Thoughts on Pak Sau

[mun hung]

Yes, I run a small HFY club here in Tempe/Mesa, as well as help out at the AZ Kwoon on occasion. My first HFY sifu was Richard Loewenhagen and my current HFY sifu is GM Garrett Gee, why do you ask?

I'll pm you.

[mun hung]

Oh, sorry for introducing actual fighting...... ill leave you to your movie reviews

C'mon now. They were great boxers. They weren't martial artists. Are we talking martial arts, boxing, wrestling, brawli or what? Sugar Ray didn't study Wing Chun. Why is he even in this discussion?

If you don't think this thread is worth your time - move on. Go start a best alltime boxerthread. Don't discredit a martial artist without any kind of proof. That's like saying Musashi was a poor swordsman because there was no video capture of him fighting with anyone worthy or that he was more of a writer than a swordsman.

This is where you should be:

www.boxingforums.com

[Yoshiyahu]

This thread is derailed, DEAD, destroyed and disengrating to nothingness with every new post!!!


wow...At the end of the day...Strickly hand techniques...Bruce Lee borrowed or use alot of WC techinques with HIS own art and also on the screen...You check out the movie rapid fire...The scene where Brandon Lee was doing Lop Sau against the balding chinese guy...you see alot WC techs there...Now of course in actual fighting...When you practice more than ONE art...You may or may not use all the principles and Theories of WC...but just because you omit one or two here and there doesn't mean your not doing WC...At the end of the day its about fighting...NOT what lineage or principles you apply....If you win the Fight...then your WC is good. If you loose the fight then your WC needs work!!!

Winners dictate the name of their ART!

[GlennR]

C'mon now. They were great boxers. They weren't martial artists. Are we talking martial arts, boxing, wrestling, brawli or what? Sugar Ray didn't study Wing Chun. Why is he even in this discussion?

Why werent they martial artists?

Is the guy at the boxing gym training 4 nights a week any different to a WC guy doing the same?
Or is WC more "scientific"??
Or because its of asian origin?

Whats judo then?

If you don't think this thread is worth your time - move on. Go start a best alltime boxerthread. Don't discredit a martial artist without any kind of proof. That's like saying Musashi was a poor swordsman because there was no video capture of him fighting with anyone worthy or that he was more of a writer than a swordsman.

I dont think the topic of this thread is really worth anyones time.
Its a totally useless drill/technique as portrayed in the scene.

But people gravitate towards it (should i say WC people) because it LOOKS good.

My reason for putting up the Sugar Ray clip was to say "heres someone that looks good AND is effective at the same time", i wasnt comparing styles at all. Id happily put up a WC guy doing the same but i cant find a clip of one.

So question for you, if youre a WC trainer, are you going to point your students towards that clip and say that is good WC and/or fighting technique?

This is where you should be:

[url]www.boxingforums.com[/url

And heres one for you .....

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/enter_the_dragon/

[mun hung]

D@mn, Yoshi's right! This thread is derailed! Thank you for bringing me to my senses. I apologize for contributing to it.

I just erased my entire response to Glenn, because it's just useless banter. Not worth the time debating. Unfortunately for me, this was probably one of the more interesting threads for me on the forum. Lol

Agree to disagree....

Cheers!

[JPinAZ]

This thread is derailed, DEAD, destroyed and disengrating to nothingness with every new post!!!

Pot meet kettle. This is very similar to the way most of your threads are viewed
Besides, it's a thread about a movie scene that has little to do with WC to begin with - how much on the tracks did you expect it to be?

You may or may not use all the principles and Theories of WC...but just because you omit one or two here and there doesn't mean your not doing WC...

You couldn't be more wrong. It's a wonder you studied WC for over 15 years and still say this nonsense. WC IS the principles/theories, not a toolbag of techniques. You take away the core concepts or ignore the foundational principles, you are no longer 'doing' WC - all you have is just some moves backed by attributes.

Just for laughs, please share with us what pinciples/theories of WC you feel could be taken out and still be considered doing WC?

At the end of the day its about fighting...NOT what lineage or principles you apply....If you win the Fight...then your WC is good. If you loose the fight then your WC needs work!!!

This makes no sense. If you ignored the principles of WC, you weren't doing WC PERIOD, regardless if you win or lose (you can do either without WC).

[anerlich]

Now cut out the Bruce Lee circle jerk and discuss something worthwhile.

Since you seem to like circle jerks....

The "I am Bruce Lee" documentary has quite a few MMA fighters and celebrated boxers doing the same thing as those complementing Bruce Lee are here.

LOL at you nobodies putting him down. Pathetic form.

[Bacon]

The "I am Bruce Lee" documentary has quite a few MMA fighters and celebrated boxers doing the same thing as those complementing Bruce Lee are here.

You'll notice they compliment him for his conceptual idea of total incorporation of anything that works regardless of style, for inspiring people through his movies, even for his physical fitness but not for being a fighter.

[GlennR]

D@mn, Yoshi's right! This thread is derailed! Thank you for bringing me to my senses. I apologize for contributing to it.

I just erased my entire response to Glenn, because it's just useless banter. Not worth the time debating. Unfortunately for me, this was probably one of the more interesting threads for me on the forum. Lol

Agree to disagree....

Cheers!

Whats there to apologise about??

The original post was "heres a clip..... what do you think of it?"

Everyone has given their opinion, people have disagreed and debate has ensued.

Personally, i kept my comments to the clip (Not BL) and seems that disagreeing means that the thread has been derailed in the opinion of some.

If you want to repost it as ..... "Heres a clip... only comment if you think it is awesome" then go for your life and i, for one, will keep my opinions to myself

[Vajramusti]

Yes Kimura was great and the original Sugar Ray was probably the best boxer ever...but that has little to do with the question asked at the beginning of the thread-on the scene from Enter the Dragon.

It's a movie scene and the photography and direction had the viewer in mind-it is not meant to be an instructional video.

Pak da, front kick into the groin from the ground and the side kick were good dramatized and suggestive movie representations of wing chun motions by Bruce Lee.

Different contexts and merits involved in the kimura and in boxing Why confuse the contexts.?

[Bacon]

Yes Kimura was great and the original Sugar Ray was probably the best boxer ever...but that has little to do with the question asked at the beginning of the thread-on the scene from Enter the Dragon.

My point with Kimura vs Kano was that, though Kano was an expert Judoka, I'd be far more afraid and more willing to listen to the man who fought tons of no holds barred challenge matches against very skilled opponents.

Different contexts and merits involved in the kimura and in boxing Why confuse the contexts.?

No difference. Kano may have been a trained Judoka but Kimura put his money where his mouth was. Bruce is the equivalent of Kano while there are plenty of Kimuras out there to learn from in action against trained, resisting opponents.

It's a movie scene and the photography and direction had the viewer in mind-it is not meant to be an instructional video.

Pak da, front kick into the groin from the ground and the side kick were good dramatized and suggestive movie representations of wing chun motions by Bruce Lee.

Hmmm... Dramatized moves from a man who wasn't a fighter. let's all look at how awesome it is and pat ourselves on the back for doing wing chun!

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Bacon;1200199]My point with Kimura vs Kano was that, though Kano was an expert Judoka, I'd be far more afraid and more willing to listen to the man who fought tons of no holds barred challenge matches against very skilled opponents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you.The thread was not about Kano versus Kimura.

[Bacon]

Good for you.The thread was not about Kano versus Kimura.

You're missing the moon for the finger. My point was that Bruce may have been a martial artist but he was not a fighter. There are plenty of actual fighters out there to take from rather than an actor in a movie

[Vajramusti]

You're missing the moon for the finger. My point was that Bruce may have been a martial artist but he was not a fighter. There are plenty of actual fighters out there to take from rather than an actor in a movie

-----------------------------------------------------------

We are not exactly communicating--or at least not well.

I am not :"taking" anything from the movie-I just enjoyed the movie.

I began wing chun because I met my sifu,became fascinated with the art and began to try out learning the art in a disciplined hands on way ..not from videos or movies or books or chat lists... and not because of Bruce Lee. But I think his movies got many people interested/started in martial arts and he deserves appreciation for that. And, he probably was a very good fighter-though he made his money in movies.

You know zilch about what I am missing or not missing.

So- just forget about it.

[anerlich]

My point was that Bruce may have been a martial artist but he was not a fighter.

GSP says he is a martial artist, rather than a fighter, too. SFW?

You'll notice they compliment him for his conceptual idea of total incorporation of anything that works regardless of style, for inspiring people through his movies, even for his physical fitness but not for being a fighter.

I think the consensus was closer to something like "whether or not he was a fighter with a record was irrelevant".

Sounds like you got the finger, too. Most armchair critics deserve it.