Wing Chun use of Fook Sao/u

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
61

@SKM

Simple, Direct & Efficient.

Wing Chun actions should always be in line with these three guiding principles.

In Phil’s technique he’s trying at all costs to get to an advantageous position on the opponent’s blind side, even if it means crossing himself with the opposite arm and stepping in the direction of the punch, putting himself in danger. His angle is bad, so he can only use one hand, while the opponent can easily throw the second punch, difficult to defend from that position.

He’s also doing several actions to jerk, circle, and slap away the opponent’s single punch in order to get to the outside and deliver a low palm strike- not very rewarding for all that work assuming his opponent doesn’t just deck him with the second hand as soon as he crosses himself to jat-sau the wrong side.

If you can’t see how that is not simple, roundabout, and inefficient, then I’ll show you this clip for contrast. There’s no need to get to the outside to deal with it, and it’s one beat. Round punch comes, punch right away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z38hM4LCBU

Simple, Direct & Efficient.

If you want to know what the fuk-sau concept is, it’s a straight punch with the elbow cutting the way, not a hooking shape or action. That’s taking the visual form of SNT too literally. The hand doesn’t matter. It’s the elbow. See the fuk-sau concept in the paak-sau drill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx0US23G-F8

Once again, Simple, Direct & Efficient.

62

[QUOTE=Eric_H;1207827]We have a similar technique in our dummy form.[/quote]

As we do it it’s a recovery if we ever mistakenly end up on the inside which we’d never intentionally do, but first of all we don’t jat-sau to jerk the opponent in when we are in such a bad position. That’s just asking for it. Secondly the response is to hyun and cut back to punch with the jam-sau right away, not step around, slap away, low palm…

I don’t see anything wrong with the idea of the application.

Either review my previous post, or try it out with a live opponent who doesn’t just throw one punch and let you play with it and you’ll probably see then.

63

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1207850]What do I do if someone flips the script? I interrupt and do something else like we all do in Chi Sao.[/QUOTE]

Flipping the script would be doing anything but throwing one punch and standing there. If you have to do something else in that case, why try to pull this trick off in the first place?

64

Phil, waste no more of your pearls on these swine.

65

[QUOTE=LFJ;1207871]try it out with a live opponent who doesn’t just throw one punch and let you play with it and you’ll probably see then.[/QUOTE]

Have, many times. Your footwork needs to be lateral and you need to have your wu sao alive, playing inside you often invite the second hand. Not impossible to deal with.

66

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA

67

[QUOTE=anerlich;1207876]Phil, waste no more of your pearls on these swine.[/QUOTE]
Yeah Andrew, I think you have a point. I guess I’m just easy…lol

68

I already prepared this clip but I’m done with the subject after this. I’m available to demonstrate this and other aspects of Wing Chun in real time if anyone is interested in testing me. Being tested is the best way for me to improve. I’m in SoCal right now but I travel to do work shops. :wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA

69

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1207886]I already prepared this clip but I’m done with the subject after this. I’m available to demonstrate this and other aspects of Wing Chun in real time if anyone is interested in testing me. Being tested is the best way for me to improve. I’m in SoCal right now but I travel to do work shops. :wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA[/QUOTE]

You should come to Toronto Phil.

70

[QUOTE=LFJ;1207870]@SKM

Simple, Direct & Efficient.

Wing Chun actions should always be in line with these three guiding principles.

In Phil’s technique he’s trying at all costs to get to an advantageous position on the opponent’s blind side, even if it means crossing himself with the opposite arm and stepping in the direction of the punch, putting himself in danger. His angle is bad, so he can only use one hand, while the opponent can easily throw the second punch, difficult to defend from that position.

He’s also doing several actions to jerk, circle, and slap away the opponent’s single punch in order to get to the outside and deliver a low palm strike- not very rewarding for all that work assuming his opponent doesn’t just deck him with the second hand as soon as he crosses himself to jat-sau the wrong side.

If you can’t see how that is not simple, roundabout, and inefficient, then I’ll show you this clip for contrast. There’s no need to get to the outside to deal with it, and it’s one beat. Round punch comes, punch right away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z38hM4LCBU

Simple, Direct & Efficient.

If you want to know what the fuk-sau concept is, it’s a straight punch with the elbow cutting the way, not a hooking shape or action. That’s taking the visual form of SNT too literally. The hand doesn’t matter. It’s the elbow. See the fuk-sau concept in the paak-sau drill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx0US23G-F8

Once again, Simple, Direct & Efficient.[/QUOTE]

I have a problem with those videos. I used to use those actions. Chum Kiu fook sau against a hook punch and also the Pak sau idea. I tried it once against some people who can punch. In fact a whole group of people tried it and every single time it would not work. I’ve experimented many times in recent years against people and I have since stopped using them. They are not in my system anyway. Ok when you know what punch is coming and it amuses me when the teacher tells the student which arm to punch with. It was also in Phils video at which point I switched it off. These things are all good in the controlled environment of the training school but in reality and/or hard sparring they probably will fail. I also don’t think they adhere to the principle of fight the person not the arms. I showed the videos to a friend of mine who is big into MMA and fights out of a local gym to me. His response…I’d take those guys heads off if they tried that s’""t on me. I would have to agree with him on that one. Sorry boys.

That action in Chum Kiu in my lineage is a punching concept and improves the elbow. It’s not for blocking. I prefer my method. Not saying yours is wrong. If you can make that work in sparring without chasing arms then I take my hat off to you all.

The action shown in the dummy form of Pak sau is also not for blocking arms. A common problem in a fight due to the ferocity and panic of it all is that we tend to over shoot our arms which in turn may cause us to lose any advantage we may have. The dummy defines the limit in which we can work and this action develops this. The upper dummy arms are for reference and are not seen as a substitute for human arms in my system. I also prefer that way as well.

I’m not saying your wrong LFJ if thats how you do it. We do it differently is all and I think our way is better for a fighting situation. For me it’s better.

Shame we are not local. I could show why I think those ideas fail in real time and not from my iPad :D. I would also like Phil Redmond to try that circling stuff on me.

71

I also asked my instructor about fook sau used for blocking and he said “sifu must have forgot to teach me that bit”

I found that highly amusing. It seems Wong Shun Leung forgot to teach him the whole system :smiley:

72

Seems every single action in your system is the same thing, a punch. :slight_smile:

Personally, I’ve never used taan-sau or CK fuk-sau against a round punch. I first deal with it by distance management, either being too far at first or too close for a round punch like that anyway, of course making use of angles to shut down the opponent at that point.

What I have used with success instead is a wu-sau shape. He explains in the video that the taan-sau may be structurally too weak and by turning the arm over in CK fuk-sau it engages the triceps making it stronger. However, I still find the elbow position collapsable against a strong round punch, so I opt for using a wu-sau shape by having the elbow out in line with the shoulder rather than pulled in. That creates a much more naturally solid structure quite like an arch and I’m only really confident in using that, as opposed to the two alternatives shown there.

But it is the concept anyway of attacking straight away in one beat in the most direct way straight to their face. It’s not chasing the arm, but goes into the core of their movement to shut it down.

What’s not to like about the paak-sau though? Overshooting is no problem so long as the proper elbow position is maintained. The paak-sau is basically a punch and becomes that. You seem to like seeing everything as a punch. That’s what it is. A punch straight away, cutting through whatever obstacles may or may not be there.

73

Phil,

IMHO, WCK 1850 include more then most think today.

The wing Chun or not wing Chun discuss here is actually an issue based on Ipman teaching. Bill WCK is more toward the snake reel type, WSL WCK is addressing the crane withstand type.

Some how, gm Ipman split the two elements In favour of crane withstand , and go separation as one can see bill WCK and wsl WCK . As we know today with evidence, snake reel and crane withstand is a fusion or hybrid of WCK 1850 red boat.

By evidence, as we know, Gm Ipman evolve away his siu nim tau, taking a way the snake reel section across twc or other Ipman lineages. The missing snake reel section of Ipman snt signature also become a signature to identify who took Gm Ipman set and further evolve into their own style of WCK. And in fact there are many snt slt of so called claim to be older WCK lineages then Ipman lineage or red boat WCK lineage are actually violating Gm Ipman signature. Because in their snt slt they also took away the snake reel section, and we know for sure, the slt snt pre 1900 pre Ipman , the snake reel section has to be there in the snt slt set. So, if one freeze every WCK lineages video on snt practice at 2010. One will see who is making big claim but actually copying Gm Ipman.

Also, as we know today, Leung jan further evolve his WCK to pin San at his old age in Pinsan teaching of kulo, that also evolve away from the crane withstand element in the centra door and introduce more variation of center line regaining. So, if one take the basic crane withstand type as the only proper WCK and other as not, then when they saw dr. Leung jan s pin San, they will say it is not WCK. Well, guess what? It is Leung jan art pre exist Ipman for many generation.

Thus, what is WCK in Ipman WCK lineage? What is not? That question is for Gm Ipman since he created the question due to his teaching.

Thus, what is WCK? Perhaps on needs to look at the big picture . One might need to know what type of Ipman WCK one practice instead of using the Ipman WCK one practice as the reference of WCK. Thus, ie. if one is using WSL WCK as the reference then Leung jan Pinsan WCK is not WCK. So, could that be right?

We today knows WCK has snake reel crane withstand, within these it has squre body Jin San and angle body pin San. That is just a reality of facts. WCK is more then just one peron view, there are many wck grand masters since the red boat era and many in the red boat era, there are many ways a philosophy can be implement and not to mention there always a snake and crane fusion which is based.

WCK simply has more veriaty then most think.

74

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1207906]Phil,

IMHO, WCK 1850 include more then most think today.

The wing Chun or not wing Chun discuss here is actually an issue based on Ipman teaching. Bill WCK is more toward the snake reel type, WSL WCK is addressing the crane withstand type.

Some how, gm Ipman split the two elements In favour of crane withstand , and go separation as one can see bill WCK and wsl WCK . As we know today with evidence, snake reel and crane withstand is a fusion or hybrid of WCK 1850 red boat.

By evidence, as we know, Gm Ipman evolve away his siu nim tau, taking a way the snake reel section across twc or other Ipman lineages. That become a signature to identify who took Gm Ipman set and further evolve into their own style of WCK.

IMo FWIW- Hendrik- I don’t think that you are correct about Ip Man or Ip Man’s wing chun.–to be making your generalizations.
Much of what is called IM wing chun is based on small snips of IM’s art. And. interpretations of videos just before he died and interpretations of that is a pretty superficial way of understanding IM"s wing chun.
IM’s art is not just about crane. There are syntheses of circles and lines , and has clear suntheses
of “internal” and “external” principles.

75

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1207908]
IM’s art is not just about crane. There are syntheses of circles and lines , and has clear suntheses
of “internal” and “external” principles.[/QUOTE]

Joy, would you consider Chu Shong Tin as an example of an Ip Man student that has tried to bring out that aspect of Ip Man wing chun?

76

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1207908][QUOTE=Hendrik;1207906]Phil,

IMHO, WCK 1850 include more then most think today.

The wing Chun or not wing Chun discuss here is actually an issue based on Ipman teaching. Bill WCK is more toward the snake reel type, WSL WCK is addressing the crane withstand type.

Some how, gm Ipman split the two elements In favour of crane withstand , and go separation as one can see bill WCK and wsl WCK . As we know today with evidence, snake reel and crane withstand is a fusion or hybrid of WCK 1850 red boat.

By evidence, as we know, Gm Ipman evolve away his siu nim tau, taking a way the snake reel section across twc or other Ipman lineages. That become a signature to identify who took Gm Ipman set and further evolve into their own style of WCK.

IMo FWIW- Hendrik- I don’t think that you are correct about Ip Man or Ip Man’s wing chun.–to be making your generalizations.
Much of what is called IM wing chun is based on small snips of IM’s art. And. interpretations of videos just before he died and interpretations of that is a pretty superficial way of understanding IM"s wing chun.
IM’s art is not just about crane. There are syntheses of circles and lines , and has clear suntheses
of “internal” and “external” principles.[/QUOTE]

Joy,

My share above is based on the observation of Ipman lineages practice. I don’t know Gm Ipman but all the videos of the practice , IMHO, can be summaries with the signatures I present above.

Also, as I present above, bill WCK is focus on snake wsl WCK is toward crane. the snt has taken away snake.

So, it is not that Ipman WCK doesn’t have snake but it has evolved to has its identify in its own way. That is nothing wrong on that. Some elements might be more develop some elements might be tune down. It is just human evolution.

Thus, using this identity to not aware of the source and variety of red boat WCK as the real true WCK reference is trouble. IMHO. And that create the issue of this threat, is bill WCK WCK? That is a question for Gm Ipman to answer.

Also, Joy, momentum and momentum based on different type of engines variation can be scan and read. Thus, there is no secrete to read the dominant elements of ones art. IMHO. WCK has passed the fuzzy era of decades ago but moving toward a clear element identifying era.

77

[QUOTE=Graham H;1207894]The action shown in the dummy form of Pak sau is also not for blocking arms…

…The upper dummy arms are for reference and are not seen as a substitute for human arms in my system.[/quote]

It is not, in your system maybe, but WSL taught it this way. See in the following clip starting at about 3:40.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y

Also, in response to this topic, this video shows WSL teaching why it’s bad to cross yourself and what to do if you end up on the wrong side with gaang-sau starting at about 2:40.

The response from the MYJ form is to quickly hyun and turn back immediately striking with the jam-sau. This is the action we were discussing in wu-sau thread.

He then shows a response to a paak-sau applied incorrectly (on the inside), which is to directly cut back with man-sau rather than turning back.

78

[QUOTE=LFJ;1207911]It is not, in your system maybe, but WSL taught it this way. See in the following clip starting at about 3:40.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y

Also, in response to this topic, this video shows WSL teaching why it’s bad to cross yourself and what to do if you end up on the wrong side with gaang-sau starting at about 2:40.

The response from the MYJ form is to quickly hyun and turn back immediately striking with the jam-sau. This is the action we were discussing in wu-sau thread.

He then shows a response to a paak-sau applied incorrectly (on the inside), which is to directly cut back with man-sau rather than turning back.[/QUOTE]

I notice that when demonstrating the movement from the wrong ‘gaang’ on the actual human being, he raises his elbow slightly (from the upper gang sau shape at 2.51 to the position @ 2.53). The movement that he uses to circle to the outside and where he raises his elbow slightly (he clearly does even though it is on the ‘blind side’ to us) is what I thought a kau sau.

If I swept that circling hand lower then for me, at least, I think I would be doing a lower passive ganng sau instead (and I do this).

Like Ian, I think he does this to avoid the movement of the opponents arm being jammed by his own arm if his elbow was completely down. I don’t speak the language he is speaking and I would love to read a translated transcript. I have no idea if he is saying “don’t do what I am demonstrating here”, or advocating the movements he is showing at the above cited time stamps.

EDIT: Oh I watched that clip in slow motion using vlc media player @ 1/4 speed.

EDIT2: If Ali is reading, what I was referring to as my contact point is similar to what you see in that WSL slip at the above cited time frames.

79

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1207910][QUOTE=Vajramusti;1207908]

Joy,

My share above is based on the observation of Ipman lineages practice. I don’t know Gm Ipman but all the videos of the practice , IMHO, can be summaries with the signatures I present above.

Also, as I present above, bill WCK is focus on snake wsl WCK is toward crane. the snt has taken away snake.

So, it is not that Ipman WCK doesn’t have snake but it has evolved to has its identify in its own way. That is nothing wrong on that. Some elements might be more develop some elements might be tune down. It is just human evolution.

Thus, using this identity to not aware of the source and variety of red boat WCK as the real true WCK reference is trouble. IMHO. And that create the issue of this threat, is bill WCK WCK? That is a question for Gm Ipman to answer.

Also, Joy, momentum and momentum based on different type of engines variation can be scan and read. Thus, there is no secrete to read the dominant elements of ones art. IMHO. WCK has passed the fuzzy era of decades ago but moving toward a clear element identifying era.[/QUOTE]

Hendrik- like many you seem to be generalizing based on whatever videos you see. There are no videos of “original wing chun”- one just draws inferences.I know that wing chun goes back earlier than Leung Jan.
I watched videos of snake and crane wing chun. My inference? It’s pretty sloppy wing chun.
Of course, I could be wrong. That’s the world of videos. And everyone has opinions… some better than others.

80

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1207920][QUOTE=Hendrik;1207910]

Hendrik- like many you seem to be generalizing based on whatever videos you see. There are no videos of “original wing chun”- one just draws inferences.I know that wing chun goes back earlier than Leung Jan.
I watched videos of snake and crane wing chun. My inference? It’s pretty sloppy wing chun.
Of course, I could be wrong. That’s the world of videos. And everyone has opinions… some better than others.[/QUOTE]

Joy,

You can have your opinions, I am ok with it.

However, up to now, I am just presenting what it is by evidence. And not commenting more then that.

As your judgement on snake and crane wing chun, same with any lineages including Ipman lineage, there are good and bad followers .

Also, your words and mine doesn’t count, written record of red boat era is the reference.

As for video, engine can be read, as one can analyze momentum type; however, until one knows how to read engine, one can have miss wing Chun herself right in front of one. One still dont see what is what. IMHO.

The different between you and me on posting is you use yourself as reference to judge WCK . I describe what is existed in the world of WCK from 1850 to today. What exist speak for itself. What Ipman and other have done is locked in the history now. the evidence speak for itself.

as here in this thread, you have a TWC from Bill and WSL WCK, both are from Ipman and they varies. Ipman cannot deny that and it is not a generalization but facts in details.