[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1259374]Nice cop out - you don’t know how I think, except maybe that I think it’s silly to block low line attacks with your hands like you advocate here.
I tried to give you the chance to explain, but it’s clear you aren’t interested in backing up or explaining anything you say here. Anyway, thanks for playing (or not).[/QUOTE]
No cop out, i just don’t like you.
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1259374]Nice cop out - you don’t know how I think, except maybe that I think it’s silly to block low line attacks with your hands like you advocate here.
I tried to give you the chance to explain, but it’s clear you aren’t interested in backing up or explaining anything you say here. Anyway, thanks for playing (or not).[/QUOTE]
Your air of haughtiness is funny…you gave me a chance …and I passed thanks.
Not sure it was in the “upper thigh”. I guess it depends on what kind of shape you’re in, but I don’t think a blind punch to the thigh would be that much of a bother. That’s a big muscle.
The opponent was said to have fallen to one knee, covered his face with one arm and punched in desperation. I’m thinking that would have likely landed on the hip/lower abdomen.
In such a case, close range and sudden, trying to block it with his leg would probably have just caused him to get knocked over. Gaang-sau would have taken care of it.
In any case, it was discussed with Yip Man who gave the advice of using gaang-sau for the situation, so it must have been reasonably applicable there instead of using the leg. Unless of course Yip Man’s judgement is not to be trusted.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1259413]Unless of course Yip Man’s judgement is not to be trusted.[/QUOTE]
This is kinda funny :), as on this forum some members from the WSL way of things have had a flexible attitude towards acccepting the words and actions of Yip Man, and the judgements he made. :roll eyes:
But regarding the ‘WSL/Yip Man low strike story’, the whole thing is a little strange, IMO. Why would WSL need to ask Yip Man this question.
WSL: “The Jum Sao didn’t work.”
YM: “So use Gan Sao.”
Isn’t it obvious?
If (as LFJ suggested) the circumstances were such that footwork/legwork was not appropriate, and Jum had failed because the strike was below the motion’s range, why would WSL need YM to tell him Gan is the solution? It’s not as though Gan Sao was a technique/motion that WSL had never seen before.
[QUOTE=BPWT.;1259417]It’s not as though Gan Sao was a technique/motion that WSL had never seen before.[/QUOTE]
Or it may have been. I think it was earlier in his learning of the system, before MYJ or BJ training.
[QUOTE=BPWT.;1259417]This is kinda funny :), as on this forum some members from the WSL way of things have had a flexible attitude towards acccepting the words and actions of Yip Man, and the judgements he made.[/QUOTE]
Those he was purported to have made, that is…
[QUOTE=LFJ;1259419]Those he was purported to have made, that is…[/QUOTE]
Well, if Yip Man gives an interview and says something… and then the interview is printed and Yip Man has no problem with it…
[QUOTE=LFJ;1259419]Or it may have been. I think it was earlier in his learning of the system, before MYJ or BJ training.[/QUOTE]
I would guess so; but still it is odd that he would need to be told the solution. Who knows (rhetorical question)
[QUOTE=BPWT.;1259421]…
I would guess so; but still it is odd that he would need to be told the solution. Who knows (rhetorical question)[/QUOTE]
The way I got this story was, during the post fight discussion with WSL, Ip Man explained that he had taught jum sao in SLT in place of the gaun sao, which he had originally been taught. In light of Wong’s experience he then decided to replace the original gaun sao in SLT.
In WSL SLT both the jum sao and the gaun sao are practiced.
Its all hearsay of course.
In our line, SNT opens with a double Tan, to double Gan motion, followed by Kwan Sao. So we have the Gan motion appearing very early.
Later in SNT, Leung Ting modified the section where other people use Gan - in that section, for us, it is Tan, Jum, Gwat.
[QUOTE=BPWT.;1259421]I would guess so; but still it is odd that he would need to be told the solution. Who knows (rhetorical question)[/QUOTE]
I always thought the discussion was originally over doubts about the failure of jam-sau rather than WSL being unable to think and having to ask for the solution to the situation. It just led to Yip Man reconsidering having both options in SNT so students learned it early on.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1259413]Not sure it was in the “upper thigh”. I guess it depends on what kind of shape you’re in, but I don’t think a blind punch to the thigh would be that much of a bother. That’s a big muscle.
The opponent was said to have fallen to one knee, covered his face with one arm and punched in desperation. I’m thinking that would have likely landed on the hip/lower abdomen.
In such a case, close range and sudden, trying to block it with his leg would probably have just caused him to get knocked over. Gaang-sau would have taken care of it.
In any case, it was discussed with Yip Man who gave the advice of using gaang-sau for the situation, so it must have been reasonably applicable there instead of using the leg. Unless of course Yip Man’s judgement is not to be trusted.[/QUOTE]
The elbow can’t pass below the transverse plane or pass across the centerline. WSL was not a tall guy either so the strike must have been lower than his elbow while he was in a fighting stance… Low ; ) maybe the guy was trying to punch his groin ?
We also have huen sao aka sickle hand used with lowering forearm to the transverse plane, another mid level vt strike, gaun is below the plane and only blocks.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1259429]Gaun sao was put into slt after he was hit in the upper thigh during a fight. [/QUOTE] sounds like you’re stating a well known fact.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1259429] maybe the guy was trying to punch his groin ? [/QUOTE] guess not.
At least now I know why you were hesitant to talk about it - you have no clue what you’re talking about.
[QUOTE=BPWT.;1259423]In our line, SNT opens with a double Tan, to double Gan motion, followed by Kwan Sao. So we have the Gan motion appearing very early.
Later in SNT, Leung Ting modified the section where other people use Gan - in that section, for us, it is Tan, Jum, Gwat.[/QUOTE]
We don’t think its double gaan to double tan, this is abstract symmetry for our punching ideas…
Did Wong sheung Leung lost a challenge match to a Chow Gar mantis practioner
I don’t really care, but I would say:
Anyone who has never lost a match has been way too picky with his opponents. You learn more from losing than winning.
I am sceptical regarding the “deadly” Chow Gar techniques. Wing Chun is supposed to be “deadly” too according to some, but the number of corpses resulting from the fights we know about are surprisingly few. I do know of two prominent Australian WC practitioners who went it after the usual protracted run of mouth boxing after which one was hospitalised, but that’s it. Don’t bother asking who, it wasn’t anyone from my lineage and almost certainly not yours either.
As for kung fu being a hobby, that’s probably right. All the tough talkers should get back to us after they have had a few pro kickboxing and MMA matches. The opportunity is out there if you really want it.
I am sceptical regarding the “deadly” Chow Gar techniques
I know next to nothing about this style, but one person I met on here totally destroyed any chance for me to think anything above “idiot” when I picture it. I’m sure those whom remember his conversations would agree.
You learn more from losing than winning
agree
[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1259305]Wong sheung Leung almost killed in a challenge match by Chow Gar mantis practioner
http://www.chowgar.freewebspace.com/wingchun.htm
"Chow Gar Mantis vs Wing Chun
Wong Shun Leung Visits Ip Sui’s Kwoon
Before I begin this story, …
"[/QUOTE]
For some reason Chinese Martial Arts are full of these [unverifiable] stories…They are worth the paper they are printed on in my opinion.
[QUOTE=trubblman;1259459]For some reason Chinese Martial Arts are full of these [unverifiable] stories…They are worth the paper they are printed on in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Indeed 
I’ve never come across a traditional martial art (Chinese or otherwise) where people say their school/system has a history of meeting challenges… and lost 50% of them 
It’s rather like how every Chinese MA was created after a) someone saw two animals humping, b) a General well-versed in killing with nothing but his icy glare decided to create his own special system, c) someone secretly looked through a window, crack in a doorway, etc, and saw the ‘secrets’.
The world has much to thank the Chinese for… fiction and tall stories included
[QUOTE=Dragonzbane76;1259453]I know next to nothing about this style, but one person I met on here totally destroyed any chance for me to think anything above “idiot” when I picture it. I’m sure those whom remember his conversations would agree.
agree[/QUOTE]
i know who you are talking about but chow gar shouldnt be judged just on him lol
one of my class mates studied chow gar whilst at uni for a few years, they used motorcycle helmets to spar in to allow them to use those hammer fists without really hurting each other, they hit hard and didnt mind being hit, even now his power is very good
Not saying the style is deadly lol but it does have a fairly decent rep over here for actually sparring and fighting
No such thing as a “deadly” MA or even a “deadly” technique.
Death maybe the result of a technique BUT you can kill someone with a punch ( more people have been killed by a “simple” punch than any other empty hand technique by the way) but no one calls a left hook “the deadly”.
A MA is ONLY as good as how it is trained AND who is training in it.
IF WSL lost to a Chow Gar fighter than it was NOT WC losing to CG but simply WSL losing to whoever it was.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1259486]
IF WSL lost to a Chow Gar fighter than it was NOT WC losing to CG but simply WSL losing to whoever it was.[/QUOTE]
Get out of here with that realism - you’ll break somebody’s rice bowl!