Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: St.louis Kung Fu Stan does Yip Man SLT

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO USA
    Posts
    5,316
    Quote Originally Posted by LSWCTN1 View Post
    dont worry, i was just being fascetious

    but incidentally, maybe my explanation is incorrect but i agree with you and Spencer...

    can i ask; how do you perform this with the firsk snt pak, to the shoulder.

    IME working against a 50/50 weighted boxers, for example would be a parry and taking them to overextend

    although you said its an attack, i believe this is just a by product of tying them up with the pak, and isnt necessarily the intention...
    You are thinking of the pak sao as a parry (he throws a punch and you bat it away, like cuffing in boxing) -- it's not. This is not WCK's method.

    The movement you describe (in the first section of the SNT) is not really a pak sao (although many mislabel it since it has the "shape" of a pak sao): it is a "supporting palm" and is generally used after you are already in contact.

    To give you an example, your opponent has attached to you with a neck grabbing hand with his right hand. You want to get your left arm inside to regain control but his elbow is (correctly) down and in so that you have no room. You use this movement by quickly pushing his elbow "outward" with your right hand as you thread in your left arm (tan sao).

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO USA
    Posts
    5,316
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneTiger108 View Post
    This is getting frustrating as I have to agree with T AGAIN!

    I will say though, that this explanation of paksau is an 'ultimate', or the 'ideal' way to use it as an attack. BUT that isn't to say it can not be a defense, or a reaction to an attack as long as it's used to regain the control and not simply as a deflection.
    When I said "attack" I was referring that your intention/objective when performing it is to destroy the opponent's structure -- this of course also acts as defense -- not to only stop him from hitting you or to "open" lines.

    T - If you use paksau in the way you describe, do you end up 'following' through (staying in contact) to apply pressure to their structure??
    The kuit tells us, Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu - If there is no bridge, erect one. The pak sao is to "erect" a bridge. Once I have a bridge, I use the bridge to destroy his structure. (If I am very good, I can dap, jeet and chum in "one" action). Precisely how I do that will depend on what my opponent gives me (the contact tells me how to break his structure). For example, if when I perform a pak sao and I feel him resist the pressure, I may change to jut sao to break his structure that way.

  3. #48

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
    He seems to have changed the name of what he used to call the YKS SLT to the Yip Man SLT (btw, YM does a Siu Nim Tao -- Yip changed the name of the first form) -- but regardless of what he calls them, they are simply terrible.
    So right that you are Mr. T, the demos are worst then terrible, they are shameful! It's such disrespect and disgrace to himself and lineage, possibly had learn from an unqualified teacher is no excuse, even some of the bad youtube demos are better.

    If I was dead ... I would be turning over in my grave.

    Stan my man, this forum is the wrong place to look for warm fuzzies, it is well known for kicking your arse when you are down or other wise, peace.

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
    You are thinking of the pak sao as a parry (he throws a punch and you bat it away, like cuffing in boxing) -- it's not. This is not WCK's method.

    The movement you describe (in the first section of the SNT) is not really a pak sao (although many mislabel it since it has the "shape" of a pak sao): it is a "supporting palm" and is generally used after you are already in contact.

    To give you an example, your opponent has attached to you with a neck grabbing hand with his right hand. You want to get your left arm inside to regain control but his elbow is (correctly) down and in so that you have no room. You use this movement by quickly pushing his elbow "outward" with your right hand as you thread in your left arm (tan sao).
    No. you're wrong. Even more wrong than stan.

    The names are VERBS, not nouns. Fromt he position you describe, your choice of action uses far more movement than needed, and wont affect the man grabbing you enough. Better to Jum the elbow and use his attachment as a fulcrum.
    The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
    -sun tzu

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by shawchemical View Post
    No. you're wrong. Even more wrong than stan.

    The names are VERBS, not nouns. Fromt he position you describe, your choice of action uses far more movement than needed, and wont affect the man grabbing you enough. Better to Jum the elbow and use his attachment as a fulcrum.
    Have to agree with Shawn on this one. We actually use a sinking high gan sau to achieve the very same thing. This does often lead into a chum sau too btw.

    We only pack sau to the side against parallel arms to extend an opponent's bridge anf open up a controlled flank on that same parallel side.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by duende View Post
    Have to agree with Shawn on this one. We actually use a sinking high gan sau to achieve the very same thing. This does often lead into a chum sau too btw.

    We only pack sau to the side against parallel arms to extend an opponent's bridge anf open up a controlled flank on that same parallel side.
    sounds? like the drill i described
    When it does happen, it's fast and hard and over quick. Either I'm standing or he's standing. That's Real.
    nospam


    You type because you have fingers. Not because you have logic.
    Phil Redmond

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO USA
    Posts
    5,316
    Quote Originally Posted by shawchemical View Post
    No. you're wrong. Even more wrong than stan.

    The names are VERBS, not nouns. Fromt he position you describe, your choice of action uses far more movement than needed, and wont affect the man grabbing you enough. Better to Jum the elbow and use his attachment as a fulcrum.
    Yes, I know they are verbs (as I have previously pointed out many times, thank you). I am using them as actions.

    And its funny that you think my example uses "too much movement" and "won't effect the man grabbing you" -- since this is something that muay thai and wrestlers also both do all the time in fighting, is high percentage, and has proven to work time and time again. When someone has a superior position and control over you, you need to first break that control, before trying to "effect the man grabbing you."

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by LSWCTN1 View Post
    sounds? like the drill i described
    Could very well be.. I'm a bit late to the discussion, and need to go back and read the earlier posts.

    What I'm referring to is basically the opening of the third section in the wooden dummy form.

    Best

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    26
    who is Stans Sifu?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •