Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

[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.