# PAK SAU .... The elbow or the wrist ?



## mook jong man (Aug 24, 2014)

Against an incoming straight punch , where abouts on the opponents arm do you lot in the various lineages parry?
In TST lineage we parry the wrist , but I have since found out that some lineages parry the elbow.

I will outline why I feel it is better to parry the wrist later when I have some more time , but I am curious as to how other lineages approach this most basic of Wing Chun techniques.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 24, 2014)

Where am I in relation to the opponent? At what distance am I? 
If I am directly in front of the opponent and am making the first connection on the outside I prefer to pak closer to the middle of the forearm. If am off angled I prefer just above the elbow. If having to counter an attack from the inside at the wrist.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 24, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Where am I in relation to the opponent? At what distance am I?
> If I am directly in front of the opponent and am making the first connection on the outside I prefer to pak closer to the middle of the forearm. If am off angled I prefer just above the elbow. If having to counter an attack from the inside at the wrist.



Lets just say for arguments sake , he is directly in front of you.
He moves in from close range with a straight punch right down your centerline , and you have no time to step out an angle either.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 24, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Against an incoming straight punch , where abouts on the opponents arm do you lot in the various lineages parry?
> In TST lineage we parry the wrist , but I have since found out that some lineages parry the elbow.
> 
> I will outline why I feel it is better to parry the wrist later when I have some more time , but I am curious as to how other lineages approach this most basic of Wing Chun techniques.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pak sao is one use of motion and energy. IMO-If you distinguish between development and application-
for development you control a person via contact at the bridge- kiu. I application the closest available 
contact point of the other person- could be wrist, elbow, shoulder , jaw,neck, head etc.


----------



## OzPaul (Aug 24, 2014)

I have been taught to Pak the forearm/wrist around where you wear a watch.  Slightly passed the wrist. From my limited experience I find this to do the trick as if a punch is thrown with proper intent it is quite hard to change into an elbow if the wrist is pak'd. If the opponent stepped at you and you pak the wrist I can see how it could turn into an elbow but that would take considerable skill in the heat of a fight


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> In TST lineage we parry the wrist , but I have since found out that some lineages parry the elbow.


If you parry on the 

- wrist, the advantage is your opponent's wrist is closer to you. The dis-advantage is your opponent's elbow can still bend and strike at your chest. 
- elbow, the advantage is your opponent's elbow cannot hit you. The dis-advantage is your opponent's elbow is farther away from you.

IMO, the elbow parry is much more effective than the wrist parry. It will give your opponent less options to deal with your parry. You can move his whole arm by parrying at his elbow (or upper arm). You can't do that by parrying at his wrist (or forearm).


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 24, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you parry on the
> 
> - wrist, the advantage is your opponent's wrist is closer to you. *The dis-advantage is your opponent's elbow can still bend and strike at your chest. *
> - elbow, the advantage is your opponent's elbow cannot hit you. The dis-advantage is your opponent's elbow is further away from you.



I hear this all the time about the punch turning into an elbow , that would only be possible if you were completely passive and only did the parry without a punch going out at the same time.
If your parry and punch is simultaneous as it should be , then your punch will hit him before he can get into range for the elbow strike.

Besides , people are usually committed to the one action , either punch or elbow strike , not a liitle bit of both.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I hear this all the time about the punch turning into an elbow , that would only be possible if you were completely passive and only did the parry without a punch going out at the same time.
> If your parry and punch is simultaneous as it should be , then your punch will hit him before he can get into range for the elbow strike.
> 
> Besides , people are usually committed to the one action , either punch or elbow strike , not a liitle bit of both.



Sometime, we may have time to parry, but we may not have time to punch back right at that moment. This is why we don't see "parry and strike back at the same time" that often in real life. It's good principle and goal that we all want to achieve though.

We are talking about "parry" here that your opponent punches at you and you deal with it. That mean how fast, how much commitment on his initial punch is totally decided by him.

Most of the initial punch are fake.  

- When your opponent punches at you (it can be just a set up), 
- When he sees your hand try to parry his punch, his punching arm elbow already starts to bend (this is why he can be faster than you because he initial his set up).
- If you parry at his wrist, his back hand can "parry your parry" (since he is waiting for you parry, he is one step ahead of you). He can then 
- drop his elbow right at your chest. If you move your body forward, you may even run your chest into his elbow.

That elbow range elbow strike is very powerful and very hard to deal with it. I prefer not to give my opponent that change to do so. IMO, it's always better to prevent a problem from happening than to let a problem to happen and then try to fix that problem afterward.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 24, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pak sao is one use of motion and energy. IMO-If you distinguish between development and application-
> for development you control a person via contact at the bridge- kiu. I application the closest available
> contact point of the other person- could be wrist, elbow, shoulder , jaw,neck, head etc.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practicing development of pak sao- there is a reason why the bridge(kiu) is important. By controlling the bridge properly you can control 

elbow, wrist and body structure balancing.If your own structure and motion is good you can control a powerful elbow motion-not just theory-
I know folks who di it regularly...including yours truly.

Learning to control the bridge is imo a god wing chun idea.


----------



## BPWT (Aug 24, 2014)

In my lineage, Pak Sau is more a forward movement (not a side-to-side movement) and should go towards the opponent's center. For us it should really jam up the opponent and seal that side of their body... so affect their structure and really hamper the range of motion of the opponent's attacking arm. For this reason, for us, it should ideally be closer to the elbow than to the wrist. (I think contact at the wrist would affect their structure less and leave their striking arm 'still in play')

In our line, Pak should also be combined with a simultaneous strike. e.g. Pak _and_ Punch, rather than Pak _then_ Punch...


----------



## BPWT (Aug 24, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> Learning to control the bridge is imo a god wing chun idea.



Absolutely. IMO, this is the heart of Wing Tsun.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 24, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Against an incoming straight punch , where abouts on the opponents arm do you lot in the various lineages parry?
> In TST lineage we parry the wrist , but I have since found out that some lineages parry the elbow.
> 
> I will outline why I feel it is better to parry the wrist later when I have some more time , but I am curious as to how other lineages approach this most basic of Wing Chun techniques.



In Fut Sao lineage they never pak at the wrist because that opens it up with a continued elbow strike. I pak at the wrist and elbow it depends on the distance. When you pak at the elbow it turns him so in a sense its better,but at long distance not practical.
e


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2014)

If we look at the following clip, either person can have opportunity to 

- "collapse" his arm structure, 
- bend his elbow, and
- smash his elbow to his opponent's head or chest.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 24, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime, we may have time to parry, but we may not have time to punch back right at that moment. This is why we don't see "parry and strike back at the same time" that often in real life. It's good principle and goal that we all want to achieve though.
> 
> We are talking about "parry" here that your opponent punches at you and you deal with it. That mean how fast, how much commitment on his initial punch is totally decided by him.
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter if his punch is fake , your punch is still going out regardless.
You only fall prey to these faking techniques, if you remain passive and don't counter with an offensive technique in conjunction with your deflection.


----------



## Argus (Aug 24, 2014)

I'll just copy paste my response in the previous thread, as I'm curious to hear your response:



Argus said:


> As long as one of your hands is chasing center, that's good. But, your opponent has another hand as well. That's why I believe it's always preferable to chase center with both hands whenever possible, so that either is a direct threat.
> 
> Maybe we're arguing apples and oranges though. It sounds like you're describing pak-sau from a point of contact, where his hand is already in contact with your guard. That is the best way to use pak-sau, and in that case, you can feel where he is definitively thanks to the contact you've made. I was refering more to the use of pak-sau in an out-of-contact context, as demonstrated in the video. It is not uncommon for me, at least, to find myself hitting thin air with another fist in my face upon trying to enter on someone with pak-da, for example. A fighter will often just pull his forward hand back and hit you with the other. That's what's dangerous about chasing the wrist while out of contact, I believe.
> 
> ...


----------



## dlcox (Aug 24, 2014)

In my branch we focus on elbow to wrist in a sliding fashion with forward pressure. The reasoning is that by focusing strickly on wrist one can potentially mis-time the counter and miss the hand completely if too fast to react. But if too slow to react by focusing on the elbow instead of wrist one increases the chance to atleast catch the elbow. In short we focus on the middle of the bridge as an ideal contact point. Also by going from elbow to wrist you can expodentially increase your chances of a grab.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2014)

dlcox said:


> In my branch we focus on elbow to wrist in a *sliding* fashion with forward pressure.


This 45 degree or 30 degree toward yourself parry approach is much better than the 90 degree parry approach. It mainly "redirect" your opponent's punch in a small angle so his punch will pass next to your face. Many CMA styles call this kind of parry as "combing the hair".

When my opponent punches at me, I like to use

1. one hand to parry on his wrist first, 
2. one hand to parry on his elbow next (prevent his elbow strike),
3. I then change my wrist parry hand into a punch.


----------



## Argus (Aug 24, 2014)

dlcox said:


> In my branch we focus on elbow to wrist in a sliding fashion with forward pressure. The reasoning is that by focusing strickly on wrist one can potentially mis-time the counter and miss the hand completely if too fast to react. But if too slow to react by focusing on the elbow instead of wrist one increases the chance to atleast catch the elbow. In short we focus on the middle of the bridge as an ideal contact point. Also by going from elbow to wrist you can expodentially increase your chances of a grab.



I've heard that described before. The chinaboxer has described this in some of his videos, I believe. I've also heard of some people who try to contact the middle of the arm, neither at the wrist nor the elbow. But, I like the method that you describe.




Kung Fu Wang said:


> This 45 degree or 30 degree toward yourself parry approach is much better than the 90 degree parry approach. It mainly "redirect" your opponent's punch in a small angle so his punch will pass next to your face. Many CMA styles call this kind of parry as "combing the hair".
> 
> When my opponent punches at me, I like to use
> 
> ...



I tend to use that movement against high punches towards the face in a sort of "dodge and slip" manner. It's nice as it can be more subtle, and you can avoid over committing and opening a new line for your opponent. But your example prescribes three motions to deal with one. That's not very efficient...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> But your example prescribes three motions to deal with one. That's not very efficient...


You are right! 

- 1 is faster (efficient) than 1,2, and 1,2 is faster (efficient) than 1,2,3, but 
- 1,2,3 is safer than 1,2, and 1,2 is safer than 1.

That's the trade off. When you apply 1,2,3 combo, you won't commit your punch 3 until both of your parry 1 and parry 2 are successful.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 24, 2014)

l would say the main reason we parry at the wrist area is because  it just takes a whole lot less effort , get a big strong brute of a man to hold his arm out and due to simple leverage it takes less effort to move his wrist than what it does his elbow.
The reason being that his elbow is closer to his power structure ie (his body) so it takes more force to move it.

Now some would say that an experiment like this is flawed because a punch in motion is different than somebody just rigidly holding their arm out , that maybe so but I tend to think it is a pretty close approximation to the forces involved.

Parrying at the wrist also gives you the option of bringing your legs into play for chain kicking , you are at the perfect range to use low heel kicks with the parry or after the parry latching on with the other hand and dragging the opponent into a hook kicks and stamp kicks.

People are under the impression that by parrying the elbow you have the opponents arm under control , this is far from the truth.
Anyone who's been around for a while and has done a fair bit of chi sau knows that there are simple counters to someone trying to manipulate your elbow .

One is to simply cut down and sink the elbow thus changing the relationship of his force to your arm , another one I have used in the past from Biu Jee is where I let them push on my elbow and let my arm scribe a small circle before it comes back around and palm strikes them in the side of the head , usually catches them quite unawares.
It is also possible that they may let you parry the elbow and convert it into a shoulder charge.

This is not to say we never parry the elbow , under certain circumstances we do , such as when attempting to break through an opponents guard when his wrist is high and his elbow is on the centerline.
But generally speaking whether used against an incoming straight punch or as an entry technique the point of contact is usually as OzPaul said where you would wear your watch.


----------



## Argus (Aug 24, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are right!
> 
> - 1 is faster (efficient) than 1,2, and 1,2 is faster (efficient) than 1,2,3, but
> - 1,2,3 is safer than 1,2, and 1,2 is safer than 1.
> ...



I'd have to disagree with you there! I know this is a common belief among many martial artists. But parrying an opponents attack without delivering an attack of your own is always more dangerous, because you will forever be at your opponent's mercy. If you are not threatening him, he doesn't have to worry about what you're doing and can continue to attack you however he sees fit. The point of single time counters is, to use a fencing analogy, steal the tempo in your favor, and gain the offensive. An opponent who is concerned about getting hit is far less dangerous than one concerned with hitting.

Simultaneous attack and defense can be a hard thing to apply, as you've mentioned. But it absolutely works, and should be trained extensively so that you can pull it off. Part of the challenge is simply changing your mentality towards the fight, and focusing on responding offensively to any action your opponent makes.

As Lichtenauer says, "Note the word 'simultaneously'; it is the key to great fencing."


----------



## KPM (Aug 24, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I hear this all the time about the punch turning into an elbow , that would only be possible if you were completely passive and only did the parry without a punch going out at the same time.
> If your parry and punch is simultaneous as it should be , then your punch will hit him before he can get into range for the elbow strike.
> 
> Besides , people are usually committed to the one action , either punch or elbow strike , not a liitle bit of both.



In Pin Sun we call this a "Got Bong" or "cutting Bong.  If I am punching and you do a rather forceful Pak Sau near my wrist...even if you are punching at the same time, I can easily fold the forearm in and send the elbow out to deflect the punch and possibly strike into the center with the elbow.  In fact, we have a 2 man drill to practice exactly this.  

I do a Pak Sau anywhere from the mid-forearm to just above the elbow, depending upon the range.  We consider it a mistake to Pak near the wrist because the opponent can easily convert to the elbow, which we practice doing as noted above.


----------



## KPM (Aug 24, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This 45 degree or 30 degree toward yourself parry approach is much better than the 90 degree parry approach. It mainly "redirect" your opponent's punch in a small angle so his punch will pass next to your face. Many CMA styles call this kind of parry as "combing the hair".
> 
> When my opponent punches at me, I like to use
> 
> ...



I do something similar.  But this comes from my Silat training.  This "3 count flow" is very important in Silat or Kali.  This is because they focus on dealing with weapons.   When defending against a knife attack, you need to redirect the momentum and gain control as quickly as possible.  This is the purpose of parrying 3 times for one attack.  Wing Chun people may consider this "chasing hands."  But I can do this 3 count parry in under 2 seconds.


----------



## KPM (Aug 24, 2014)

*l would say the main reason we parry at the wrist area is because  it just takes a whole lot less effort , get a big strong brute of a man to hold his arm out and due to simple leverage it takes less effort to move his wrist than what it does his elbow.*

--Yes, but this is where the trade-off comes in.  Just as it is easier to move his fist off-line Pak'ing near the wrist, it is also easier for the opponent to simply fold the elbow as the fist moves off-line and convert it to an "Got Bong" or elbow strike.  Your leverage is so far out that he can easily make use of the force. 

* The reason being that his elbow is closer to his power structure ie (his body) so it takes more force to move it.

--*It does indeed take more force to move him when parrying closer to the elbow.  And as you say it is because you have to affect his structure.  But this is what we want to do!  We aren't playing "patty cakes" here.  We should be not just parrying a punch, but destroying his structure/balance at the same time if possible.  When we do the  Pak Da drill it all seems rather easy going.  But in application, that Pak Sau should be delivered while stepping into the opponent's center with the punch so that not only is his punch deflected, but his structure and balance is affected at the same time.


*Parrying at the wrist also gives you the option of bringing your legs into play for chain kicking , you are at the perfect range to use low heel kicks with the parry or after the parry latching on with the other hand and dragging the opponent into a hook kicks and stamp kicks.*

---I think the kicks work just as well from a bit closer in.  There is nothing that says you have to say at arm's length to throw a kick.  

*People are under the impression that by parrying the elbow you have the opponents arm under control , this is far from the truth.
Anyone who's been around for a while and has done a fair bit of chi sau knows that there are simple counters to someone trying to manipulate your elbow .

*--Pardon me for saying so,  but Chi Sau tricks are crap.  If someone is stepping into your center while using forward pressure with a Pak Sau at your elbow to pin it to your body, you aren't likely to be able to swing that arm around.  You're going to be back-pedaling trying to regain your balance.  We practice this as part of our Pak Da drill.  The "Pak'er" at some point choses to do a triangle step into the partner with a Pak to the elbow or just above it and punch at the same time that is designed to break the partner's structure and send him stumbling backwards.  Then you reset and resume the Pak Da drill.


----------



## J W (Aug 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> I'll just copy paste my response in the previous thread, as I'm curious to hear your response:



If I understand your point correctly, Argus, then I agree with you. Wrist, elbow... not as important as center. 

The first drill we practice is a punch/pak sao drill, and the pak makes contact with the wrist first- but only because that is what is in the center the way the drill is constructed. Partner's face each other square, one throws a centerline punch, the other performs a pak sao without stepping. If the drill were constructed differently, though- maybe with a step added- then the elbow might be in the center, at which point that is where contact would be made.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> l would say the main reason we parry at the wrist area is because  it just takes a whole lot less effort ,...


Is it true that it takes less effort to parry at your opponent's wrist area? Let's compare the following 3 different situations:

You can parry at your opponent's 

1. shoulder - This is just a light push on your opponent's shoulder. You try to interrupt his punch during the "beginning" stage when his speed and power have not yet been fully generated. In order to do so, you have to extend your hands near by his shoulder area. You have to use a long guard (such as the rhino guard).
2. elbow - you have to interrupt your opponent's punch during the "middle" stage when his speed and power have been 1/2 generated. In order to do so, you have to extend your hands near by his elbow area. You have to use a middle length guard (such as the WC guard).
3. wrist - you have to interrupt your opponent's punch during the "final" stage when his speed and power have been fully generated. In order to do so, you don't need to extend your hands. You only need to use short guard (such as the boxing guard). 

Which approach is easier?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> If you are not threatening him, he doesn't have to worry about what you're doing and can continue to attack you however he sees fit.


When I use 

- wrist parry, 
- elbow parry, and 
- punch, 

My opponent may just run his face into my punch - a head on collision. I don't have to move in toward him. I just wait for him to move into my punch. That is a threaten to him.







This clip can show what I'm trying to say. I know this may not be the "general" WC strategy. It is the praying mantis system bread and butter move. But when we talk about parry, we have to consider this approach.


----------



## Argus (Aug 24, 2014)

J W said:


> If I understand your point correctly, Argus, then I agree with you. Wrist, elbow... not as important as center.
> 
> The first drill we practice is a punch/pak sao drill, and the pak makes contact with the wrist first- but only because that is what is in the center the way the drill is constructed. Partner's face each other square, one throws a centerline punch, the other performs a pak sao without stepping. If the drill were constructed differently, though- maybe with a step added- then the elbow might be in the center, at which point that is where contact would be made.



Exactly. I think you summed it up better than I did. Where you end up depends on your distance, angle, and facing to the opponent. If the elbow isn't on the centerline, relative to me, then there's no sense in pressing it because I'll just be spread off the center. If the wrist is over the center, there's no sense in intercepting it because I'll just open up my own center. It's all context. Where you intercept is where you intercept. As long as you intercept somewhere along the centerline you're good.


----------



## BPWT (Aug 25, 2014)

Argus said:


> I know this is a common belief among many martial artists. But parrying an opponents attack without delivering an attack of your own is always more dangerous, because you will forever be at your opponent's mercy. If you are not threatening him, he doesn't have to worry about what you're doing and can continue to attack you however he sees fit. The point of single time counters is, to use a fencing analogy, steal the tempo in your favor, and gain the offensive. An opponent who is concerned about getting hit is far less dangerous than one concerned with hitting.



I fully agree. It is a question of timing in an exchange. Action beats reaction (generally speaking). We see this all the time (in all lineages, mine included) when we see a Sifu and a student doing Chi Sau or Lap Sau. The Sifu breaks the set cycle of the drill with an attack - often by breaking timing - and the student is then playing 'catch-up' because they are defending _only_, rather than simultaneously attacking and defending as a response. 

The Sifu will rarely attack with a single attack, but instead will string together multiple strikes, and as a result the student is always one step (or more) behind in the exchange.

In relation to Pak Sau, it is why I think it makes sense for the Pak to be driving forward to the opponent's centre, always coupled with a strike at the same time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2014)

BPWT said:


> In relation to Pak Sau, it is why I think it makes sense for the Pak to be driving forward to the opponent's centre, always coupled with a strike at the same time.


If you think that the parry is too conservative approach, you can also use your Bon Shou and

- drive your forearm into your opponent's center line,
- bounce his punch away, and
- use the same arm to punch at his face.

In the praying mantis system, it's called "&#21704;&#25331;(Ha Quan) - spiral punch, or block and punch by using the same arm". I like to call it the "1/2 rhino horn".


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I hear this all the time about the punch turning into an elbow , that would only be possible if you were completely passive and only did the parry without a punch going out at the same time.
> If your parry and punch is simultaneous as it should be , then your punch will hit him before he can get into range for the elbow strike.
> 
> Besides , people are usually committed to the one action , either punch or elbow strike , not a liitle bit of both.



Doesn't work with a punch. Can work if I am pushing your face and you parry. With the intention of opening you for that elbow.

Might be a bit argy bargy for a regular chun exchange though.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> l would say the main reason we parry at the wrist area is because  it just takes a whole lot less effort , get a big strong brute of a man to hold his arm out and due to simple leverage it takes less effort to move his wrist than what it does his elbow.
> The reason being that his elbow is closer to his power structure ie (his body) so it takes more force to move it.
> 
> Now some would say that an experiment like this is flawed because a punch in motion is different than somebody just rigidly holding their arm out , that maybe so but I tend to think it is a pretty close approximation to the forces involved.
> ...



If you were competing with this hand trapping idea though. The further away your hands get. The less likely they will be able to recover and deal with the next shot.

Like tennis when they get the guy running from one side of the court to the other.

So wrist generally would be a smaller movement that you can capitalise on rather than an elbow where they can capitalise a bit.

I assume you don't want to be reaching for people at any time during one of these exchanges.

If you reach for the elbow they could theoretically hook you.


----------



## BPWT (Aug 25, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you think that the parry is too conservative approach, you can also use your Bon Shou and
> 
> - drive your forearm into your opponent's center line,
> - bounce his punch away, and
> ...



I like the term "1/2 Rhino Horn".  

But in our line we wouldn't want to use Bong Sau in quite this way - we wouldn't look to use it to bounce a punch away (for us it is used more to off-load force - to redirect it but not forcefully bounce it). Ideally, of course.

But the idea of driving the forearm down the centre, deflecting a punch and using the same arm to strike would be how we can use our punching method - so using a punch to wedge out an incoming punch. 

But in that sense, Pak Sau can perform the same, or at least a similar, function. If the Pak drives into the centre and deflects the incoming strike, the Pak could then become the striking hand (it is already 'on target' - the centre - and the elbow is down). 

Thinking about it, in our line lots our hand/arm motions are like this - they are a bit like thwarted strikes. Wu, Tan, Bong, Jum, etc, often happen as a response to us driving a strike forward to the opponent's centre, but having met an obstacle with a better line of attack or more force, our attacking arm becomes something else. 

Or something like that... :boing2:


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

KPM said:


> In Pin Sun we call this a "Got Bong" or "cutting Bong.  If I am punching and you do a rather forceful Pak Sau near my wrist...even if you are punching at the same time, I can easily fold the forearm in and send the elbow out to deflect the punch and possibly strike into the center with the elbow.  In fact, we have a 2 man drill to practice exactly this.
> 
> I do a Pak Sau anywhere from the mid-forearm to just above the elbow, depending upon the range.  We consider it a mistake to Pak near the wrist because the opponent can easily convert to the elbow, which we practice doing as noted above.



What if I am doing a Pak Sau and punch with a simultaneous low heel kick to the knee at the same time.


----------



## KPM (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> What if I am doing a Pak Sau and punch with a simultaneous low heel kick to the knee at the same time.




We could "what if" all day long.  "What if" I did the low heel kick to the knee while I was closing with my Got Bong?  I was talking about basic approaches.  The "what if" game is silly.


----------



## KPM (Aug 25, 2014)

J W said:


> The first drill we practice is a punch/pak sao drill, and the pak makes contact with the wrist first- but only because that is what is in the center the way the drill is constructed. Partner's face each other square, one throws a centerline punch, the other performs a pak sao without stepping. If the drill were constructed differently, though- maybe with a step added- then the elbow might be in the center, at which point that is where contact would be made.



In the punch/pak sao drill (Pak Da drill) the purpose is to not only deflect his punch, but to occupy the center.  Its not "patty cakes."  When you Pak, you should end up with the wrist of your Pak'ing hand on the center while his punch is deflected off the center.  It doesn't matter where you contact on his arm with your Pak.  You should still end up occupying the center.  What determines where on his forearm your Pak makes contact....is your distance.  If you were my student and doing as you describe, I would tell you and your partner that you are standing too far apart.   If you can extend your arm with a Pak Sao while he is fully extending his arm with a punch....and you are so far away that you can only contact his wrist, then you are too far away and his punch was never really a threat.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

I don't really know how committed you people are doing your Pak Sau's , but in our lineage the Pak Sau only moves a fraction of an inch.

Just enough to wedge your own punch through and return the parrying hand to the center , ample time to deal with an incoming elbow or other strike.

This video shows one way how we do parry and punch as an entry technique , but it's just as easily used against a punching attack.

[video=youtube_share;3-T8k-x7jLI]http://youtu.be/3-T8k-x7jLI[/video]


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> If you were competing with this hand trapping idea though. The further away your hands get. The less likely they will be able to recover and deal with the next shot.
> 
> Like tennis when they get the guy running from one side of the court to the other.
> 
> ...



Pak Sau only moves a fraction of an inch to let the punch through , it's not some great big lateral slap.
The Pak Sau moves the opponents arm slightly and your own punch going through the gap does the rest of the work of redirecting the opponents punch away from you.


----------



## BPWT (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> This video shows one way how we do parry and punch as an entry technique, but it's just as easily used against a punching attack.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;3-T8k-x7jLI]http://youtu.be/3-T8k-x7jLI[/video]



In this video though, I think the contact is made closer to the elbow than to the wrist.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

BPWT said:


> In this video though, I think the contact is made closer to the elbow than to the wrist.



That would be because the dudes elbow is closer to the centerline , but if the guys wrist was on the centerline he would go for the wrist.
Circumstances change a little bit when breaking through a guard depending on the position of the persons arms.

But against a straight punch down the center , he would definitely be parrying at the wrist area.


----------



## BPWT (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> But against a straight punch down the center, he would definitely be parrying at the wrist area.



Certainly it can happen - parrying at the wrist area - and can be pulled off safely. However, I think that as KPM was saying, that wouldn't be the timing and distance management I would be looking for. 

Assuming I am in Man/Wu, I ideally want to be moving in and want to deal with any incoming straight hand shot from the opponent when their strike has moved inside my Man Sau. I think a Pak Sau at their wrist would be engaging a little outside of the range I'd want to be in. Basically, I want the exchange to be closer.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

BPWT said:


> Certainly it can happen - parrying at the wrist area - and can be pulled off safely. However, I think that as KPM was saying, that wouldn't be the timing and distance management I would be looking for.
> 
> Assuming I am in Man/Wu, I ideally want to be moving in and want to deal with any incoming straight hand shot from the opponent when their strike has moved inside my Man Sau. I think a Pak Sau at their wrist would be engaging a little outside of the range I'd want to be in. Basically, I want the exchange to be closer.



Oh absolutely , you don't want to just be standing there waiting for it to come.
You want to pounce straight in there and cut it off before it starts to build up power and momentum.


----------



## KPM (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> That would be because the dudes elbow is closer to the centerline , but if the guys wrist was on the centerline he would go for the wrist.
> Circumstances change a little bit when breaking through a guard depending on the position of the persons arms.
> 
> .



I don't quit follow what you are saying about wrist vs. elbow being on the centerline?  What I'm seeing in this video is that he is ending up Pak'ing on the mid-forearm area (or even right on the elbow a couple of times) because of his distance to the opponent.

It occurs to me that maybe you are talking about Pak'ing while moving in so that you initially may contact near the wrist, but the Pak is going to slide up the forearm as you move in?   That I can agree with.  ;-)

The other thing that occurs to me is that we are tending to be much too "Wing Chun centric" here.  We are training to defend against a "generic" attacker, not a fellow Wing Chun guy.  That's why I talk about doing the Pak to occupy center and deflect, regardless of where you contact his arm.  If you ever really apply this, you are more likely to be Pak'ing a pseudo-boxer's cross or jab...so wrist vs. elbow on centerline seems kind of irrelevant in my mind.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

KPM said:


> I don't quit follow what you are saying about wrist vs. elbow being on the centerline?  What I'm seeing in this video is that he is ending up Pak'ing on the mid-forearm area (or even right on the elbow a couple of times) because of his distance to the opponent.
> 
> It occurs to me that maybe you are talking about Pak'ing while moving in so that you initially may contact near the wrist, but the Pak is going to slide up the forearm as you move in?   That I can agree with.  ;-)
> 
> The other thing that occurs to me is that we are tending to be much too "Wing Chun centric" here.  We are training to defend against a "generic" attacker, not a fellow Wing Chun guy.  That's why I talk about doing the Pak to occupy center and deflect, regardless of where you contact his arm.  If you ever really apply this, you are more likely to be Pak'ing a pseudo-boxer's cross or jab...so wrist vs. elbow on centerline seems kind of irrelevant in my mind.



We can agree that we want to take an economical straight path from our guard to the opponents face ok.
Whatever is in front of that direct path will be the contact point for our Pak Sau , whether it be the elbow , the wrist or somewhere in between , depending on how the opponent has positioned their hands.
Thats what I was talking about.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

So we have established that in the case of an incoming straight punch , some lineages pak the wrist , others aim for the elbow and some aim for halfway.
As with most things there are pros and cons with either method.

The using Pak Sau against a punch issue has been pretty much exhausted and we seem to be getting into the area of entry techniques.
So if I may , why don't we turn the discussion to what entry techniques everyone uses in their various lineages.
Heres some we use in ours.
[video=youtube_share;uQKeq-c4gTM]http://youtu.be/uQKeq-c4gTM[/video]


----------



## Argus (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> We can agree that we want to take an economical straight path from our guard to the opponents face ok.
> Whatever is in front of that direct path will be the contact point for our Pak Sau , whether it be the elbow , the wrist or somewhere in between , depending on how the opponent has positioned their hands.
> Thats what I was talking about.



When you put it like that, I'm in complete agreement. I wonder if we're not all arguing the same thing in different words.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

Argus said:


> When you put it like that, I'm in complete agreement. I wonder if we're not all arguing the same thing in different words.



I have to admit I am not that great at expressing myself through words
I only went to high school I didn't have a university education , it's a lot easier to get the point across through direct physical action.


----------



## Argus (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I have to admit I am not that great at expressing myself through words
> I only went to high school I didn't have a university education , it's a lot easier to get the point across through direct physical action.



In my experience, words are tricky regardless of education or language you speak. We humans have the amazing ability to say the same thing in different ways and argue about it 

We all have different perceptions, experiences, and assumptions, and this colors our definition of certain words and ideas, and how we interpret them, so it's kind of natural I suppose. That's one of the reasons why physical medium is always a better way to explain things in Martial Arts.


----------



## J W (Aug 25, 2014)

Argus said:


> Exactly. I think you summed it up better than I did. Where you end up depends on your distance, angle, and facing to the opponent. If the elbow isn't on the centerline, relative to me, then there's no sense in pressing it because I'll just be spread off the center. If the wrist is over the center, there's no sense in intercepting it because I'll just open up my own center. It's all context. Where you intercept is where you intercept. As long as you intercept somewhere along the centerline you're good.



We're on the same page. If the preferred target (be it wrist or elbow) is off the centerline, then it would just be chasing hands to try and hit it. Better to pak in the center and then deal with the situation as it is once you've made contact. 



KPM said:


> In the punch/pak sao drill (Pak Da drill) the purpose is to not only deflect his punch, but to occupy the center.



Agreed. I'd go a bit further and say that occupying the center is the main purpose; deflecting the punch is simply the outcome. 



KPM said:


> If you were my student and doing as you describe, I would tell you and your partner that you are standing too far apart.   If you can extend your arm with a Pak Sao while he is fully extending his arm with a punch....and you are so far away that you can only contact his wrist, then you are too far away and his punch was never really a threat.



In the Pak Sao exercise, as we play it, one partner fully extends the punch, and the other then places the pak on the centerline, making contact near the wrist. Both partners maintain YGKYM and facing during the exercise, so you're right, the punch never comes anywhere close to being a threat. The exercise is used to introduce the student to the concept of centerline, and isn't an application drill (which is a separate conversation altogether). 



mook jong man said:


> We can agree that we want to take an economical straight path from our guard to the opponents face ok.
> Whatever is in front of that direct path will be the contact point for our Pak Sau , whether it be the elbow , the wrist or somewhere in between , depending on how the opponent has positioned their hands.
> Thats what I was talking about.



So we don't pak the wrist or the elbow, but instead engage on centerline? This I can agree with.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

J W said:


> So we don't pak the wrist or the elbow, but instead engage on centerline? This I can agree with.



Yes that is correct.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 25, 2014)

So I'm a bit late to this party, but regarding the original question of wrist or elbow, the answer is (as always): it depends. 

The things that influence my strategy are, the structure of the opponent's arm, my facing, whether we are already bridged, using the inner/outer hand etc etc.

Somewhere someone asked directly if nose to nose against a WC punch: I'd attempt to contact nearer to the elbow, using bride tracing ability (called chi kiu in my type of WC) to end up at a point where I have bridge control on center. Often times when nose to nose, this is going to run to the wrist to bleed the energy out (loi lau) and then settle on the forearm for forward energy (hoi sung).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> We can agree that we want to take an economical straight path from our guard to the opponents face ok.
> Whatever is in front of that direct path will be the contact point for our Pak Sau , whether it be the elbow , the wrist or somewhere in between , depending on how the opponent has positioned their hands.
> Thats what I was talking about.


I think this approach is very risky. We all know that in order to control 

- a snake, you will need to control 7 inches away from it's head. If you control it's tail, it's head can turn and bite you.
- an arm, you will need to control that elbow joint. If you control the wrist, his elbow will turn and attack you.

Even if the snake tail is in front of your direct path, you still should not attack it's tail. You should attack it's 7 inches spot instead. So the "direct path" guideline is important. But the "correct contact point" guideline can be more important because it concerns with your own safety.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think this approach is very risky. We all know that in order to control
> 
> - a snake, you will need to control 7 inches away from it's head. If you control it's tail, it's head can turn and bite you.
> - an arm, you will need to control that elbow joint. If you control the wrist, his elbow will turn and attack you.
> ...



It is one of the major principles of Wing Chun , that of directness.
We are not talking about holding onto someone's arm here , or smashing the arm aside in a large lateral movement.

We are talking about creating a slight momentary gap to let our punch through , the whole thing takes a nano second.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> It is one of the major principles of Wing Chun , that of directness.
> We are not talking about holding onto someone's arm here , or smashing the arm aside in a large lateral movement.
> 
> We are talking about creating a slight momentary gap to let our punch through , the whole thing takes a nano second.



This is what I was taught. My si-fu used the analogy of an elevator door closing and you are opening it just enough to squeeze through.


----------



## KPM (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> It is one of the major principles of Wing Chun , that of directness.
> We are not talking about holding onto someone's arm here , or smashing the arm aside in a large lateral movement.
> 
> We are talking about creating a slight momentary gap to let our punch through , the whole thing takes a nano second.



I see what you are saying and agree to some extent.  But I like to think about another of the major principles of Wing Chun ...... to "control while hitting."  I know what you are getting at, but to say this is "a slight momentary gap", that only takes a nano second almost sounds like a boxer's quick jab.  Like you're just flicking in a quick single punch.  It can be quick, but it should also be moving in and disrupting the opponent's balance in order to control and lead into a follow up that is going to finish the opponent.   So I agree with John that it could be a bit risky if you are too far out on the opponent's arm.  First, at this range you may not be close enough to land your own punch!  Second, if you are giving him some force with your Pak you are also giving him the opportunity to bend at the elbow as we have discussed before.  Third, if you aren't using much force and this is just a quick motion that doesn't move the opponent at all or compromise his ability to respond, then  if you don't take him out with that first punch (which may be at too far a distance to begin with) then he is going to keep coming!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> It is one of the major principles of Wing Chun , that of directness.
> We are not talking about holding onto someone's arm here , or smashing the arm aside in a large lateral movement.
> 
> We are talking about creating a slight momentary gap to let our punch through , the whole thing takes a nano second.


Here we assume that you are using your WC Pak Shou to deal with someone's punch who may be from *other MA system*.

Do you agree that if you and your opponent *have the same speed*, and if 

- he throws a punch, and 
- you parry, 

it will be easier for him to change his punch into ... than for you to parry his punch and ...? 

Your wrist parry may help your opponent's "punch" to change into an "elbow strike" as shown in the following clip. The whole thing could also take just a nano second. You may be fast but your opponent can be faster if you agree with my previous assumption. Also if your opponent has trained that 

- punch, 
- parry the parry, and 
- elbow strike 

combo through his partner drill and solo form training everyday, make that attack combo as his bread and butter moves, he may have some speed advantage over you. 

Also in the following clip, your opponent's left hand is ready to "parry your Pak Shou" and then ... That mean he is expecting and waiting for your Pak Shou.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> why don't we turn the discussion to what entry techniques everyone uses in their various lineages?


The following combo is one of my favor "entry strategies".

1. My left back hand parry down my opponent's leading right arm.
2. I then throw a fast right punch at his face (a jab with only 30% committed force but with 100% speed - it's a fake set up punch).
3. When my opponent uses his left Pak Shou to parry at my right punch,
4. Before his left hand can touch my right arm, I'll pull my right hand back (just enough distance to let his left Pak Shou to pass and miss my punch).
5. I then punch my right arm back the same way at his face (but from the "other" side of his left Pak Shou).


----------



## Argus (Aug 25, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here we assume that you are using your WC Pak Shou to deal with someone's punch who may be from *other MA system*.
> 
> Do you agree that if you and your opponent *have the same speed*, and if
> 
> ...



You're right in that, if you parry the wrist over the centerline, it will be easy for the opponent to change into an elbow strike. However, if you occupy the centerline and don't overcommit with your parry, your opponent will not be in a good position to deliver an elbow strike. Moreover, the elbow is a very close-range weapon. The punch alone, extended, will prevent an elbow strike from landing so long as it is not deflected.

It's all context. Position and energy is everything. That's the problem with making "if this then that" generalizations.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

KPM said:


> I see what you are saying and agree to some extent.  But I like to think about another of the major principles of Wing Chun ...... to "control while hitting."  I know what you are getting at, but to say this is "a slight momentary gap", that only takes a nano second almost sounds like a boxer's quick jab.  Like you're just flicking in a quick single punch.  It can be quick, but it should also be moving in and disrupting the opponent's balance in order to control and lead into a follow up that is going to finish the opponent.   So I agree with John that it could be a bit risky if you are too far out on the opponent's arm.  First, at this range you may not be close enough to land your own punch!  Second, if you are giving him some force with your Pak you are also giving him the opportunity to bend at the elbow as we have discussed before.  Third, if you aren't using much force and this is just a quick motion that doesn't move the opponent at all or compromise his ability to respond, then  if you don't take him out with that first punch (which may be at too far a distance to begin with) then he is going to keep coming!



You should definitely be moving your body mass in as fast as you can to generate force in your strike and hit him.
It does not have to be one punch , once the gap is opened up you just run him over with chain punches , one of the reasons it is important to have a nice economical Pak Sau is so that the Pak hand can be quickly cycled back into punching again.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following combo is one of my favor "entry strategies".
> 
> 1. My left back hand parry down my opponent's leading right arm.
> 2. I then throw a fast right punch at his face (a jab with only 30% committed force but with 100% speed - it's a fake set up punch).
> ...



Videos , if you got em mate.
Bit easier than trying to visualise stuff in my head.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Aug 25, 2014)

Wow...this is amazing...4pgs of actual "discussion"! This would have never happened on a "different forum". hahahahaha... There would have already been lots of "wrong", "incorrect", "rubbish"....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Well done Gents...well done indeed! Great topic too!
Carry on!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Videos , if you got em mate.
> Bit easier than trying to visualise stuff in my head.



I'll make one available when I have training partner. My wife doesn't want to be in the clip. She thinks she is a bit over weight.


----------



## dlcox (Aug 25, 2014)

It's interesting to see how such a simple move is interpreted differently both conceptually and theoretically by various practitioners. I don't see anyone as "wrong" or "right" just expressions of personal preference on usage. I suppose some of this has to do with comfort level and some to do with theoretical approach to defense. Personally when I employ Pai Shou I use an outside in manner. I am not real comfortable with using Pai Shou in an inside out manner. It was brought up about the strength of an extended arm, etc........ I will always try to parry from an outside in manner, not always possible, but if it can be done it will be. This is my reasoning; The human arm is designed to move inward towards the center line in a pulling/pushing fashion, this is where the strength lies. The arm is weak pushing/pulling towards the shoulder away from the center line. 

Here's the experiment: 

1.Extend your arm and have someone place a Pai Shou on the inside of your wrist. Have them try to stop you from pushing your arm to the center line.
  (You will find that they have a hard time keeping your arm still.)

2. Now have them place the Pai Shou (other hand) on the outside of your wrist of that same extended arm. Try to keep your arm in place, don't let it move as they push towards your center line.
   (You will find it hard to resist them.)

I do this simple exercise with students using only my index finger when on the outside and am able to demonstrate how weak the arm is moving outward and how it wants to connect with the persons own center line, this requires very little effort on my part. It is also the reason why when Pai Shou is done correctly requires very little movement. This is basic triangle theory. When a punch is fully extended this is where the power resides. It is also where the arm is at it's weakest point as far as applied directional force is concerned, it wants to continue the circle back to the root, via the center line, it is already at the apex of the triangle. This is why I always try to attack and connect a bridge from the outside of the arm. As I already stated this isn't always possible but it is my goal. In order to facilitate this goal this is where, in my branch, we use side body and footwork. If I can avoid hard and heavy contact through evasion there is no need to "recover" from broken structure or a weak/improper bridge, but that's a whole other topic. Understanding basic body structure is the key to getting maximum result out of a bridge.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 25, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following combo is one of my favor "entry strategies".
> 
> 1. My left back hand parry down my opponent's leading right arm.
> 2. I then throw a fast right punch at his face (a jab with only 30% committed force but with 100% speed - it's a fake set up punch).
> ...



I've used that drill to train both 4-gate tan sao, or Wu Sao/Juk Jern combo quite a bit with students in the past. It really wakes people up that the other person may have hand speed that far outclasses yours... have to learn to use structure and timing to take that away.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

dlcox said:


> It's interesting to see how such a simple move is interpreted differently both conceptually and theoretically by various practitioners. I don't see anyone as "wrong" or "right" just expressions of personal preference on usage. I suppose some of this has to do with comfort level and some to do with theoretical approach to defense. Personally when I employ Pai Shou I use an outside in manner. I am not real comfortable with using Pai Shou in an inside out manner. It was brought up about the strength of an extended arm, etc........ I will always try to parry from an outside in manner, not always possible, but if it can be done it will be. This is my reasoning; The human arm is designed to move inward towards the center line in a pulling/pushing fashion, this is where the strength lies. The arm is weak pushing/pulling towards the shoulder away from the center line.
> 
> Here's the experiment:
> 
> ...



It makes sense because the arm going towards the inside has the big pectoral muscles of the chest to power it , but going to the outside is using the less powerful rear delts.

But sometimes it is unavoidable to parry the inside of the arm , it usually happens in those oh **** moments when you are trying to recover from a mistake.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> You should definitely be moving your body mass in as fast as you can to generate force in your strike and hit him.
> It does not have to be one punch , once the gap is opened up you just run him over with chain punches , one of the reasons it is important to have a nice economical Pak Sau is so that the Pak hand can be quickly cycled back into punching again.



Visualizing as best I can, we would probably call something in this vein using the "Chong Saat" (Crash Kill) strategy. It is different that engagement/bridging strategy (Ying or Jeet Kiu) for us. It's without question an effective strategy, just not 100% of the picture IMO. However if you're not looking for 1-hand vs 2 type of control, then it's not going to be your prerogative.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 25, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Visualizing as best I can, we would probably call something in this vein using the "Chong Saat" (Crash Kill) strategy. It is different that engagement/bridging strategy (Ying or Jeet Kiu) for us. It's without question an effective strategy, just not 100% of the picture IMO. However if you're not looking for 1-hand vs 2 type of control, then it's not going to be your prerogative.



To be honest , the Pak Sau and punch , although effective is sort of at the low end of the skill spectrum in Wing Chun.

Because you are using two hands to control one , experienced people who have been training for a long time in my lineage are usually able to use their "elbow force" to just punch through a guard using just the one hand.
It is seen as a higher level of skill to use a single arm , I imagine that would be the case in most lineages.


----------



## dlcox (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> It makes sense because the arm going towards the inside has the big pectoral muscles of the chest to power it , but going to the outside is using the less powerful rear delts.
> 
> But sometimes it is unavoidable to parry the inside of the arm , it usually happens in those oh **** moments when you are trying to recover from a mistake.



Ha! Exactly, it's at that moment things get interesting  That's the real pressure cooker moment, will your structure hold or fail? I usually at this point force a clinch and entering into grappling before breaking off just to stymie the opponent and try to take away the advantage he has gained over me, unless they out grapple me then it become another Oh ***** moment.


----------



## KPM (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> You should definitely be moving your body mass in as fast as you can to generate force in your strike and hit him.
> It does not have to be one punch , once the gap is opened up you just run him over with chain punches , one of the reasons it is important to have a nice economical Pak Sau is so that the Pak hand can be quickly cycled back into punching again.




Yes!  Good points!


----------



## KPM (Aug 25, 2014)

*  I will always try to parry from an outside in manner, not always possible, but if it can be done it will be. *

--Yep.  I would think most if not all Wing Chun people would agree with you!  ;-)

*
This is my reasoning; The human arm is designed to move inward towards the center line in a pulling/pushing fashion, this is where the strength lies. The arm is weak pushing/pulling towards the shoulder away from the center line. *

--MJM already nailed it.  The pecs are much stronger than the posterior delt and the rotator cuff.

*This is why I always try to attack and connect a bridge from the outside of the arm. As I already stated this isn't always possible but it is my goal. In order to facilitate this goal this is where, in my branch, we use side body and footwork. *

--"Pin Sun" baby!!!!       Sounds like we have a lot in common!

*Understanding basic body structure is the key to getting maximum result out of a bridge.

--*Absolutely!  And use of angles to destroy structure goes right along with it!


MJM wrote:

* But sometimes it is unavoidable to parry the inside of the arm , it usually happens in those oh **** moments when you are trying to recover from a mistake.

*--This is when that "3 count flow" that I mentioned before comes in handy!  You Pak on the inside (call it a "wrong Pak") with the first count, immediately replace it with a Tan on the second count and strike using the original hand on the third count.  And again, this can be done very fast, negating any "chasing hands" accusations.Or if punches are coming quickly, the third count can catch his punch in a 1,2 combo with a Biu Sau as the other hand follows a split second behind with your own punch.


----------



## dlcox (Aug 25, 2014)

KPM said:


> *  I will always try to parry from an outside in manner, not always possible, but if it can be done it will be. *
> 
> --Yep.  I would think most if not all Wing Chun people would agree with you!  ;-)
> 
> ...



Hi KPM,

I agree I don't think there is too much we don't agree on  We've had a few spats in the past but looking back I can honestly say that they were more about being prideful and bullheaded than anything else.

I like the 3 count method and use a similar concept myself. Generally I employ a standing elbow/tan shou type maneuver to jam as I crash in on the 3rd motion. I find it helps keep my midsection covered and lends it'self well to grabbing. I like trapping and qinna at close range if I can pull it off. I also try to maintain a grappling structure that if small joint manipulation and good trapping can't be effectively used will lead easily into throwing. My branch is heavy on arresting and throwing techniques similar to jujutsu as it comes from the Ruan family and the bounty hunters that taught them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> To be honest , the Pak Sau and punch , although effective is sort of at the low end of the skill spectrum in Wing Chun.
> 
> Because you are using two hands to control one , experienced people who have been training for a long time in my lineage are usually able to use their "elbow force" to just punch through a guard using just the one hand.
> It is seen as a higher level of skill to use a single arm , I imagine that would be the case in most lineages.


To compare "1 against 2" vs. "2 against 1", which one is better? there is no absolute answer on that.

When your opponent throws a right punch at you, if you can use your

- right Pai Shou to parry on your opponent's right wrist from your right (this wrist parry won't give your opponent any chance for his elbow striking),
- left Pai Shou to parry on his right elbow from your left,

you can "crack" his right elbow joint.


----------



## dlcox (Aug 25, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To compare "1 against 2" vs. "2 against 1", which one is better? there is no absolute answer on that.
> 
> When your opponent throws a right punch at you, if you can use your
> 
> ...



For what it's worth, I'm a fan of the 2 hand parry. I find, for me being of a grappling background, that 2 hands lend themselves better to locking and throwing. Much easier to catch an arm, neck, leg etc. This isn't my focus going in but I won't pass it up if the opportunty presents it'self. For me it's a safety and comfort thing. I'm sure we all have certain methods we prefer that many will look upon as basic or rudimentary skill. But if a technique yields a high percentage for you why discard it just hecause the general consensus looks down upon it?


----------



## Rou30 (Aug 25, 2014)

Some awesome ideas posted, thanks for that. 

Just to add a bit from how I was trained. 

We trained, actually all 3 methods posted. 
Depending on the distance & angle between the opponent & I, I'd pak at either the wrist, forearm or elbow. I will post a brief scenario as to our reasoning. 

Pak at the wrist; was mainly to deal with jab "style" punches, were brief, to the point, didn't always follow Wing Chuns concepts, but saved my face alot lol. 
With jab type punches, you will find that you can't always get to the elbow in time, tried... Failed many times, hangs head in shame. Unfortunately that is reality at times, we train to put our opponent into our box, basically our playground as a Chunner, but those darn brutes don't always stay in the sandbox or even play nice for that much. 

At the forearm; this idea was more of a Kiu Sau technique. We would start at the mid-forearm area, then either slide to the wrist or elbow depending on the energy, & motion of the attack. More of a way to try & gain control of the bridge, rather than a technique itself. 

At the elbow; the elbow, we'd rarely pak the elbow(slightly above) it was more a follow up pak, after engaging with a biu sau or jong sau. Or in closer ranges, a way to control the limb & then follow up with ground work, i.e. Take down, kam na etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 26, 2014)

dlcox said:


> For what it's worth, I'm a fan of the 2 hand parry. I find, for me being of a grappling background, that 2 hands lend themselves better to locking and throwing. Much easier to catch an arm, neck, leg etc. This isn't my focus going in but I won't pass it up if the opportunty presents it'self. For me it's a safety and comfort thing. I'm sure we all have certain methods we prefer that many will look upon as basic or rudimentary skill. But if a technique yields a high percentage for you why discard it just hecause the general consensus looks down upon it?


The "double pulling - 2 hand parry" that you use 

- one hand to control your opponent's wrist, 
- another hand to control his elbow,

is a very important skill in the grappling art. Not only you can use his leading arm to jam his back arm, since your elbow control can disable his entire arm (at that particular moment), you can free your wrist control hand to do whatever that you want  to do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 26, 2014)

I use "wrist parry" too. When I drill "wrist parry" I like to add few elements into it.

- keep stepping toward my opponent's "right side door" (this way, his back left hand can't reach me).
- finish my parry with a grab.
- pull his arm toward his punching direction a little bit (this little bit pulling can prevent his elbow strike).
- move my head out of his punching path (in case I miss my parry/grab).

To others, this may look like "chasing hand", but it plays a very important part of my strategy. Here is a clip that I made not too long ago.


----------



## dlcox (Aug 26, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "double pulling - 2 hand parry" that you use
> 
> - one hand to control your opponent's wrist,
> - another hand to control his elbow,
> ...



I absolutely agree. The other thing is that the position is very adaptable. Several bridge combinations can be employed based upon it's intended use. It's good for pushing, pulling, jamming, lifting etc. It may be less efficient from a boxing perspective as far as counter punching is concerned but ftom a wrapping/tying perspective as found in grappling it is an essential basic skill. Like the "Big Fist" & "Rhino Defense" it is a natural gross motor response that engages the opponent in a manner that allows for maximum effect with minimal effort while simultaneously keeping you covered. I'm all about an aggressive well covered defense that is used offensively.


----------



## KPM (Aug 26, 2014)

*I agree I don't think there is too much we don't agree on  We've had a few spats in the past but looking back I can honestly say that they were more about being prideful and bullheaded than anything else.*

--Yes!  I think you are absolutely right!

*My branch is heavy on arresting and throwing techniques similar to jujutsu as it comes from the Ruan family and the bounty hunters that taught them.

--*Cool!  I'm working on putting more such things into what I do as well.  Sometimes Wing Chun tends to be too "direct".   You don't always want to smash someone in the face!  If drunk uncle Bob is giving you crap you might be in trouble if you sent him home to aunt Lola with a busted up face or some cracked ribs!  ;-)


----------



## KPM (Aug 26, 2014)

Rou30 said:


> Pak at the wrist; was mainly to deal with jab "style" punches, were brief, to the point, didn't always follow Wing Chuns concepts, but saved my face alot lol.
> With jab type punches, you will find that you can't always get to the elbow in time, tried... Failed many times, hangs head in shame. Unfortunately that is reality at times, we train to put our opponent into our box, basically our playground as a Chunner, but those darn brutes don't always stay in the sandbox or even play nice for that much.
> 
> At the forearm; this idea was more of a Kiu Sau technique. We would start at the mid-forearm area, then either slide to the wrist or elbow depending on the energy, & motion of the attack. More of a way to try & gain control of the bridge, rather than a technique itself.
> ...



Good summary!  As I noted in a prior post, sometimes our thinking gets a little too "Wing Chun centric."  I think we've all been referring primarily to a Pak and immediate punch against someone else throwing a straight punch.   But you are absolutely right about a quick Pak at the wrist against a fast Boxer's jab.  Sometimes that's about the only thing you CAN do!  Boxers do this as well and call it a "cuff."


----------

