Wing Chun - Why doesn't Pak sau work?

[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????
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????
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.

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.

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...eature=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=FA3Wc...eature=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...eature=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........

[Phil Redmond]

Wow... Where do I begin.

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.