[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1042548]
What Robert teaches is simply WCK.[/QUOTE]
and not etiquette
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1042558]and not etiquette[/QUOTE]
Where was I impolite in our discussion here?
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1042548]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.[/QUOTE]
This is getting frustrating as I have to agree with T AGAIN! :mad:
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??
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1042581]Where was I impolite in our discussion here?[/QUOTE]
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…
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1042548]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Nice contribution. Good stuff, man.
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1042592]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…[/QUOTE]
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!
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1042592]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…[/QUOTE]
You are thinking of the pak sao as a parry (he throws a punch and you bat it away, like cuffing in boxing) – it’s not. This is not WCK’s method.
The movement you describe (in the first section of the SNT) is not really a pak sao (although many mislabel it since it has the “shape” of a pak sao): it is a “supporting palm” and is generally used after you are already in contact.
To give you an example, your opponent has attached to you with a neck grabbing hand with his right hand. You want to get your left arm inside to regain control but his elbow is (correctly) down and in so that you have no room. You use this movement by quickly pushing his elbow “outward” with your right hand as you thread in your left arm (tan sao).
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1042587]This is getting frustrating as I have to agree with T AGAIN! :mad:
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.
[/QUOTE]
When I said “attack” I was referring that your intention/objective when performing it is to destroy the opponent’s structure – this of course also acts as defense – not to only stop him from hitting you or to “open” lines.
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??
The kuit tells us, Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu - If there is no bridge, erect one. The pak sao is to “erect” a bridge. Once I have a bridge, I use the bridge to destroy his structure. (If I am very good, I can dap, jeet and chum in “one” action). Precisely how I do that will depend on what my opponent gives me (the contact tells me how to break his structure). For example, if when I perform a pak sao and I feel him resist the pressure, I may change to jut sao to break his structure that way.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1041643]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.[/QUOTE]
So right that you are Mr. T, the demos are worst then terrible, they are shameful! It’s such disrespect and disgrace to himself and lineage, possibly had learn from an unqualified teacher is no excuse, even some of the bad youtube demos are better.
If I was dead … I would be turning over in my grave.:o
Stan my man, this forum is the wrong place to look for warm fuzzies, it is well known for kicking your arse when you are down or other wise, peace.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1042655]You are thinking of the pak sao as a parry (he throws a punch and you bat it away, like cuffing in boxing) – it’s not. This is not WCK’s method.
The movement you describe (in the first section of the SNT) is not really a pak sao (although many mislabel it since it has the “shape” of a pak sao): it is a “supporting palm” and is generally used after you are already in contact.
To give you an example, your opponent has attached to you with a neck grabbing hand with his right hand. You want to get your left arm inside to regain control but his elbow is (correctly) down and in so that you have no room. You use this movement by quickly pushing his elbow “outward” with your right hand as you thread in your left arm (tan sao).[/QUOTE]
No. you’re wrong. Even more wrong than stan.
The names are VERBS, not nouns. Fromt he position you describe, your choice of action uses far more movement than needed, and wont affect the man grabbing you enough. Better to Jum the elbow and use his attachment as a fulcrum.
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1042869]No. you’re wrong. Even more wrong than stan.
The names are VERBS, not nouns. Fromt he position you describe, your choice of action uses far more movement than needed, and wont affect the man grabbing you enough. Better to Jum the elbow and use his attachment as a fulcrum.[/QUOTE]
Have to agree with Shawn on this one. We actually use a sinking high gan sau to achieve the very same thing. This does often lead into a chum sau too btw.
We only pack sau to the side against parallel arms to extend an opponent’s bridge anf open up a controlled flank on that same parallel side.
[QUOTE=duende;1042907]Have to agree with Shawn on this one. We actually use a sinking high gan sau to achieve the very same thing. This does often lead into a chum sau too btw.
We only pack sau to the side against parallel arms to extend an opponent’s bridge anf open up a controlled flank on that same parallel side.[/QUOTE]
sounds? like the drill i described
[QUOTE=shawchemical;1042869]No. you’re wrong. Even more wrong than stan.
The names are VERBS, not nouns. Fromt he position you describe, your choice of action uses far more movement than needed, and wont affect the man grabbing you enough. Better to Jum the elbow and use his attachment as a fulcrum.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know they are verbs (as I have previously pointed out many times, thank you). I am using them as actions.
And its funny that you think my example uses “too much movement” and “won’t effect the man grabbing you” – since this is something that muay thai and wrestlers also both do all the time in fighting, is high percentage, and has proven to work time and time again. When someone has a superior position and control over you, you need to first break that control, before trying to “effect the man grabbing you.”
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1042949]sounds? like the drill i described[/QUOTE]
Could very well be.. I’m a bit late to the discussion, and need to go back and read the earlier posts.
What I’m referring to is basically the opening of the third section in the wooden dummy form.
Best
who is Stans Sifu?