# Moving outside the box...



## geezer (Nov 7, 2008)

I recently attended a private seminar with Master Jeff Webb. Right off the top he showed me a couple of chi-sau moves that totally disrupted my ideas about the way WT/WC should move, yet on closer analysis, they were entirely consistent with the core concepts of our system. They were, in fact, the most efficient responses I have seen in the way they were applied. But they were different from anything I'd seen before in chi-sau or the forms.

Then, I realized that the "new" and "different" movements were a lot like certain standard movements common in most WT/WC, _except upside down and sideways. _Well sort of. What I mean is they flexed in a different direction, deflecting energy upwards when traditionally it would have been dissolved downwards, and so forth. It was like rotating your perspective 90 to 180 degrees.

Anyway, although these movements _appeared_ strange, after a bit of practice, they _felt_ natural. Because, in fact, they were. I realized that even in WT/WC, we become creatures of habit and end up thinking inside of the box as much as anyone. We begin to assume that what we've seen is all there is and we use our own limited understanding of our core concepts and structure to limit what we can do. Well, I'm finding out that there's a big world out there outside that little box, and it's blowing me away! 

Another preconceived notion blasted to bits: I used to assume that the oldest, "purest" and most traditionally "Chinese" movements were somehow the best. But some of the best new refinements I've seen don't come from China either. Hmmm... Well, have any of you guys had experiences like this...especially when training with a different instructor?


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Nov 10, 2008)

geezer said:


> I recently attended a private seminar with Master Jeff Webb. Right off the top he showed me a couple of chi-sau moves that totally disrupted my ideas about the way WT/WC should move, yet on closer analysis, they were entirely consistent with the core concepts of our system. They were, in fact, the most efficient responses I have seen in the way they were applied. But they were different from anything I'd seen before in chi-sau or the forms.
> 
> Then, I realized that the "new" and "different" movements were a lot like certain standard movements common in most WT/WC, _except upside down and sideways. _Well sort of. What I mean is they flexed in a different direction, deflecting energy upwards when traditionally it would have been dissolved downwards, and so forth. It was like rotating your perspective 90 to 180 degrees.
> 
> ...


I think every school does chi sao differently. In Kamon we are known for aggressive chi sao whre we work everything from poon sao to clinches

There is no wrong or right way of doing chi sao - the idea is merely to stick with your opponent. Remember that whilst a move may look good it might not be done in your federation for a reason

There are plenty of techniques I have done before which strated well but then I realised I couldn't follow up with anything

And I would argue strongly that the oldest/purest Chinese chi sao sometimes is very bad. If you look at the way Ip Chun moves and traps people it is fantastic, but are they useful in todays world? By the way I am not saying he is bad, just saying that depending on what you are looking for, old techniques are not always the best way to go. However they should still be learnt and understood in order to make your own chi sao have foundation

Understanding the differences between chi saos taught in different federations is very useful

Wan Kam Leung, who's seminar I went to a little while back, mentioned that he had spent 40 years doing wing chun and had changed his style of chi sao about 30 times!!


----------



## geezer (Nov 10, 2008)

Kamon Guy said:


> And I would argue strongly that the oldest/purest Chinese chi sao sometimes is very bad. If you look at the way Ip Chun moves and traps people it is fantastic, but *are they useful in todays world?*
> 
> ...Understanding the differences between chi saos taught in different federations is very useful


 
Interesting observations. One of the movements I was talking about was precisely an adaptation to a "modern" attack, a hard, low hook to the ribs coming from fook-sau and angling in over your tan-sau. Classical responses, such as a rising tan-sau, don't work well if the low hook is powerful and skilfully angled. So people will typically say something like, "Don't attack me like that. _That's wrong._ Your elbow is out and you are not using a straight line attack. I don't want to learn bad habits."

Well this instructor pointed out that _not being unable to defend yourself_ against a "cheap-shot" like this is what's wrong. So he showed us a very efficient way to handle such an attack...that leads right into some devastating follow ups. As you pointed out, that's important too. 

Anyway, what really inspires me is that our art is constantly evolving. It's not declining from some mythical ancient standard of perfection. To the contrary, the good stuff is alive and adapting to the fighting styles of our times... and getting better!


----------



## El_Nastro (Nov 10, 2008)

Sounds like what you're describing (Geezer) is understanding as to the distinction between _principle_ and _technique_.

We've all heard since day one that "Wing Chun is about principles, not technique". Hearing it and understanding it are two different things, but I think what you're talking about is that "aha!" moment where you truly _get it_.

All the moves from all the forms are examples of more fundamental principles expressed through the movements, and once you grok the idea upon which the movement is based, then you can do stuff that might appear different, but functions on the same principles. Once again, we've all heard this before, but now you _know what it means_.

Once you realize this, as Obi Wan said "You've just taken your first step into a much larger world". Now watch your improvisational ability and overall skill level jump up a few notches!


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 10, 2008)

I haven't done any other system of Wing Chun other than what i was originally taught but i have done Krav Maga and Ilustrisimo and some of that stuff has worked it's way into my Wing Chun , it still seems to flow pretty good though . 

I use mostly low knee strikes from Krav and what my ilustrisimo teacher called Phillipino dirty boxing which seems to be a lot of slapping  ( when i say slaps , they are totally hip driven slaps that would knock you out ), eye gauging and shielding with your elbows so that they destroy their fists on your elbows . 

I think in a multiple attack situation the elbow shielding would come in useful if your totally out numbered and the fists are flying from every where , i think Wing Chun defence is pretty solid from front on , but from the side against multiples you are a bit open .


----------



## geezer (Nov 10, 2008)

El_Nastro said:


> Sounds like what you're describing (Geezer) is understanding as to the distinction between _principle_ and _technique_.
> 
> We've all heard since day one that "Wing Chun is about principles, not technique"...
> 
> All the moves from all the forms are examples of more fundamental principles expressed through the movements, and once you grok the idea upon which the movement is based, then you can do stuff that might appear different, but functions on the same principles.



This is right on the money. I find a lot of people object to movements that they don't recognise as Wing Chun, or even more narrowly, as from their lineage and sub-style of WC/WT/VT. But if what you do a. conforms to the core principles and b. works for you... what's the problem? And when you find techniques that work even more efficiently under certain circumstances..."Wow".  Sure, the basics are the most generally useful 90% of the time, but when the situation is right, the higher level moves--such as applications from Biu Tze and the dummy-- work so elegantly. The same is true for some of these "unorthodox" movements... whatever their source.


----------



## profesormental (Nov 11, 2008)

Greetings.

My experience is that many refinements are based on the system, yet you don't have to be Chinese or in China to improve training methods.

Actually, the differences that make my execution significantly better came from improvements here by different Masters, both Eastern and Western. This, including my own perceptions, experiments, training and studies have yielded great improvements.

For example, training against street attacks and incorporating them in Chi Sao and drill evolutions was much emphasized in NY.

Yet I have to admit that personal effort is one of the greatest factors, among others.

And with personal effort and training comes insight and subtle "accommodations" that bring improvement even though it is normally hard to perceive why.

Finding and teaching these subtleties bring about rapid improvement, yet many don't know about them, how to find them and worst, how to teach them.

And sometimes they are counter intuitive or plain weird, so people will shun you if they don't give it ia chance and experience it for themselves...

I've been ridiculed for not taking that into account, while having the good intentions of showing them what I've verifiably have found...

Yet the one's I teach have improved significantly and used that which I teach with great success in sparring and the street.

So it is important to keep your eyes open, yet remember that consistent intelligent practice is better than just being exposed to the best info ever.

Sincerely,

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Nov 11, 2008)

geezer said:


> Interesting observations. One of the movements I was talking about was precisely an adaptation to a "modern" attack, a hard, low hook to the ribs coming from fook-sau and angling in over your tan-sau. Classical responses, such as a rising tan-sau, don't work well if the low hook is powerful and skilfully angled. So people will typically say something like, "Don't attack me like that. _That's wrong._ Your elbow is out and you are not using a straight line attack. I don't want to learn bad habits."
> 
> Well this instructor pointed out that _not being unable to defend yourself_ against a "cheap-shot" like this is what's wrong. So he showed us a very efficient way to handle such an attack...that leads right into some devastating follow ups. As you pointed out, that's important too.
> 
> Anyway, what really inspires me is that our art is constantly evolving. It's not declining from some mythical ancient standard of perfection. To the contrary, the good stuff is alive and adapting to the fighting styles of our times... and getting better!


 
There is a difference between doing a set drill and doing an open ('sparring') drill. 
Things like chi sao should be open to anything, including cheap shots or random moves. 

You soon learn that there is no set technique on the street and ANYTHING can happen

I know many aikido guys (sorry, this isn't a bash on the art), who insist on doing 'real' techniques or 'real' demos where they ask you to grab them a certain way. If you don't, they whinge about you not grabbng them the right way

In Kamon, we allow anything in our feeding techniques. Grabs, kicks, headbutts, bites (!), elbows, chops, anything you can think of
Sometimes an opponent will throw in a bad move as well to make it awkward to counter him (ie too many styles have their opponent throw in a perfect punch every time, which gets easy to counter after a while)


----------



## CuongNhuka (Nov 11, 2008)

Geezer, welcome to life outside the box. It's trippy isn't it? I'm sure that some of my more 'off the wall' statements will start to make more sense. Now is probably also when you're going to start to look at other systems and find out just how far a 'Wing Chun mentality' can be taken. Trust me, take a few looks at Aikido (a few _good_ looks at Aikido), that get's trippy.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 5, 2009)

My Sifu taught us how to defend against boxer defence and some choy li fut strikes along with a few five animal strikes.


He would throw random attacks while you stand in a corner with your guards up and in your stance he throw the attack not from Chi Sau but from no bridge at all. Like what boxer would do. You would have block free handed with out the priviledge of a bridge or feeling what was coming by contact. If you gain contact for to long he would break off contact and re-attack...


So I am aware of blocking both high and low hooks. We modify many of the blocks to work effectively. The problem I hear people speak about on forums is the posistion of the Tan sau,fok sau, bong sau has to always be exactly here...Now in practice like form practice that is true. But when you are sparring or doing chi sau or free hand exercises you have to adjust to the situtation. An attack is not always going to follow the center line principal. Every one doesn't attack the centerline. Some people attack only your outside gates. Only the fast jab will be on your center line. An Maybe occasional uppercut. But yea...typical defenses against boxer attacks

Upper cuts(Gan sau or Jum Sau)
Hooks(Bil Sau or Wu Sau)
Straight jabs(Pak Sau or Chain Punches)
Right and left crosses(Tan Sau-man sau-pak sau)

Now of course all could be modified...But you need to be aware of the fulcrum of each block. Actually its not a block at all...Its more of deflection of force. The Fulcrum of Bil Sau is strong enough to deflect the force of hook. But from Wu Sau or Bil Sau you convert to Tan sau to turn the force off further to off balance your opponent. Or you could also use these vary Deflections to draw down your opponents gaurds to gain entry for the hit.

But people have train to defend against many different styles so your wing chun will be fluid. Train against Muay Thai Kicks,Knees and Elbows, Train against Karate kicks and punches.Train against Tae Kwon Do Strikes and kicks. Etc etc...



geezer said:


> Interesting observations. One of the movements I was talking about was precisely an adaptation to a "modern" attack, a hard, low hook to the ribs coming from fook-sau and angling in over your tan-sau. Classical responses, such as a rising tan-sau, don't work well if the low hook is powerful and skilfully angled. So people will typically say something like, "Don't attack me like that. _That's wrong._ Your elbow is out and you are not using a straight line attack. I don't want to learn bad habits."
> 
> Well this instructor pointed out that _not being unable to defend yourself_ against a "cheap-shot" like this is what's wrong. So he showed us a very efficient way to handle such an attack...that leads right into some devastating follow ups. As you pointed out, that's important too.
> 
> Anyway, what really inspires me is that our art is constantly evolving. It's not declining from some mythical ancient standard of perfection. To the contrary, the good stuff is alive and adapting to the fighting styles of our times... and getting better!


----------



## Si-Je (Jan 6, 2009)

geezer said:


> Interesting observations. One of the movements I was talking about was precisely an adaptation to a "modern" attack, a hard, low hook to the ribs coming from fook-sau and angling in over your tan-sau. Classical responses, such as a rising tan-sau, don't work well if the low hook is powerful and skilfully angled. So people will typically say something like, "Don't attack me like that. _That's wrong._ Your elbow is out and you are not using a straight line attack. I don't want to learn bad habits."
> 
> Well this instructor pointed out that _not being unable to defend yourself_ against a "cheap-shot" like this is what's wrong. So he showed us a very efficient way to handle such an attack...that leads right into some devastating follow ups. As you pointed out, that's important too.
> 
> Anyway, what really inspires me is that our art is constantly evolving. It's not declining from some mythical ancient standard of perfection. To the contrary, the good stuff is alive and adapting to the fighting styles of our times... and getting better!


 

My I ask what you used to defend that "cheap shot?"  That's really peeked my curiousity.


----------



## geezer (Jan 6, 2009)

Si-Je said:


> My I ask what you used to defend that "cheap shot?" That's really peeked my curiousity.


 
I can't really give you a meaningful answer... First, because depending on the angle and energy you handle it different ways. Secondly, I'm not that great at pulling off the technique. And then there's the whole terminology conundrum. For example, most WT I've seen lately uses a version of _tan-sau _against extended "haymaker" hooks. But I still prefer a more extended, palm-down variation I picked up a long time ago that we call _"fook-sau",_ but sure looks to me a lot more like what you call _"dai-sau"._ Against a tighter upper level hook, sometimes the energy rolls your arm over into a _bong-sau / fak-sau_ combination. Or _tan-sau, to kau sau, to lower level lying palm_... Or in this particular case, the downward angled hook that I called a "cheap shot" is plucked aside by a _reverse huen-sau or kau sau_, then followed with a whipping sort of reverse (or inward) _"fak-sau"_ (kind of reminiscent of a softer version of a karate ridge-hand) to the side of the neck.

Anyway, if I totally confused everyone... that's exactly my point. If we did chi-sau together, you'd understand right away. You'd either like the move, or not, but it would be easy to discuss. Describing WC/WT technique in _written words_ is way beyond me. And video isn't a lot better. I really think _you have to feel what the other person's intention is._ Which may be another reason why some sifus dont like us all getting together more. Too bad.


----------



## Si-Je (Jan 6, 2009)

I see what you mean by fuk sau or "dai sau" for the high hook.  I was imagining a gong sau, or "choping" deflection for the lower hook.  Maybe a jum sau motion would be better?
But, was wondering if that would work.  Your right, you do just have to feel it, but I think it's great when we all get together and give each other ideas.

Being that I've never practiced a defense off a low hook punch, or I'm not remembering it.  (which as a cheap shot, I think boxers incorporate that type of rib shot).  That is a great example of the need to "think outside of the box" with any art you study.  It's not a WC technique, but I've come accross alot of folks that would throw that kind of punch in a heartbeat.  Good thing to work with.
When we get students in that have taken other arts before, i.e. karate, boxing, muy tai, etc. We like to take advantage of that knowledge and have them use those techniques against their fellow students and us too in practice.  It keeps us fresh, and gives the students more range in familiarity against different types of attack.  To incorporate this in chi sau is an awesome idea too!


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 6, 2009)

The Cheap shot defense...very interesting. Keep the discussions going....


----------



## qwksilver61 (Jan 6, 2009)

So Mr Geezer sir, what you are basically saying is same *core* principles different approach?


----------



## mook jong man (Jan 6, 2009)

geezer said:


> I can't really give you a meaningful answer... First, because depending on the angle and energy you handle it different ways. Secondly, I'm not that great at pulling off the technique. And then there's the whole terminology conundrum. For example, most WT I've seen lately uses a version of _tan-sau _against extended "haymaker" hooks. But I still prefer a more extended, palm-down variation I picked up a long time ago that we call _"fook-sau",_ but sure looks to me a lot more like what you call _"dai-sau"._ Against a tighter upper level hook, sometimes the energy rolls your arm over into a _bong-sau / fak-sau_ combination. Or _tan-sau, to kau sau, to lower level lying palm_... Or in this particular case, the downward angled hook that I called a "cheap shot" is plucked aside by a _reverse huen-sau or kau sau_, then followed with a whipping sort of reverse (or inward) _"fak-sau"_ (kind of reminiscent of a softer version of a karate ridge-hand) to the side of the neck.
> 
> Anyway, if I totally confused everyone... that's exactly my point. If we did chi-sau together, you'd understand right away. You'd either like the move, or not, but it would be easy to discuss. Describing WC/WT technique in _written words_ is way beyond me. And video isn't a lot better. I really think _you have to feel what the other person's intention is._ Which may be another reason why some sifus dont like us all getting together more. Too bad.


 
Is the strike you mean a body rip ? Was your Tan Sau up high when he did it or did he drag your Tan Sau down first and then strike . I'm thinking if the force is going down to my ribs my first reaction would probably be to change my Tan Sau to a low Bong Sau and pivot .

 Easier said than done I know if the guy is extremely fast and doesn't telegraph . Speaking of cheap shots I have done chi sau before with a guy who was extremely tall with long arms , and at the top of the Fook Sau cycle he would tap you on the head with his fingertips , and he would say ha ha I just got through , and I would say yes but you can't generate any power from there .

 I mean his fingertips were only just managing to touch me , so I just adjusted by raising my Bong Sau . Most of the time I see people doing cheap shots , in order to get the cheap shot in , they usually have to contort their bodies and leave them selves exposed to a strike at the same time especially if the person has excellent forward force and will exploit any gap or weakness .

 Being a vertically challenged person I found a taller person will always try to strike over the top of your Tan Sau , I have found that keeping your Tan Sau high makes this very difficult for them , conversely keeping your Fook Sau low will also make it difficult for them to smash you in the chest with palm strikes .

 Just remember any strike you do , you must be able to generate power with it  , I remember doing chi sau sparring with one of my instructors and we would end up locked up in some weird position and I would think great now I've got him , and I would try to do some stupid strike with both my arms trapped and about an inch of space to strike and he would just smile and say can you generate power from there and I would say no , and he would say  it doesn't count then does it .


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 7, 2009)

Here is a video which gives an idea of training against a boxer throwing hooks so to speak...Not the best video but it gives you idea of how to train against a street boxer!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pufYpnFuBd8&feature=related



mook jong man said:


> Is the strike you mean a body rip ? Was your Tan Sau up high when he did it or did he drag your Tan Sau down first and then strike . I'm thinking if the force is going down to my ribs my first reaction would probably be to change my Tan Sau to a low Bong Sau and pivot .
> 
> Easier said than done I know if the guy is extremely fast and doesn't telegraph . Speaking of cheap shots I have done chi sau before with a guy who was extremely tall with long arms , and at the top of the Fook Sau cycle he would tap you on the head with his fingertips , and he would say ha ha I just got through , and I would say yes but you can't generate any power from there .
> 
> ...


----------



## Si-Je (Jan 7, 2009)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Here is a video which gives an idea of training against a boxer throwing hooks so to speak...Not the best video but it gives you idea of how to train against a street boxer!!!
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pufYpnFuBd8&feature=related


 
Basic 8 corner drill with a little creativity should suffice.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 7, 2009)

Pleae give some more detain on the eight corner drill?



Si-Je said:


> Basic 8 corner drill with a little creativity should suffice.


----------



## geezer (Jan 7, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> I'm thinking if the force is going down to my ribs my first reaction would probably be to *change my Tan Sau to a low Bong Sau and pivot*... Easier said than done I know...



That would be a_ classical_ ("in the box thinking") WT/WC response, and yes, if it's a hard, close hook to the ribs that slips right over your tan, it's damn near impossible to counter with either a tan or bong. The best bet, using classical technique, is to beat them with a straight-line punch, so they never get in where they can deliver a tight, hooking rib-shot.

And, _Yoshi_, thanks for the clip. But in all honesty, the long, slow arcs they were demonstrating in the video are easy to counter with gaun-sau, tan-sau, and so forth. A real boxer would not use anything so clumsy, so don't be fooled.

Anyway, my main point in that last post was not to try and clarify a specific technique or counter. I was just pointing out that it's really impossible to get very far beyond the basics with a verbal or written discussion of WT/WC._ It has to be felt_. 

In other words, nobody ever learned Kung-fu from reading some secret "Dragon Warrior Scroll". The Panda taught us that!


----------



## Si-Je (Jan 7, 2009)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Pleae give some more detain on the eight corner drill?


 
Just having a partner punch randomly at you from all angles, low/high hook punches, jab, cross, uppercut, stomach shot, back fist.
The 8 corners being your use of dai sau, tan sau, pak sau, chit sau (or gan sau)/jum sau, etc.  
You drill this with contant spontaneous attack upon you by your partner.  Like what you said your Sifu does to you with your back against a wall and doesn't allow you to bridge.  Punching randomly at you from a distance.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 7, 2009)

Well the video was just some vid I came across that showed that some boxing techniques done slowly. But your right the guy throwing the punches is not a real boxer. Its impression of what he think a boxers punches look like. 



But still it shows how one should train against boxing strikes to be prepared!



geezer said:


> That would be a_ classical_ ("in the box thinking") WT/WC response, and yes, if it's a hard, close hook to the ribs that slips right over your tan, it's damn near impossible to counter with either a tan or bong. The best bet, using classical technique, is to beat them with a straight-line punch, so they never get in where they can deliver a tight, hooking rib-shot.
> 
> And, _Yoshi_, thanks for the clip. But in all honesty, the long, slow arcs they were demonstrating in the video are easy to counter with gaun-sau, tan-sau, and so forth. A real boxer would not use anything so clumsy, so don't be fooled.
> 
> ...


----------



## mook jong man (Jan 7, 2009)

> The best bet, using classical technique, is to beat them with a straight-line punch, so they never get in where they can deliver a tight, hooking rib-shot.


 
Very true , an aggressive response is always better than a passive one .


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 8, 2009)

Mook jong man give an example of a passive response?



mook jong man said:


> Very true , an aggressive response is always better than a passive one .


----------



## mook jong man (Jan 8, 2009)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Mook jong man give an example of a passive response?


 
Well I would say that my instinctive classical response to turn away the force with a low Bong Sau could probably be classed as passive .

 Because even though I can follow it up with a latch and side slash to the throat at great speed it still takes two movements .

 Which is not as efficient and aggressive as Geezer's response with a simple centreline punch , which epitomises the Wing Chun concept of Lin Sil Die Dar or simultaneous counter -attack , something we should always strive to do when ever possible .


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 8, 2009)

What about Pak da or Tan Da?



mook jong man said:


> Well I would say that my instinctive classical response to turn away the force with a low Bong Sau could probably be classed as passive .
> 
> Because even though I can follow it up with a latch and side slash to the throat at great speed it still takes two movements .
> 
> Which is not as efficient and aggressive as Geezer's response with a simple centreline punch , which epitomises the Wing Chun concept of Lin Sil Die Dar or simultaneous counter -attack , something we should always strive to do when ever possible .


----------



## Eru IlÃºvatar (Jan 9, 2009)

Pak da or a paking lan da(if you understan what I'm saying) so you control both hands while hitting sounds like it would work well in this situation if I understand it correctly.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 9, 2009)

Sorry is this question for me?




			
				Eru Ilúvatar;1101299 said:
			
		

> Pak da or a paking lan da(if you understan what I'm saying) so you control both hands while hitting sounds like it would work well in this situation if I understand it correctly.


----------



## Eru IlÃºvatar (Jan 10, 2009)

> Sorry is this question for me?


 
For anybody acctualy, becouse I made that term up, but it ilustrates the techniqe well. But I can explain it better if somebody wants. And acctualy instead of a pakking lan da, that wooden dummy retreating lan move would do well too. You could also grab instead of guide or pak the hand(I think Boztepe love doing that one in his Chi Sao vids). This have quite devastating follow ups too. Try it if it works for you! You just have to keep contact with hes tan hand while going from fok to lan so he doesn't go threw on that side.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 15, 2009)

Sounds like some pretty good Strategies. I would have to see it to completely get the giest of you mean though....




			
				Eru Ilúvatar;1101715 said:
			
		

> For anybody acctualy, becouse I made that term up, but it ilustrates the techniqe well. But I can explain it better if somebody wants. And acctualy instead of a pakking lan da, that wooden dummy retreating lan move would do well too. You could also grab instead of guide or pak the hand(I think Boztepe love doing that one in his Chi Sao vids). This have quite devastating follow ups too. Try it if it works for you! You just have to keep contact with hes tan hand while going from fok to lan so he doesn't go threw on that side.


----------



## Eru IlÃºvatar (Jan 16, 2009)

Yea, guess Geezer was right. It's near impossible to explain techniques on the forum.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 17, 2009)

The problem is alot of people have different dialects or different wording for the techniques in both english and cantonese so that kinda of makes it hard to explain...I try to use pictures to explain!




			
				Eru Ilúvatar;1105514 said:
			
		

> Yea, guess Geezer was right. It's near impossible to explain techniques on the forum.


----------



## qwksilver61 (Jan 27, 2009)

What you need is a good teacher.....


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jan 29, 2009)

Thats the truth...Having a good teacher is first and foremost. But sharing ideas with others outside your school or ring of WC brothers and sisters may pose diffcult because the dialect of my Sifu may differ from that of your Sifu. So we have different terminology. One my say Jut sao and other say jet sau...But they both mean the same thing right?


So it can be confusing. I mean I say Wing Chun and you Say Wing Tsun and another person says Weng Chun and another person Ving Tsun and another person says Ving Tzun and others still say Yong Chun?


All very confusing what do you think?




qwksilver61 said:


> What you need is a good teacher.....


----------

