St.louis Kung Fu Stan does Yip Man SLT

[Tom Kagan]

LSWCTN1: As I suspected, your description of your "basic chi sao drill" does not run counter to the Kuen Kuit. Whatever your reasoning as to why your "basic drill" would not align with essentially a "basic rule of thumb", it stems from a flawed premise.

[t_niehoff]

if my understanding is correct, then pak doesnt come to you opponents inside gate becaue if one hand is defending then the other should be attacking... thus making your arms crossed

What are you trying to accomplish (your objective, goal) when you perform a pak sao?

[Yoshiyahu]

Hey Yea Kung Fu Stan Pointed out to me that I had posted the wrong video up. I meant to post the Yip Man video up...

I got the right up now...anyone wants to see Stan doing Yip Man SLT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZT0V...eature=channel

sorry for posting the wrong video..I like his energy in this video!

also what did u guys think about the few applications!

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.

A) How the hell is that Yip Man ANYTHING

B) It's exactly the same form, actually exactly the same VIDEO, as the one posted earlier by Yoshiyahu claiming that it shows Yuen Kay San SLT.

C) How the hell is that Yuen Kay San ANYTHING

[LSWCTN1]

What are you trying to accomplish (your objective, goal) when you perform a pak sao?

in this drill its to open a gap after the opponent has made a mistake. But sometimes displacement, sometimes press, depends on the 'feeling'? i guess...

in essence; i always want to be able to hit, without being hit

[t_niehoff]

in this drill its to open a gap after the opponent has made a mistake. But sometimes displacement, sometimes press, depends on the 'feeling'? i guess...

in essence; i always want to be able to hit, without being hit

Thanks. That's what I thought.

[LSWCTN1]

Thanks. That's what I thought.

in line with your methods?

[t_niehoff]

in line with your methods?

No. Pak sao is a way of establishing a bridge (you can't "slap" something you are already in contact with), and ideally should join, cut-off an opponent's offense, and break his structure.

As such, pak sao doesn't bat or knock force away - like what Stan is doing.

[LSWCTN1]

No. Pak sao is a way of establishing a bridge (you can't "slap" something you are already in contact with), and ideally should join, cut-off an opponent's offense, and break his structure.

As such, pak sao doesn't bat or knock force away - like what Stan is doing.

sounds similar to me...

pak can be an 'oh sh!t' reaction when you have seen something late (from the initial attack, for example)

or it can be the press that i also mentioned. if done at the 45 degree (second one in most snt's) it will invariably be fooking with their structure and stealing it from them

i have shared correspondance with Robert, as i am interested in seeing his method first hand. the more i see (hear) of it the more similar it sounds

[t_niehoff]

sounds similar to me...

No, it's night and day.

pak can be an 'oh sh!t' reaction when you have seen something late (from the initial attack, for example)

or it can be the press that i also mentioned. if done at the 45 degree (second one in most snt's) it will invariably be fooking with their structure and stealing it from them

You seem to be thinking of pak sao as some "reaction" or defense -- it's not, It's not a block or a parry. It is an ATTACK.

Pak sao is a slapping hand that connects and drives through and into your opponent's center, breaking his structure and setting up control.

It has nothing to do with any 45 degree angle.

Is this how you train to do it? Because if not, then you won't be able to do it. Every time I perform a pak sao, my intent and objective is to destroy my opponent's structure -- nothing less.

i have shared correspondance with Robert, as i am interested in seeing his method first hand. the more i see (hear) of it the more similar it sounds

What Robert teaches is simply WCK.

[LSWCTN1]

What Robert teaches is simply WCK.

and not etiquette

[t_niehoff]

and not etiquette

Where was I impolite in our discussion here?

[LoneTiger108]

You seem to be thinking of pak sao as some "reaction" or defense -- it's not, It's not a block or a parry. It is an ATTACK.

Pak sao is a slapping hand that connects and drives through and into your opponent's center, breaking his structure and setting up control.

It has nothing to do with any 45 degree angle.

Is this how you train to do it? Because if not, then you won't be able to do it. Every time I perform a pak sao, my intent and objective is to destroy my opponent's structure -- nothing less.

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.

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??

[LSWCTN1]

Where was I impolite in our discussion here?

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...

[couch]

You seem to be thinking of pak sao as some "reaction" or defense -- it's not, It's not a block or a parry. It is an ATTACK.

Pak sao is a slapping hand that connects and drives through and into your opponent's center, breaking his structure and setting up control.

It has nothing to do with any 45 degree angle.

Is this how you train to do it? Because if not, then you won't be able to do it. Every time I perform a pak sao, my intent and objective is to destroy my opponent's structure -- nothing less.

Nice contribution. Good stuff, man.

[LoneTiger108]

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...

Personally, and don't quote me as representing the whole Lee Shing family on this one, the paksau you explain and where you're drawing that from in SLT is incorrect. That set (commonly saam bai fut?) is used to develop circling and encircling strengths - huen and wan. It's a common misunderstanding as far as I can see, but my SLT does tend to 'flow' much more than what I generally see out there. Circular AND straight lines instead of just straight lines and 45 degree angles!

As far as using paksau to deflect? I would say that as long as it hurts the guy and destabilizes his attack it is doing what it is designed to. This itself doesn't always need you to follow through and control. My opinion of course!