of action -eye/mind lag- reaction.
The clip shows a lack of lin sil di da knowledge, simply becasue the pak takes on this all or nothing idea, so it has to hold, control, due to the following punch hinging the elbow up and too far away to utilize anyway.

So many mistakes is embarrassing but , hey, they posted it and asked :D:D


pak and jum striking have similar energy to the centerline but not over it , this alignment is critical to the defense of the following hand. The elbow contraction is the handle to the whip at the tip of the apex.
Any deviation and the rear WU sao takes over.
This is also a glaring lack of understanding in the clip by trying to beat a bad pak sao with speed, rather than LETTING the bad pak sao stick all it wants and chase , then simply hitting on the other side of the line with the rear hand ...if he isnt punching with pak , then its even easier to end the fight.
This is letting the opponent show you how to hit him. By making simple mistakes we use as opportunistic openings, rather than set pieces.

1:16 pak sao use with striking drills... also earlier but too fast to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScdR_VLuyww

Actually, I can't believe I'm saying this but not too bad of a post K!

[GlennR]

Actually, I can't believe I'm saying this but not too bad of a post K!

You beat me to it!

[duende]

The idea of the striking hand is that it 'sweeps' the line ..lin sil di da regardless of the pak sao contact or not..... :D this is something we train. A punch that protects the center as it strikes. because we x the line with the wrists [as opening moves] the forearm becomes another barrier .

Pak deflects to the center line with the lead hand , not across the center line at the apex , pak only x'es the center line in rear pak sao , everyone knows that ! :D This is also another way to practice pak to the center then strike forwards , so you dont x the c-line and do back fists.

The deflective force is ballistic , like pole deflections , we slap arms OFF the punch path so the STRIKE can have a pathway to the targets jaw , why we use pak . One arm recycles back to become a new attack [wu] as the new lead striking arm makes the previous pak redundant.

Newtons cradle is an example of this kinetic transfer of energy to a lever aka an extended arm.
This ballistic force transfer will turn an opponent as well, so its tactically working an idea as well.
the dummy also becomes this kinetic transfer with relaxed recoil so the energy doesn't disrupt us too and makes us able to change force directions , actions quicker.

You can see in all the clips posted by the guy that he sticks to arms with hands , over traps, overturns and chases across his OWN center line, the two of them are chasing across each others lines, blind to the reasons they can be hit easily ....ergo they play the 'speed' game of action -eye/mind lag- reaction.
The clip shows a lack of lin sil di da knowledge, simply becasue the pak takes on this all or nothing idea, so it has to hold, control, due to the following punch hinging the elbow up and too far away to utilize anyway.

So many mistakes is embarrassing but , hey, they posted it and asked :D:D


pak and jum striking have similar energy to the centerline but not over it , this alignment is critical to the defense of the following hand. The elbow contraction is the handle to the whip at the tip of the apex.
Any deviation and the rear WU sao takes over.
This is also a glaring lack of understanding in the clip by trying to beat a bad pak sao with speed, rather than LETTING the bad pak sao stick all it wants and chase , then simply hitting on the other side of the line with the rear hand ...if he isnt punching with pak , then its even easier to end the fight.
This is letting the opponent show you how to hit him. By making simple mistakes we use as opportunistic openings, rather than set pieces.

1:16 pak sao use with striking drills... also earlier but too fast to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScdR_VLuyww

All this sounds good and the vid looks impressive too against a wooden dummy or willing student.

But the BIG missing part of the equation here is BREAKING STRUCTURE.

Until you understand that part of the energy equation, all this technique talk is just an illusion.

Sorry to rain on the parade here. But strikes on the centerline will only get you so far.

[k gledhill]

All this sounds good and the vid looks impressive too against a wooden dummy or willing student.

But the BIG missing part of the equation here is BREAKING STRUCTURE.

Until you understand that part of the energy equation, all this technique talk is just an illusion.

Sorry to rain on the parade here. But strikes on the centerline will only get you so far.

Breaking structure is chisao warrior speak, your misinformed, unless you mean breaking a jaw, then I agree.
Chi-sao with two extended arms exchanging energy can be misleading without proper coaching. Over indulgence leads to frustration and arm games for dominance or simple lack of goals, leading to mistakes like "structure breaking" ...the structures only there because your drilling with a guy in a similar fashion. When do you do this ina fight except similar 'poses' like clinching ? We dont do chi-sao to become expert clinchers.
The by-products of our drilling develops sensitivity to structure but its not the idea we try to emulate with a guy who hasn't got a clue what I do or how I fight.
I let him turn, make moves as I angle, shift, strike, according to the opportunities. I never seek to break structure, if it falls apart its becuse Im attacking as a unit of mass in motion with an attitude on :D

Breaking structure aka chasing something other than to hit a guy, we strike as a primary idea.

[Phil Redmond]

Pak sao is the slapping (energy) used. Just as Tan (dispersing) is the energy used. Pak and gam can look similar but they have different "intent". You can slap up, down, forward, to the side. It doesn't matter. We have a saying in TWC. "Don't live in a box". The more WC people fight outside of the comfort zone of their friends. The more you'll see where I'm coming from. People say our tan is too high. I could say theirs is too low since most fighters are headhunters. If it works for you then it's all good. :)

[duende]

Breaking structure is chisao warrior speak, your misinformed, unless you mean breaking a jaw, then I agree.
Chi-sao with two extended arms exchanging energy can be misleading without proper coaching. Over indulgence leads to frustration and arm games for dominance or simple lack of goals, leading to mistakes like "structure breaking" ...the structures only there because your drilling with a guy in a similar fashion. When do you do this ina fight except similar 'poses' like clinching ? We dont do chi-sao to become expert clinchers.
The by-products of our drilling develops sensitivity to structure but its not the idea we try to emulate with a guy who hasn't got a clue what I do or how I fight.
I let him turn, make moves as I angle, shift, strike, according to the opportunities. I never seek to break structure, if it falls apart its becuse Im attacking as a unit of mass in motion with an attitude on :D

ALL the vids you have EVER posted ONLY show arm games.

If you honestly think that Phillip Bayer Pak Sau can stop someone with REAL momentum. Then you are seriously drinking Kool Aid.

If you don't control your opponents COG then you will be overwhelmed and at the mercy of the take down, collapsed structure, and/or backing up energy.

You talk like fighters don't know how to trace energy and shift angles as well.

You foolishly think you have some greater wisdom that no one but you WC PB buddies have. That must be why you guys break so many jaws in the mma world right?

Fine...

If you don't think Pak can be used to break structure and set-up a strike in the same beat... then we can agree to disagree.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that only PB understands WC Pak Sau technique. He only understands his VERSION of WC Pak Sau.

[k gledhill]

Pak sao is the slapping (energy) used. Just as Tan (dispersing) is the energy used. Pak and gam can look similar but they have different "intent". You can slap up, down, forward, to the side. It doesn't matter. We have a saying in TWC. "Don't live in a box". The more WC people fight outside of the comfort zone of their friends. The more you'll see where I'm coming from. People say our tan is too high. I could say theirs is too low since most fighters are headhunters. If it works for you then it's all good. :)

Tan is training a punching concept so its pointing as high as your head fighting because I'm hitting your head, not blocking ;) but when doing SLT, dan chi-sao , etc...training the elbow, we do it low so the elbow doesnt hinge up and down. We want a low elbow so it creates the cutting punch lines inside jum, and out tan. The tan doesnt leave the center in SLT or drilling for a reason, it is trying to lin sil di da using the 'spearing/stabbing' force to "displace as I hit the face" IF I MEET anything on the way.


you can combine any energy as you need pak to jut, jut to pak , inside jut, outside jut, bong slap to jut , there are no fixed responses. Our thinking of chi-sao is this action reaction, energy bad, good ? not there at all....to make the students focus on their striking techniques rather than fighting in chi-sao with dual arm exchanges.
Not an arm wrestle trying to manipulate arms that we wont be able to do at speed anyway.

tans ELBOW uses kinetic , ballistic , displacing energy while the FIST STAYS CENTERED, and wrists x the line sweeping, lin sil di da, jum is its partner in attacks, also lin di daring.
Try turning the tan palm up, suddenly , sharply, to a vertical palm as you strike forwards. This shows this elbow outward action, while striking.

The dan chi-sao drill uses jums inward elbow control versus the tans expanding elbow, each punch is displacing the other on the center while each strikes forwards. no sticking feeling bs.
Just two simple punches being developed for fighting later.

[k gledhill]

ALL the vids you have EVER posted ONLY show arm games.

If you honestly think that Phillip Bayer Pak Sau can stop someone with REAL momentum. Then you are seriously drinking Kool Aid.

If you don't control your opponents COG then you will be overwhelmed and at the mercy of the take down, collapsed structure, and/or backing up energy.

You talk like fighters don't know how to trace energy and shift angles as well.

You foolishly think you have some greater wisdom that no one but you WC PB buddies have. That must be why you guys break so many jaws in the mma world right?

Fine...

If you don't think Pak can be used to break structure and set-up a strike in the same beat... then we can agree to disagree.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that only PB understands WC Pak Sau technique. He only understands his VERSION of WC Pak Sau.

okay your now talking in a way I agree, terminology wars ! :D yes pak sao will 'turn/disrupt' a structure, word games. We try to TURN the structure so it cant face us to hit us or take us down or work 100% at us. Sure we angle out of the way of momentum too, we dont stand and try to be ultimate blockers. but we break with BALLISTIC force not holding hands over trapping etc...
So apologies if terminology issues are in question.
I have this with PB students visiting too, we have the same ideas and techniques but one Zurich branch may refer to a toi ma paksao as man sao, and we call it tomato :D

We do think like fighters can shift as we do, never implying elitist superiority. At the end of the day its the person not the style MMA or VT. Who trains like a spartan and has heart with technique and little luck on the day.

Our pak sao is trying to be structure breaking if thats what your implying, but easy to break guys regardless of size and strength with levers and axis lines, knowing the subtle methods to disrupt or to allow the structure to disrupt itself by over turning , over-reaching, these are the skills we work on like any fighter.
Any fighter can benefit from this.

We dont try to 'stop' momentum attacks unless it meets our fist , we use it against opponents, iow we drill to stay in balance delivering force attacking without becoming 'played ' ourselves by over stretching our limits of controlled momentum/motion, facing etc...

[Phil Redmond]

Tan is training a punching concept so its pointing as high as your head fighting because I'm hitting your head, not blocking ;) but when doing SLT, dan chi-sao , etc...training the elbow, we do it low so the elbow doesnt hinge up and down. We want a low elbow so it creates the cutting punch lines inside jum, and out tan. The tan doesnt leave the center in SLT or drilling for a reason, it is trying to lin sil di da using the 'spearing/stabbing' force to "displace as I hit the face" IF I MEET anything on the way.


you can combine any energy as you need pak to jut, jut to pak , inside jut, outside jut, bong slap to jut , there are no fixed responses. Our thinking of chi-sao is this action reaction, energy bad, good ? not there at all....to make the students focus on their striking techniques rather than fighting in chi-sao with dual arm exchanges.
Not an arm wrestle trying to manipulate arms that we wont be able to do at speed anyway.

tans ELBOW uses kinetic , ballistic , displacing energy while the FIST STAYS CENTERED, and wrists x the line sweeping, lin sil di da, jum is its partner in attacks, also lin di daring.
Try turning the tan palm up, suddenly , sharply, to a vertical palm as you strike forwards. This shows this elbow outward action, while striking.

The dan chi-sao drill uses jums inward elbow control versus the tans expanding elbow, each punch is displacing the other on the center while each strikes forwards. no sticking feeling bs.
Just two simple punches being developed for fighting later.
Tan means to disperse or spread. I learned Cantonese so that I could understand the terminology. Please explain what Tan means to you regarding Wing Chun.

[k gledhill]

Tan means to disperse or spread. I learned Cantonese so that I could understand the terminology. Please explain what Tan means to you regarding Wing Chun.


tan sao is a pre strike drilling position of the leading arm using the outside of the forearm..

When the arm strikes forwards we let the elbow spread off the line, while the hand
Strikes forwards. lin sil di da of one arm side
Now imagine using the same leading arm to strike but you need to use the inside of the arm ....jum.sao.

When fighting we use the arm leading and striking to both sweep and defend a line to us.
Because we try to turn or fight turned opponemts our leading striking arm needs to use
Either side as we chase after guys or counter angle etc...

[Graham H]

Tan means to disperse or spread. I learned Cantonese so that I could understand the terminology. Please explain what Tan means to you regarding Wing Chun.

Yes it does but its a concept for punching in our lineage not blocking like you WC guys do it! You see its easy to misinterpret what these actions mean which is common in Wing Chun. The Tan Sau punching concept does spread out and disperse when the punch is driven forward we use the outside of the elbow to clear the way for the punch should there be obsticles in the way. Two totally different ideas of Tan Sau and two totally different ideas on Ving Tsun Kung Fu Phil!

Ving Tsun is a boxing system. Its about punching not blocking! We learn to punch and defend/open the way for the punch in one action. Until I was exposed to this idea I wouldnt have understood it myself.

GH

[k gledhill]

mobility and proximity and angling using :

Dui Gok Ma - "Side-facing Stance" *for cleaning the center - 50% less work* our pre fighting posture to 'sweep the zone' as we attack using [Da Sao Jik Siu Sao / lin sil di dar]

Juen Ma - "Pivoting/Turning Footwork" *for using Hip elbow simultaneously* as chum kil to develop our balance/force/axis point as we hit

Seung Ma - "Forward Attacking Footwork" *special work to create structure* 1/2 step to 'stalk' the opponent

Tui Ma - " (Side-angling stepping) Footwork in chisao" *special work to create structure and attacking/counterattacking positions .

Mobility is required to work this idea, something many schools lack aside from lead leg back and forth in straight lines , charges with egg beater from hell punches striking air furiously :D

iow without movement your tan would have to become a block 'spreading' off line using two hands parallel because your standing still and turning to block or your in the center of the opponents two arms and dont know elbow striking , lin sil di da...waiting to block.

[k gledhill]

More specific to the leading strike, is Da Sao Jik Siu Sao attacking hand is also simultaneously the deflecting/defense/block hand .



So tan and jum are the basic striking and deflecting in a spearing action, stabbing in.

In SLT many are missing the JUM sao in the 1st section : tan huen fook JUM wu

so cant develop this unity of opposite striking forearms.

Lin siu di da is continuous attack/deflection/defense, generally.

[Phil Redmond]

Yes it does but its a concept for punching in our lineage not blocking like you WC guys do it! You see its easy to misinterpret what these actions mean which is common in Wing Chun. The Tan Sau punching concept does spread out and disperse when the punch is driven forward we use the outside of the elbow to clear the way for the punch should there be obsticles in the way. Two totally different ideas of Tan Sau and two totally different ideas on Ving Tsun Kung Fu Phil!

Ving Tsun is a boxing system. Its about punching not blocking! We learn to punch and defend/open the way for the punch in one action. Until I was exposed to this idea I wouldnt have understood it myself.

GH
I try not to use the word block because to me that implies using force. I like the terms parry and deflection. So are you saying that WC only strikes but doesn't defend by using parries and deflections? Every standup martial art has blocks/parries/deflections. ;)

[HumbleWCGuy]

Response to:
Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4

Phil, this is a good video. You address several critical issues in improving reaction. I want to attempt to summarize your points.
1. Look at the elbow to improve perceptual speed.
2. Turn sideways to narrow yourself as a target so your pak doesn't have to travel as far.
3. The pak improves even more as you add footwork. Creating distance between you and your opponent and circling forces the opponent into more preparation to strike which give us more time to react.

What I liked most about your video is that as you added more levels to it the pak became more effective.

[CFT]

So are you saying that WC only strikes but doesn't defend by using parries and deflections?The parry or deflection is applied by the punching arm, as the fist carries the punch. Two outcomes from one action.

[WC1277]

The problem with using the same arm you're attacking with to deflect and then continue the attack is that it's too many movements and lost timing beats. Once the attacking arm gets moved off the line and switches to deflection it inherently loses a 'beat'. It's far more efficient to switch.

We only have two arms. The shoulder that is forward in an attack becomes active and committed, so to speak. You nervous system has to turn it off, then back on to change course. Your rear shoulder/arm, however, is already turned off, so it inherently has a faster reaction time.

This concept is the whole point of the majority of the forms, especially the punching. When you punch in the forms, one elbow pushes out, one elbow pulls in. The exact same motion as pulling a rope. Unless you can figure out a way to pull a rope with one arm and not allow any slack, you're already going against body mechanics and timing.

It's not Wing Chun, it's an add-on....

[Graham H]

I try not to use the word block because to me that implies using force. I like the terms parry and deflection. So are you saying that WC only strikes but doesn't defend by using parries and deflections? Every standup martial art has blocks/parries/deflections. ;)

No I'm not saying that "WC" doesn't defend by using parries and deflections. You do it so it obviously does. What I'm saying is that our thinking is different to yours and it is better to spend less time discussing what needs to be shown in person.

I viewed your pak sau video and everything in my lineage goes in the opposite direction. Thats not to say that you are wrong and I am right it just means that we practice two very different versions of Kung Fu. ;)

YouTube and WC????? Bad combination! Ok for looking at how one moves and for a little bit of fun but for explanations and justifications it is pants! You cannot judge ones skill and force by viewing video and like I said before...you can make many thing happen when two people are "co-operating" with each other!

GH

[CFT]

The problem with using the same arm you're attacking with to deflect and then continue the attack is that it's too many movements and lost timing beats. Once the attacking arm gets moved off the line and switches to deflection it inherently loses a 'beat'. It's far more efficient to switch.The attacking arm does not 'switch over' to deflection mode if the attack is stymied. The deflection is inherent in the forearms (outer = tan, inner = jum) when you punch in the Wing Chun way. If your attack is moved off the line then you can just punch from your rear hand (wu sau).

[Graham H]

The attacking arm does not 'switch over' to deflection mode if the attack is stymied. The deflection is inherent in the forearms (outer = tan, inner = jum) when you punch in the Wing Chun way. If your attack is moved off the line then you can just punch from your rear hand (wu sau).

Perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

GH

[k gledhill]

The attacking arm does not 'switch over' to deflection mode if the attack is stymied. The deflection is inherent in the forearms (outer = tan, inner = jum) when you punch in the Wing Chun way. If your attack is moved off the line then you can just punch from your rear hand (wu sau).

ingenious :D

[CFT]

I would have had the same mentality before reading the posts here and watching the youtube vids. You can learn a thing or two if you listen and try things out.

Lien wan does not translate to 'mad charge forward'.

[Phil Redmond]

The parry or deflection is applied by the punching arm, as the fist carries the punch. Two outcomes from one action.
This can be true in a straight punch. But what about a round punch or the varied Choy Lei Fat strikes?

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . you can make many thing happen when two people are "co-operating" with each other!
GH
Exactly, that why I competed and why I train fighters now. Having experienced fighting a pro fighter like Jonas Nunez who was trying to knock me out I definitely know what works for me. I'm not saying all but most WC people play spar with friends. That's not the same thing as having someone really trying to hurt you.
When people say this and that works I ask myself if they have tried what they advocate for real. :)

[Phil Redmond]

The attacking arm does not 'switch over' to deflection mode if the attack is stymied. The deflection is inherent in the forearms (outer = tan, inner = jum) when you punch in the Wing Chun way. If your attack is moved off the line then you can just punch from your rear hand (wu sau).
The WC "way" can also include uppercuts and round punches. You see them in some people's Biu Jee. Straight punches alone might not work against a CLF strikes.

[WC1277]

The attacking arm does not 'switch over' to deflection mode if the attack is stymied. The deflection is inherent in the forearms (outer = tan, inner = jum) when you punch in the Wing Chun way. If your attack is moved off the line then you can just punch from your rear hand (wu sau).

Schematics.... I used switch over for lack of better terms. We use passive within active but very few understand that term.

Anyway, whatever you want to call it, if you're truly connecting to the opponents center when that 'deflection' occurs, you lose a timing beat. If you're not connecting to his center of gravity, it's called passive chasing and all you're really doing is just moving arms. Also not WC...

[k gledhill]

The WC "way" can also include uppercuts and round punches. You see them in some people's Biu Jee. Straight punches alone might not work against a CLF strikes.

I may be around sat. If you want to meet up.?

[Phil Redmond]

I may be around sat. If you want to meet up.?
Heck yeah, I've been waiting to meet you. You should have my number. I'll be in Columbus Park on Bayard and Mulberry Sts. in Chinatown from 3-5pm. Or we can meet later. Call me.

[k gledhill]

Heck yeah, I've been waiting to meet you. You should have my number. I'll be in Columbus Park on Bayard and Mulberry Sts. in Chinatown from 3-5pm. Or we can meet later. Call me.

Okay. columbus park sounds good, we wont freak anyone out.

[k gledhill]

The problem with using the same arm you're attacking with to deflect and then continue the attack is that it's too many movements and lost timing beats. Once the attacking arm gets moved off the line and switches to deflection it inherently loses a 'beat'. It's far more efficient to switch.

We only have two arms. The shoulder that is forward in an attack becomes active and committed, so to speak. You nervous system has to turn it off, then back on to change course. Your rear shoulder/arm, however, is already turned off, so it inherently has a faster reaction time.

This concept is the whole point of the majority of the forms, especially the punching. When you punch in the forms, one elbow pushes out, one elbow pulls in. The exact same motion as pulling a rope. Unless you can figure out a way to pull a rope with one arm and not allow any slack, you're already going against body mechanics and timing.

It's not Wing Chun, it's an add-on....

you just never understood it this way.....it has to be experienced first hand. the whole package, footwork, distances...
Your no different to me,gh, sean66,cft.....we all had exposure to most vt ideas. Because pb is in europe and doesnt expose many to this level of unserstanding, it goes unknown.
I simply tried to share an idea with everyone here and got terence mantra, politics....
Its not going to make you worse, to try and understand....

[WC1277]

you just never understood it this way.....it has to be experienced first hand. the whole package, footwork, distances...
Your no different to me,gh, sean66,cft.....we all had exposure to most vt ideas. Because pb is in europe and doesnt expose many to this level of unserstanding, it goes unknown.
I simply tried to share an idea with everyone here and got terence mantra, politics....
Its not going to make you worse, to try and understand....

I wasn't trying to bash you with that post Kevin. I DO listen to what you say and try to always learn something new, but for myself to either agree or adapt it myself it has to fall within the principles....

[WC1277]

you just never understood it this way.....it has to be experienced first hand. the whole package, footwork, distances...
Your no different to me,gh, sean66,cft.....we all had exposure to most vt ideas. Because pb is in europe and doesnt expose many to this level of unserstanding, it goes unknown.
I simply tried to share an idea with everyone here and got terence mantra, politics....
Its not going to make you worse, to try and understand....

Think about it man, that concept won't work against someone significantly bigger and stronger than you. I always feel stupid saying this, but WC is supposed to work for women or small or old men. Ving tsun may be a physically fit man's game, which is fine, after all Graham says it's a boxing system repeatedly.

But the system I practice is not just that alone. Fong Sifu is a lot smaller than most people think and getting up there in age and I've seen him take on guys three times his size. Joy is a good example as well....

[k gledhill]

Think about it man, that concept won't work against someone significantly bigger and stronger than you. I always feel stupid saying this, but WC is supposed to work for women or small or old men. Ving tsun may be a physically fit man's game, which is fine, after all Graham says it's a boxing system repeatedly.

But the system I practice is not just that alone. Fong Sifu is a lot smaller than most people think and getting up there in age and I've seen him take on guys three times his size. Joy is a good example as well....

This is where you dont understand the line and how we deal with force. We dont stand doing chi-sao, turning with arms like chisao.....its easy to see how a smaller person would fight....
Anyway, maybe one day....

[Sean66]

WC1277,
You think Philipp is a big guy?! The guy is small for teutonic German standards LOL! I've seen him completely dominate people twice his size and twice as strong! How does he do it? Uses exactly those principles that Kev has been talking about! Angling, timing, distance, whole body power, etc., etc., etc.

[CFT]

I've actually not had the pleasure of meeting anyone from the PB-WSLVT line so can't claim any special insight really. But I have seen David Peterson's excellent SNT seminar on DVD where he talks and demonstrates how tan and jum sau work in chi sau. Along with that Michael Kurth video that Sean posted recently showing how it was as much to do with footwork as well as hands.

The translation of the articles from the Ng Chan VT lineage highlight how there are some common ideas and goals, i.e. don't just stand there face to face trading blows.

[CFT]

LOL! Are we playing the 'my sifu is smaller than your sifu game'? :D

[Phil Redmond]

Think about it man, that concept won't work against someone significantly bigger and stronger than you. I always feel stupid saying this, but WC is supposed to work for women or small or old men. Ving tsun may be a physically fit man's game, which is fine, after all Graham says it's a boxing system repeatedly. ...
VT/WC/WT is ALL the same. It's just different Romanizations of the Chinese characters. No native Chinese will pronounce the letter V as you have written. In Cantonese it's all Wing Cheun/Choon/Chun. I thought everyone knew that by now. :confused:
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39102&highlight=wing+choon

[WC1277]

VT/WC/WT is ALL the same. It's just different Romanizations of the Chinese characters. No native Chinese will pronounce the letter V as you have written. In Cantonese it's all Wing Cheun/Choon/Chun. I thought everyone knew that by now. :confused:
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39102&highlight=wing+choon

Yeah I know Phil. I was just saying Ving Tsun to imply the PBWSL system.... Thanks though...

[duende]

The attacking arm does not 'switch over' to deflection mode if the attack is stymied. The deflection is inherent in the forearms (outer = tan, inner = jum) when you punch in the Wing Chun way. If your attack is moved off the line then you can just punch from your rear hand (wu sau).

I agree with the first part of this statement. This is what we'd simply refer to as simultaneous attack and defense. The misunderstanding often found is that many WC practioners think this concept refers to two arms, when actualy it applies to the same arm.

With proper elbow positioning a strike, is a block, is a strike.. It will protect both tue upper and lower gates and threaten an opponent's defenses all at the same time.

As for the second part of the statement, it is correct in theory... However is often just symptomatic of a rolling or looping mindset... And is indicative of trading hands unnecessarily and collapsing structure.

[CFT]

As for the second part of the statement, it is correct in theory... However is often just symptomatic of a rolling or looping mindset... And is indicative of trading hands unnecessarily and collapsing structure.What is HFY's prefered response in the case when your attack is taken off the line?

[k gledhill]

I agree with the first part of this statement. This is what we'd simply refer to as simultaneous attack and defense. The misunderstanding often found is that many WC practioners think this concept refers to two arms, when actualy it applies to the same arm.

With proper elbow positioning a strike, is a block, is a strike.. It will protect both tue upper and lower gates and threaten an opponent's defenses all at the same time.

As for the second part of the statement, it is correct in theory... However is often just symptomatic of a rolling or looping mindset... And is indicative of trading hands unnecessarily and collapsing structure.

you dont understand the action, having it done to you will clarify it in seconds....

[duende]

What is HFY's prefered response in the case when your attack is taken off the line?

I have to run to work so quickly let me just say...

The solution is not in the response. The solution is gaining awareness of why one is taken off the line so easily to begin with.

Will write more detail later.

[k gledhill]

I have to run to work so quickly let me just say...

The solution is not in the response. The solution is gaining awareness of why one is taken off the line so easily to begin with.

Will write more detail later.

we let the opponent show us how to hit them....soft and hard, but when to be either ? ;)

VT techniques are designed with this in mind from the inception .

[Phil Redmond]

I agree with the first part of this statement. This is what we'd simply refer to as simultaneous attack and defense. The misunderstanding often found is that many WC practioners think this concept refers to two arms, when actualy it applies to the same arm. . . . . .
It can mean two arms as well. You're not going to be able to use a one arm LSDD against some of the CLF and similar systems strikes.

[Phil Redmond]

we let the opponent show us how to hit them....soft and hard, but when to be either ? ;)

VT techniques are designed with this in mind from the inception .
I agree with that one.

[duende]

It can mean two arms as well. You're not going to be able to use a one arm LSDD against some of the CLF and similar systems strikes.

Sure,

But if one doesn't understand how to express a concept in all dimensions with one arm, how are the ever going to understand it using two?

[duende]

we let the opponent show us how to hit them....soft and hard, but when to be either ? ;)

VT techniques are designed with this in mind from the inception .

We let energy dictate the bridge upon contact. Ying structure is not a reaction, but the birthplace of proper facing and engagement.

Unnecessary looping goes against WC's economy of motion principle.

[duende]

On a lighter note

http://shine.yahoo.com/event/vitality/98-year-old-woman-becomes-first-woman-ever-to-earn-judos-highest-degree-black-belt-2523297/

[k gledhill]

We let energy dictate the bridge upon contact. Ying structure is not a reaction, but the birthplace of proper facing and engagement.

Unnecessary looping goes against WC's economy of motion principle.

Subtle, but we dont rely on 'contact' , ergo no waiting for feeling.....it may happen, it may not
(contact at bridge).
Spatial awareness of lines of force in space before us.....they may seek to touch but i am no longer there, I am already situated for the next move ...

[Phil Redmond]

Sure,

But if one doesn't understand how to express a concept in all dimensions with one arm, how are the ever going to understand it using two?

You can't realistically cover all dimensions with one arm.

[duende]

You can't realistically cover all dimensions with one arm.

Each arm has to know the proper structure in which it dominates space according to range and the relationship to the WC practioner.

This is not a one-dimensional equation.

For instance if you stretch your limbs too far you are easily moved off the centerline.

Or if you run away from the centerline (side step), you will never have a point of reference to begin with.

[CFT]

Or if you run away from the centerline (side step), you will never have a point of reference to begin with.Isn't the point of reference still the opponent's centre? One doesn't literally side-step - there is the step but you maintain your own facing.

[duende]

Isn't the point of reference still the opponent's centre? One doesn't literally side-step - there is the step but you maintain your own facing.

Agreed... But is there always a step? ;). And how does the WC principle of economy of motion come into play here and why?

Economy of motion isn't really about conserving strength, it's about keeping focus of one's weapons and energy aligned.

Self-centerline also comes into play... What are you gaining by moving and what are you loosing??

Is running away from oncoming enegy a proper method of engagement?

[CFT]

Agreed... But is there always a step? ;). And how does the WC principle of economy of motion come into play here and why?

Economy of motion isn't really about conserving strength, it's about keeping focus of one's weapons and energy aligned.

Self-centerline also comes into play... What are you gaining by moving and what are you loosing??

Is running away from oncoming enegy a proper method of engagement?I'd say you don't need to step if you are able to break through with your punch or are able to turn them. Otherwise you will be the one to lose the line, in which case I would say you might need to step to regain a beneficial position. You don't want to lose the initiative and be in between two arms clobbering you left, right and centre.

[duende]

I'd say you don't need to step if you are able to break through with your punch or are able to turn them. Otherwise you will be the one to lose the line, in which case I would say you might need to step to regain a beneficial position. You don't want to lose the initiative and be in between two arms clobbering you left, right and centre.

Nicely put!

[WC1277]

It seems there's two very different ways of thinking going on here. One moving for no apparent reason other than to attack on a different plane. Truly a boxing way of thinking. And one moving only if required to do so. More of a economy of motion way of thinking. The differences get wider and wider every day......:(

[Phil Redmond]

It seems there's two very different ways of thinking going on here. One moving for no apparent reason other than to attack on a different plane. To place yourself out of reach of the other hand.

Truly a boxing way of thinking.
Truly a TWC fighters way of thinking.

And one moving only if required to do so. More of a economy of motion way of thinking. It can be more ecomical to go around an object than through it.


The differences get wider and wider every day.
Fighting is fighting. To be good at it you have to do it. Once you do it you know what works for you and what doesn't.l

[desertwingchun2]

Fighting is fighting. To be good at it you have to do it. Once you do it you know what works for you and what doesn't.l

One of the best statements I've read in a while!!

I just hate finding out "what doesn't"!!! :D

[HumbleWCGuy]

Certainly, you can use Wing Chun in any manner you see fit to neutralize a situation, but I consider the fundamental tenet of applying Wing Chun correctly is to, "get the hell out of the way," of strikes as my instructor was so fond of saying. This implies footwork and movement. A lot of smaller guys will see eye to eye with me on this point. Standing and banging just wont work.

[WC1277]

"To place yourself out of reach of the other hand."

- If you're using proper 'facing' and attacking the way you should, their rear hand will always be the side of your forward arm. Your 'gate' will be covered. "Active/passive"



"Truly a TWC fighters way of thinking."

- That's fine, I respect your way. To me I see boxing concepts



"It can be more ecomical to go around an object than through it."

- yes and no, largely depends on distance. If you're already in range and decide to go outside, you're making yourself lose out timing wise and are vulnerable. Once again, a boxing concept. Boxers don't lose out timing wise though because they dip and twist to make it work. WC doesn't do that.



"Fighting is fighting. To be good at it you have to do it. Once you do it you know what works for you and what doesn't."

- agree, but WC is a set of principles. I don't have a problem with people mixing it. But for myself I try to adhere to them and thus far has not let me down. You have to truly commit once you decide to fight. All these add on concepts are the result of non life or death situations IMO. Either sport fighting like beimo, match fighting or just messing around. How can I one up the other guy thinking...

....Real fights don't happen that way when someone is intent on doing you bodily harm..... that is why WC is designed at the range it is, there is no distancing when you're being attacked....

[duende]

Certainly, you can use Wing Chun in any manner you see fit to neutralize a situation, but I consider the fundamental tenet of applying Wing Chun correctly is to, "get the hell out of the way," of strikes as my instructor was so fond of saying. This implies footwork and movement. A lot of smaller guys will see eye to eye with me on this point. Standing and banging just wont work.

engagement is not the same as standing and banging. However it's not running away and giving up space either! ;)

[HumbleWCGuy]

engagement is not the same as standing and banging. However it's not running away and giving up space either! ;)

Utilizing footwork and movement as your primary defense isn't running away either, it's just how you fully funtionalize your Wing Chun. Phil posted this video as a response to the thread, "Why the pak sau doesn't work." Notice how the the pak only realizes it's full potential once movement is added.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4
This is Wing Chun full-speed without movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4l5CmDEqg4
No one has the advantage on the inside.

However, as a matter of pure self-defense, If I were to just give up space and run away, I will have defended myself.

[k gledhill]

Utilizing footwork and movement as your primary defense isn't running away either, it's just how you fully funtionalize your Wing Chun. Phil posted this video as a response to the thread, "Why the pak sau doesn't work." Notice how the the pak only realizes it's full potential once movement is added.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4
This is Wing Chun full-speed without movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4l5CmDEqg4
No one has the advantage on the inside.

However, as a matter of pure self-defense, If I were to just give up space and run away, I will have defended myself.

TWC flanks in a similar idea to my thinking, just doing it differently.
the second clip , the guy being attacked could at anytime adopt angling , rather than going backwards in a line. This 'moving back' we treat with a lot of attention, because it can allow the guy going back to angle just off the leading attacking arm while still facing with a parry that can shut off the attackers entry. While the attacker tries to reface the guy who was being attacked... This simple move can be repeated easily . Its not turning and pivoting in front of guy with momentum etc...its going backwards and angling. It can be added to any shifting from that point , including forward attacking making the attacker flanked and trying to recover a position he may not get back...
If you adopt this angling back to 5 or 7 o'clock you use the overzealous entry against the attacker. Like a bull to a cape, how good the matador is , measured by the angle he can stay close to the bull to kill it with a stab....too close and he cant generate force to drive the sword home to the heart and may fall backwards trying ...too far and the sword doesnt penetrate enough trying to lean forwards , so, much time is spent on a simple killing action, over and over and over . Making the act of killing the bull seem easy. So it becomes a game of how good is the attackers ability to reface a sudden shifting target that is also hitting back from an optimal position ...iow not just moving sideways .

[Phil Redmond]

Each arm has to know the proper structure in which it dominates space according to range and the relationship to the WC practioner.

This is not a one-dimensional equation.

For instance if you stretch your limbs too far you are easily moved off the centerline.

Or if you run away from the centerline (side step), you will never have a point of reference to begin with.
What is too far away? When you strike your arms have to be stretched. You need follow through for an effective strike. You can't kick a field goal or a tennis serve without follow through. If you side step you won't have a point of reference???? :confused:
The wooden dummy has many side steps. If a train is coming get off the tracks. People should spar more. Then the theories will be proven or disproved.

[duende]

Utilizing footwork and movement as your primary defense isn't running away either, it's just how you fully funtionalize your Wing Chun. Phil posted this video as a response to the thread, "Why the pak sau doesn't work." Notice how the the pak only realizes it's full potential once movement is added.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSRp3b7Ns4
This is Wing Chun full-speed without movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4l5CmDEqg4
No one has the advantage on the inside.

However, as a matter of pure self-defense, If I were to just give up space and run away, I will have defended myself.

Wrong.

If you require momentum to generate power in your WC, then you are missing the fundamental body mechanics involved.

Not to mention that it appears you lack the energy part of the equation in the WC Centerline principle.

[duende]

What is too far away? When you strike your arms have to be stretched. You need follow through for an effective strike. You can't kick a field goal or a tennis serve without follow through. If you side step you won't have a point of reference???? :confused:
The wooden dummy has many side steps. If a train is coming get off the tracks. People should spar more. Then the theories will be proven or disproved.

Wow... Where do I begin. :rolleyes:

When people spar more, against non-cooperative skilled opponents.. they will find that they are neither trains on tracks nor bulls easily deceived. And instead can actually trace energy and capitalize on gained space.

:)

[HumbleWCGuy]

Wow... Where do I begin. :rolleyes:

When people spar more, against non-cooperative skilled opponents.. they will find that they are neither trains on tracks nor bulls easily deceived. And instead can actually trace energy and capitalize on gained space.

:)

I am not sure how you can make a condescending comment like that after looking at my comment about Phil's videos and then make this comment.


Wrong.
If you require momentum to generate power in your WC, then you are missing the fundamental body mechanics involved.

Not to mention that it appears you lack the energy part of the equation in the WC Centerline principle.
Your first comment is essentially saying that Phil doesn't have structure because the pak's potential wasn't fully realized until he added movement.

It's hard to believe that someone who is heavily involved in legitimate sparring would suggest that movement is just something people do to make up for structural deficiencies or to create momentum.

What I am getting from you seems so off base that I am not even sure that this conversation is worth continuing. I am getting the sense that you are involved in one of the, "chi sao only," lineages which are junk in my opinion.

I have to ask? does your "sparring" entail being fed slow stiff techniques one at a time like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fisJ-Pg0wA&feature=related
Or semi slow slap fu like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGq16earzl8
Or clash and punch and hope for the best?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4l5CmDEqg4
Or Clash and punch and hope for the best?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4l5CmDEqg4
I can't imagine you doing much in real time.

[Graham H]

The wooden dummy has many side steps. If a train is coming get off the tracks. People should spar more. Then the theories will be proven or disproved.

In my method these side steps are not fighting applications. Because the dummy is fixed WE have to move around IT. It is the step back in that is important (cutting the way). There are many actions within the dummy form that are applied in certain way because the dummy cannot move. The cross over between understanding the dummy movemnts and then how they would work into chi sau is important. Without the correct thinking people will try to apply actions exactly as they are executed on the dummy and this is wrong. The dummy is primarily about developing the correct Ving Tsun "behaviour". It doesnt represent a human being!!!!!

I used to use this step out to the side as a fighting application in previous lineages.

I agree that "if a train is coming we must get off the tracks" so to speak but this idea is in Bil Jee because situations are not ideal.

GH

[HumbleWCGuy]

In my method these side steps are not fighting applications. Because the dummy is fixed WE have to move around IT. It is the step back in that is important (cutting the way). There are many actions within the dummy form that are applied in certain way because the dummy cannot move. The cross over between understanding the dummy movemnts and then how they would work into chi sau is important. Without the correct thinking people will try to apply actions exactly as they are executed on the dummy and this is wrong. The dummy is primarily about developing the correct Ving Tsun "behaviour". It doesnt represent a human being!!!!!

I used to use this step out to the side as a fighting application in previous lineages.

I agree that "if a train is coming we must get off the tracks" so to speak but this idea is in Bil Jee because situations are not ideal.

GH
If you are drilling in real time then you should be side stepping. If an opponent comes in deep on you, you won't step around. You will step to the side.

Making supposition about fighting applications based on the dummy is bad business.

[Graham H]

If you are drilling in real time then you should be side stepping. If an opponent comes in deep on you, you won't step around. You will step to the side.

Making supposition about fighting applications based on the dummy is bad business.

If I am drilling in real time then I won't be side stepping unless certain things are happening but should I use this side step it is only to encourage the opponent to cross himself with his next punch then you cut the opponents way by attacking his attack......... easily shown but these ideas have not been exposed to 98% of the posters on this forum.

You can clearly see it broken down in this clip.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA3Wc5UodVc&feature=related

GH

[k gledhill]

If you are drilling in real time then you should be side stepping. If an opponent comes in deep on you, you won't step around. You will step to the side.

Making supposition about fighting applications based on the dummy is bad business.


You cant make as much force moving sideways,away from the incoming target as it comes.
The difference in the clip GH posted shows that by facing and staying in the same striking distances as someone moves into us [seung ma toi ma], allows us to plant the rear foot to drive force into a strike or parry. If the person tries to face us we can move and angle again to their flank or hit them if available as they turn to face us..pak and punch.
We drill this situation in chi-sao stepping angling drills , that involving compliant role playing ,for later non compliant fighting, attacker and counter, each partner being either...so if I attack you and you apply this move I am not the idiot bull charging blindly past the positions I need to reface...
When we spar we use this intuitive angling and movement to distances we can strike or make counters from...in real time. Tactical movement.

[duende]

I am not sure how you can make a condescending comment like that after looking at my comment about Phil's videos and then make this comment.


Your first comment is essentially saying that Phil doesn't have structure because the pak's potential wasn't fully realized until he added movement.

It's hard to believe that someone who is heavily involved in legitimate sparring would suggest that movement is just something people do to make up for structural deficiencies or to create momentum.

What I am getting from you seems so off base that I am not even sure that this conversation is worth continuing. I am getting the sense that you are involved in one of the, "chi sao only," lineages which are junk in my opinion.

I have to ask? does your "sparring" entail being fed slow stiff techniques one at a time like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fisJ-Pg0wA&feature=related
Or semi slow slap fu like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGq16earzl8
Or clash and punch and hope for the best?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4l5CmDEqg4
Or Clash and punch and hope for the best?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4l5CmDEqg4
I can't imagine you doing much in real time.

Dude..

Admittedly, I didn't watch every video Phil posted here... (and I don't have time to watch what you just posted) But the two videos I did watch, certainly did not show anything that required side-stepping IMO.

Footwork is used as part of the WC method... NOT because techniques call for it.

Of course we side step, flank, redirect, and absorb with our footwork. But when we do it, it is because our system calls for it based on energy, leverage and range.


Not because it's inherent to the pak sau technique itself! And certainly not because it is required to generate power.

Fwiw... You can think I'm being condescending, but I'm not. At some point these truths need to be understood. No matter how difficult to swallow.

If the only way you know how to stop an oncoming train is by side-stepping.. Then you need to rethink some of the tools in WC, because you are definitely missing something.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Dude..

Admittedly, I didn't watch every video Phil posted here... (and I don't have time to watch what you just posted) But the two videos I did watch, certainly did not show anything that required side-stepping IMO.

Footwork is used as part of the WC method... NOT because techniques call for it.

Of course we side step, flank, redirect, and absorb with our footwork. But when we do it, it is because our system calls for it based on energy, leverage and range.

Stand still and see that you won't last five seconds with the core wing chun blocks. You will get your clock cleaned every which way. Since WC primarily employs parries, movement is a necessary part of it because the block/parries cannot absorb the force.



Not because it's inherent to the pak sau technique itself! And certainly not because it is required to generate power.



This is a complete and utter lack of understanding of what movement is for. The very fact that you think Phil or I are talking about using movement generate power for a block means that you have a long way to go. It's the kind of thing that you would only say if you don't know what you are talking about at all.

[duende]

Stand still and see that you won't last five seconds with the core wing chun blocks. You will get your clock cleaned every which way. Since WC primarily employs parries, movement is a necessary part of it because the block/parries cannot absorb the force.

You are truly lost. Block? Parry? This is not WC. In WC our body mechanic incorporate tools that are both blocks and strikes at the same time. Due to the way they dominate space, and use advantageous lines of attach.

Talking with you is like arguing with a 4 year old. Standing still? Are you that naive?



This is a complete and utter lack of understanding of what movement is for. The very fact that you think Phil or I are talking about using movement generate power for a block means that you have a long way to go. It's the kind of thing that you would only say if you don't know what you are talking about at all.

I am only addressing what you brought up in your posts. If you want to change your tune now, that is fine. But don't fault me for your poor argument.

I've seen others waste time talking with you... And will learn from their mistakes and leave you be.

So long. :)

[HumbleWCGuy]

You are truly lost. Block? Parry? This is not WC. In WC our body mechanic incorporate tools that are both blocks and strikes at the same time. Due to the way they dominate space, and use advantageous lines of attach.

Talking with you is like arguing with a 4 year old. Standing still? Are you that naive?



I am only addressing what you brought up in your posts. If you want to change your tune now, that is fine. But don't fault me for your poor argument.

I've seen others waste time talking with you... And will learn from their mistakes and leave you be.

So long. :)

I think that I am gong to leave it where phil did. Until you start doing some hard sparring, you will never know.

[WC1277]

HumbleWCguy not so humble........ :rolleyes:

[Phil Redmond]

Wow... Where do I begin. :rolleyes:

When people spar more, against non-cooperative skilled opponents.. they will find that they are neither trains on tracks nor bulls easily deceived. And instead can actually trace energy and capitalize on gained space.

:)
Please post a clip of you doing just that. I'd love to see it. :)

[Phil Redmond]

In my method these side steps are not fighting applications. Because the dummy is fixed WE have to move around IT. It is the step back in that is important (cutting the way). There are many actions within the dummy form that are applied in certain way because the dummy cannot move. The cross over between understanding the dummy movemnts and then how they would work into chi sau is important. Without the correct thinking people will try to apply actions exactly as they are executed on the dummy and this is wrong. The dummy is primarily about developing the correct Ving Tsun "behaviour". It doesnt represent a human being!!!!!

I used to use this step out to the side as a fighting application in previous lineages.

I agree that "if a train is coming we must get off the tracks" so to speak but this idea is in Bil Jee because situations are not ideal.

GH
So are you saying that you can plow through any opponent regardless of relative size and that there is no need to side step of step back? If so then smaller people are in real trouble using WC against a MUCH larger opponent. BTW, I have a DVD by Sifu Chan Chee Man who was a CLF fighter who fought William Cheung twice and lost. He then asked Wm. Cheung to take him to his Sifu (Yip Man). Anyway is this DVD Sifu Chan demonstrates how YIP MAN taught him to fight on the outside (blindside) if the opponent was too fast or strong. So those who claim to strictly follow what YM taught well he taught to also fight from the side as well as down the middle. I was uploaded a clip form that DVD to show people that William Cheung didn't make up fighting from the blindside but learned it from YM. I was asked by the owners of the DVD to take it down due to copyright so I did.

[k gledhill]

So are you saying that you can plow through any opponent regardless of relative size and that there is no need to side step of step back? If so then smaller people are in real trouble using WC against a MUCH larger opponent. BTW, I have a DVD by Sifu Chan Chee Man who was a CLF fighter who fought William Cheung twice and lost. He then asked Wm. Cheung to take him to his Sifu (Yip Man). Anyway is this DVD Sifu Chan demonstrates how YIP MAN taught him to fight on the outside (blindside) if the opponent was too fast or strong. So those who claim to strictly follow what YM taught well he taught to also fight from the side as well as down the middle. I was uploaded a clip form that DVD to show people that William Cheung didn't make up fighting from the blindside but learned it from YM. I was asked by the owners of the DVD to take it down due to copyright so I did.

We can use any footwork, either knife or barehand versions.
I think the step to side in dummy was in question.
Hey btw have to do nj family sat. But if you 're around in the week mornings let me know.
K

[altbus1]

So are you saying that you can plow through any opponent regardless of relative size and that there is no need to side step of step back? If so then smaller people are in real trouble using WC against a MUCH larger opponent. BTW, I have a DVD by Sifu Chan Chee Man who was a CLF fighter who fought William Cheung twice and lost. He then asked Wm. Cheung to take him to his Sifu (Yip Man). Anyway is this DVD Sifu Chan demonstrates how YIP MAN taught him to fight on the outside (blindside) if the opponent was too fast or strong. So those who claim to strictly follow what YM taught well he taught to also fight from the side as well as down the middle. I was uploaded a clip form that DVD to show people that William Cheung didn't make up fighting from the blindside but learned it from YM. I was asked by the owners of the DVD to take it down due to copyright so I did.
To bad I would have loved to see it.

[CFT]

I don't remember the details but I saw it before it was taken down. Sifu Chan distinctly says that he was shown how to "take one side of the body" (lor yat been san).

On a more general point, there may be more than one way to do that: stepping, turning your opponent, or allowing your opponent to turn himself.

[Vajramusti]

I don't remember the details but I saw it before it was taken down. Sifu Chan distinctly says that he was shown how to "take one side of the body" (lor yat been san).

On a more general point, there may be more than one way to do that: stepping, turning your opponent, or allowing your opponent to turn himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are kinds of footwork possible yo get to the side if you want to or need to do so,--
not necesarily the TWC way.Phil does a good job- his way.

Distance and control are important variables when going to the side.

joy

[duende]

Please post a clip of you doing just that. I'd love to see it. :)

I'm going to just let this one go. If you feel that you've posted clips of yourself sparring against non-cooperative fighters Phil than more power to you.

We can just agree to disagree. Energy and technique are two different things. Stepping back or to the side is for a reason. Not because it's part of a technique.

Otherwise, why would their be so many variations of Pak Sau?? To deal with different kinds of energy with different angles of interception/redirection.

[HumbleWCGuy]

We can just agree to disagree. Energy and technique are two different things. Stepping back or to the side is for a reason. Not because it's part of a technique.

That reason:



Footwork is used as part of the WC method... NOT because techniques call for it.


Translation: You were shown some things and you aren't clear about what the significance of them are.

[Phil Redmond]

I'm going to just let this one go. If you feel that you've posted clips of yourself sparring against non-cooperative fighters Phil than more power to you.

We can just agree to disagree. Energy and technique are two different things. Stepping back or to the side is for a reason. Not because it's part of a technique.

Otherwise, why would their be so many variations of Pak Sau?? To deal with different kinds of energy with different angles of interception/redirection.
Though I have competed you got me there since I have no clip of me sparring. So instead show me a clip of someone in your lineage competing in the manner you described.

[Phil Redmond]

I don't remember the details but I saw it before it was taken down. Sifu Chan distinctly says that he was shown how to "take one side of the body" (lor yat been san). . . . . Yes, that's exactly what he said. Thank for reminding me of the Cantonese term for what he was taught by Yip (Ip) Man.

[Phil Redmond]

To bad I would have loved to see it.
PM me your email addy.

[duende]

That reason:


Translation: You were shown some things and you aren't clear about what the significance of them are.

You think running away, looping, and pro-longing the attack is significant? Awesome.. glad you are so clear and good luck with that.


On the contrary, in WC we intercept and engage. This is what dictates the bridge energy and necessity of footwork. Not the technique!

It's like taking medicine. Some people like to put it off because it's tastes bad. Some people just knuckle down and swallow the pill whole because they know putting it off will only make things worse.

Nice chatting with you all. Signing off on this thread.

[Robinhood]

I don't know why their is so much debate over pak-sau.

There are many stages of pak-sau, the original video is a first stage learning pak-sau. It is not a sparring pak-sau, as the student advance the pak-sau will change and be used for the right reason in the right situation for the desired result, it is best used not as a karate block, or power move.

I really never see it used as it should in most of these videos, because most of these videos are low level WC trying to force results using speed and power rather than sensitivity and timing.

If you are trying to apply your pak-sau like the one in the video, you are still a beginner and have not learned much, as you improve your application of all techniques will change. The techniques should not look like the first stage of learning , this is training setup used as a drill only for development of many different things if done properly.

[k gledhill]

I don't remember the details but I saw it before it was taken down. Sifu Chan distinctly says that he was shown how to "take one side of the body" (lor yat been san).

On a more general point, there may be more than one way to do that: stepping, turning your opponent, or allowing your opponent to turn himself.

"Take one side" is prevalent throughout the system, bare handed or with weapons.

We can take advantage of this passively by allowing energy to overturn itself and be opportunists, or to aggressively make the turn using levers and axis lines.

There are mistakes beginners make in VT training that allows facing and entry by their action of trying to attack as they move away from the center of the opponent or training partner. If this happens we enter to the space given in the same timing. IOW I chase your center at the same time you chase mine, BUT you move away for no reason...I come in for a reason. If we meet center to center then the VT kicks in as usual. If you over cross the center it is also offering a side by allowing motion across the line, something many vt systems don't allow becasuse they 'BLOCK' actually preventing a good outcome by letting the opponents actions show you the next ....

So CK motion becomes critical to shifting the horse in a precise manner in explosive force genration but not over turning, over shifting before a guy with better skills in the same thing...the sharper the line the easier it cuts you...

Centerline fighting as VT is, uses angling of the 'facing line' coupled with mobility to maintain tactical facing before entry or out of contact and throughout.
Same applies after engaging the opponent in a flowing attacking concept, that allows the striking arm to attack da sao jik siu sao , hard force or be displaced soft force to attain the following angles to attack....

We stay with the entry and then maintain distances to strike with a leading arm cycling through the actions to the leading arm, regardless of force lines we navigate through them instantly with contact reflexes and intuitive actions from chi-sao.

The redundancy of chi-sao drills becomes apparent when one sees that we need to fight with a lead "da sao juik siu sao" man sao and a rear wu sao new attacking/guarding hand . Allowing the constant striking in from the wu to become the new attack, arms constantly going forwards attacking coupled with a body shifting angling laterally, side and back, sideways, forwards like a clock face.

[duende]

There are mistakes beginners make in VT training that allows facing and entry by their action of trying to attack as they move away from the center of the opponent or training partner. If this happens we enter to the space given in the same timing. IOW I chase your center at the same time you chase mine, BUT you move away for no reason...I come in for a reason. If we meet center to center then the VT kicks in as usual. If you over cross the center it is also offering a side by allowing motion across the line, something many vt systems don't allow becasuse they 'BLOCK' actually preventing a good outcome by letting the opponents actions show you the next ....

So CK motion becomes critical to shifting the horse in a precise manner in explosive force genration but not over turning, over shifting before a guy with better skills in the same thing...the sharper the line the easier it cuts you...

Centerline fighting as VT is, uses angling of the 'facing line' coupled with mobility to maintain tactical facing before entry or out of contact and throughout.
Same applies after engaging the opponent in a flowing attacking concept, that allows the striking arm to attack da sao jik siu sao , hard force or be displaced soft force to attain the following angles to attack....


Nice post Kev!

See... Even we agree sometimes. ;).

What you've described hear can sometimes grow into "bad habits" or pre-meditated energy reactions. At that point it's no different than any other technique based system.

Back to lurk mode....

[k gledhill]

PM me your email addy.

me too please...

[k gledhill]

Nice post Kev!

See... Even we agree sometimes. ;).

What you've described hear can sometimes grow into "bad habits" or pre-meditated energy reactions. At that point it's no different than any other technique based system.

Back to lurk mode....

Bad habits are why we keep a mutual development going in chi-sao instead of fighting each other in a DRILL , with sticking arms etc....easy to perpetuate bad habits as 'the way of sticking and chasing arms'. if you add body motion along with hand chasing your even worse off.

[Phil Redmond]

me too please...
I need your email addy.

[Phil Redmond]

So hopefully the idea that William Cheung made up the concept of fighting on the blindside (lo yat bin san), and that ALL WC people should fight down the middle regardless of the relative size of your opponent will be changed after hearing what Yip Man taught to Sifu Chan Chee Man. But then again the nature of our WC/VT/WT family is to argue anyway so I guess I'm hoping for too much......:rolleyes:

[Phil Redmond]

There is a lot more good stuff on this DVD. I love the part where Sifu Chan who was a Choy Lee Fat fighter, challenged William Cheung. He lost the first time in front of other people. He asked Cheung later to fight him again with no one around. He lost that fight. He decided to ask Cheung to take him to Yip Man. You can buy the whole DVD here:
http://www.everythingwingchun.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=chan+chee+man&x=9&y=13

[duende]

So hopefully the idea that William Cheung made up the concept of fighting on the blindside (lo yat bin san), and that ALL WC people should fight down the middle regardless of the relative size of your opponent will be changed after hearing what Yip Man taught to Sifu Chan Chee Man. But then again the nature of our WC/VT/WT family is to argue anyway so I guess I'm hoping for too much......:rolleyes:

WC has methods for operating on the inside or outside line. "Blind side" is just an adopted western term along with "flanking" and so fourth. Though I do give props up GM Cheung for his choice in western terms.

Some people make big deals out of nothing in what is only silly attempts to discredit others.

The real problem is WC dogmatism, and when it's practioners can only operate on one line and not the other.

[Phil Redmond]

WC has methods for operating on the inside or outside line. "Blind side" is just an adopted western term along with "flanking" and so fourth.

Some people make a big deals out of nothing.

The real problem is WC dogmatism, and when it's practioners can only operate on one line and not the other.
Agreed....:)

[k gledhill]

Saw the clip , thanks ! yes this is what WSL does too.

[k gledhill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2iKREiPLpk

Clip with CCM and Jose Ortiz, I met Jose and we did some chi-sao in Barcelona years back while he was studying WSL lineage , not sure who under ? Nino Bernardo ?. I was with, training and assisting, V Kan then, so couldnt really pick brains about ideas . J Ortiz is a nice guy though friendly students.

[Phil Redmond]

Saw the clip , thanks ! yes this is what WSL does too.
Cool, I still say that none of us has the holy grail to WC/VT/WT/YC. We should strive to do the best we can with what we've learned.

[k gledhill]

Cool, I still say that none of us has the holy grail to WC/VT/WT/YC. We should strive to do the best we can with what we've learned.

Personally , I think the chalice from the palace holds the brew that is true...but wait I hear you cry ! ... the flagon with the dragon holds the pellet with the poison !... no the vessel with the pestle holds the brew that is true :D

[Phil Redmond]

Personally , I think the chalice from the palace holds the brew that is true...but wait I hear you cry ! ... the flagon with the dragon holds the pellet with the poison !... no the vessel with the pestle holds the brew that is true :D
No you didn't??? Now I have to buy that movie. It's a classic....

[Graham H]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2iKREiPLpk

Clip with CCM and Jose Ortiz, I met Jose and we did some chi-sao in Barcelona years back while he was studying WSL lineage , not sure who under ? Nino Bernardo ?. I was with, training and assisting, V Kan then, so couldnt really pick brains about ideas . J Ortiz is a nice guy though friendly students.

I assisted Clive Potter at a seminar at Jose Ortiz's school in Barcelona many moons ago. Jose is a nice guy but the Ving Tsun was a mixture of many things. I think he was trying out V.Kan stuff when I went. Got pretty drunk though I remember that! LOL

GH

[lance]

What do you guys think? Why doesn't the pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0OMkvvz3k&feature=channel_video_title

Actually the guy in white needs to sidestep to the left in order for his left pak sau ,
to work against his partners right punch . To me pak sau was made to work against a right or left punch comming straight at you as seen in the video . The punch comes in so fast that you need to sidestep either to the right or left , depending on if it ' s a right or left punch being thrown at you . In this the guy in the white was standing in a neutral stance which he can only stop the punch with a trapping technique . But if he only would sidestep the oncomming punch then the pak sau would ' ve work , so in WC the footwork and the positioning of the entire body would work against certain technique . Our eyes work like a radar , about to respond to the opponents attack .

But it takes practice and training to make the techniques work good , and any kind of technique regardless of what martial arts it came from would always be a center of argument or debate .

[lance]

What do you guys think? Why doesn't the pak sau work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0OMkvvz3k&feature=channel_video_title

Actually the guy in white needs to sidestep to the left in order for his left pak sau ,
to work against his partners right punch . To me pak sau was made to work against a right or left punch comming straight at you as seen in the video . The punch comes in so fast that you need to sidestep either to the right or left , depending on if it ' s a right or left punch being thrown at you . In this the guy in the white was standing in a neutral stance which he can only stop the punch with a trapping technique . But if he only would sidestep the oncomming punch then the pak sau would ' ve work , so in WC the footwork and the positioning of the entire body would work against certain technique . Our eyes work like a radar , about to respond to the opponents attack .

But it takes practice and training to make the techniques work good , and any kind of technique regardless of what martial arts it came from would always be a center of argument or debate .

[IRONMONK]

pretty hard to defend yourself against a punch from close range unless you have already bridged with opponent

[Graham H]

unless you have already bridged with opponent

Bridged? Meaning what?

[IRONMONK]

Bridged? Meaning what?

My arm in contact with opponents arm

[Graham H]

My arm in contact with opponents arm

So you think in the wildness of a fight with arms and legs flaining everywhere that you will have time to make any prolonged contact with somebodies forearm do you?

The big problem with Wing Chun................................

GH

[WC1277]

So you think in the wildness of a fight with arms and legs flaining everywhere that you will have time to make any prolonged contact with somebodies forearm do you?

The big problem with Wing Chun................................

GH

I hate to admit it but i agree with this statement. Pak sau is best used as an offensive technique. It is also useful for switching or half beat timing, but as a "block" in a real fight it's highly unrealistic. Which makes since anyways considering there are really no true blocks in WC. Only attacks..... I was really hoping this guy did a follow up video but I guess it's not coming....

[duende]

You guys aren't understanding what he's saying.

There are many different ranges in fighting. Not simply striking range... Wild punches or not. For example clinch range.

Also timing is alive, variable and dependent upon space. What you may consider necessary for bridging timewise... and what he may consider necessary are most likely two different things in terms of both strategy and application.

While I can't speak for him, I do think you two are writing him off rather quickly.

[IRONMONK]

So you think in the wildness of a fight with arms and legs flaining everywhere that you will have time to make any prolonged contact with somebodies forearm do you?

The big problem with Wing Chun................................

GH

Duende is correct-it depends on range and situation

ideally i would be attacking and offlining when opponent comes into range

[jmd161]

My 1st reaction even before he threw the 1st "testing"
It reminds me of some a-holes who kinda sneak up on you at a party, get REALLY CLOSE to you and say..."Oh you know Martial arts huh?" "Well what you would do if I did this...?"



My friends love to tell people I do MA and I hate when people do this crap! I've gotten to the point I just walk away... If they throw something i usually block it but do so in a way that makes them look very foolish for trying!:D

[Yoshiyahu]

The Pak Sau can be modified to utilize as a block or to intercept a punch.

One simply has to change the force and speed of the Pak to make it able to use against certain punches. For instance you wouldnt do a inside tan da against a hook would you.

Doing a Tan Da inside the person gates or doors is utilize for straight swing arms like choy li fut or hung gar. Not boxing. Against a boxer a tan da from the outside or flank is more feasible.


The Pak Sau and the way you use always depends on the range of your opponent and your foot work.

For instance against a jab. A fast pak sau while back stepping is use to not just intercept your opponent but time him for change to bridge, trap and strike simultaneously.

The Pak Sau is good for timing an opponent.

Pak Da in its in fullest is most useful of course for an entry technique when you attack. That is if unless your Pak Da is rigid and lacks fluity like guy is demostrating on the video!

[Fa Xing]

JKD pak sao works just fine, trust me. :cool:

[Yoshiyahu]

Sure you can block with Pak Sau....


Your Pak Sau has to be fluid and flowing not rigid and weak.

for instance I throw several right and left crosses. You back pedal with your horse while pak,pak,pak,pak. Interchangeable with both hands. Or you Pak Tan continously to intercept the punch while timeing me for the jut da or lop da. Pak is good for intercepting a punch. In Wing Chun we don't merely block a punch and leave it there. We intercept it and turn the force away from our center line or turn it down...Force is received by WC hand, Then it is dispersed or turned off by that hand. Huen Sau and Tan Sau are but a few techiques for dispersing force.



But Pak Sau does work both offensively and defensively...

You need to use it while sparring to figure out how to use it though. Each technique needs to be tweaked according to the situtation.

If ne one says Pak Sau doesnt work. Maybe they are a chi sau master who never puts on the gloves and go at it.