# Wing Chun - SLT class



## simplewc101 (Jun 8, 2012)

This is me in Sil Lim Tao class.
Sifu has his headcam on so we can see what we're doing from his point of view.

Check these videos out!

Bui Sao video- 





Tan Sao Video-





Pak Sao video-


----------



## simplewc101 (Jun 8, 2012)

Feel free to comment/ post in the YouTube comments section!


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 8, 2012)

Allowing for differences in lineage , there are quite a few things I would do differently.
I'm trying to be diplomatic here.
In the first Biu Sau video, launch the Biu Sau but keep the other hand in Wu Sau as a back up in case the Biu Sau fails to redirect.
I have an issue in him saying that Biu Sau is not an attack , most deflections in Wing Chun can continue straight through to attack if the opponents counterforce is weak.

The Biu Sau does not have to be a strike to the eyes it could just as easily be used as a palm strike , it also looked as though he was deviating off the centerline.
Sticking hands teaches us to focus our force to the opponents centerline.

The second video also had the Tan Sau deviating off the centerline , which means if there is no counterforce from the opponent then your Tan Sau will actually go through to strike the opponent somewhere in the shoulder area instead of the face or chest , again this goes against the principles of the first form and sticking hands.

In my lineage we prefer to use tan sau in a counter pierce movement on the outside of his arm from the same side arm , if we were to do it your way we would actually use a counter punch instead of the tan sau , we feel it is a stronger , more invasive movement.

The main things are to keep the wrists positioned on the centerline and have all forces focused towards the centerline , if the angle of the arms are correct and the technique done properly then it will redirect the punch.

We must always have the intention of striking straight through the opponents attack from our centerline to the opponents centerline , anything less is wasting movement and passive.

Didn't get to the Pak Sau video so I can't comment on that.
I didn't mean to be over critical, but I believe these things to be universal Wing Chun basics.


----------



## simplewc101 (Jun 8, 2012)

Thank you for being cordial and polite.
There are 1000 ways to skin a cat, but we are just trying to learn one way to play a hand.


"In the first Biu Sau video, launch the Biu Sau but keep the other hand  in Wu Sau as a back up in case the Biu Sau fails to redirect.
I have an issue in him saying that Biu Sau is not an attack , most  deflections in Wing Chun can continue straight through to attack if the  opponents counterforce is weak."

I see what you are saying about if the Bui Sao fails to redirect, and I understand why the Wu sao there would be a good idea, but we are practicing to develop a bui sao that will be strong enough to clear the attack every time. If I start with my hand a Wu Sao though and try to bui, I think that Ill be late in catching his punch with bui, especially if your opponent isn't throwing WC centerline punches, their fist wont reach center until its hitting your face.  As far as the second part goes, he did say that if you bui sao and he is weak, or you go indoor and you poke him in the eyes, that's just collateral damage. If the opponents punches are strong, you might want to deviate off center slightly to clear a heavy fist, but if you are confident a bui sao to the centerline will work just fine vs your opponent, then go ahead and do it.

"The second video also had the Tan Sau deviating off the centerline ,  which means if there is no counterforce from the opponent then your Tan  Sau will actually go through to strike the opponent somewhere in the  shoulder area instead of the face or chest , again this goes against the  principles of the first form and sticking hands."

I'm not so sure I agree here.. If there was no counterforce (a strong punch) then my tan sao would end up exactly where it shows in the video. it would not extend all the way to the opponents shoulder, there is no need. This IS actually in the SLT form in the 3rd section, you have Tan Sao from the tucked position through the center line and to the shoulder line, guan, tok, huen, di juk, tok, huen.

"In my lineage we prefer to use tan sau in a counter pierce movement on  the outside of his arm from the same side arm , if we were to do it your  way we would actually use a counter punch instead of the tan sau , we  feel it is a stronger , more invasive movement."

Ya you could do that, I assume you are talking about if your hand is back close to your body and you use forward tan sao energy to centerline.
I would probably use juam sau or pak or if my hand was out further, a guan sau.
I think I know what you mean when you say if you were to do it our way ( opposite side hands instead of same side hands) you would punch because it is more invasive, yes agree with you, but again there are 1000 ways to skin a cat, and we practice doing what you are saying in a different drill. It jsut depends on how you are feeling that day, or how you want to set him up. 


Thank you for your thoughts, cheers.


----------



## geezer (Jun 9, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> The Biu Sau does not have to be a strike to the eyes it could just as easily be used as a palm strike , it also looked as though he was deviating off the centerline.
> Sticking hands teaches us to focus our force to the opponents centerline...
> The second video also had the Tan Sau deviating off the centerline....
> The main things are to keep the wrists positioned on the centerline and have all forces focused towards the centerline , if the angle of the arms are correct and the technique done properly then it will redirect the punch.
> ...



Mook comes out of the TST-Yip Man lineage, while my lineage is LT-Yip Man, but regardless we agree on the above 100%. In my lineage, even the lead hand Pak-Sau is directed outward along the centerline (as in our "lat-Sau drills") It only moves to the side if our opponent's oncoming strike compresses our arm _and actually pushes the hand aside_. 

In each case, our intent is to _pierce_ our opponent's defenses and attack. When our attack is interrupted by an obstacle, then _the force of our opponent's arms creates our defense_. In so far as possible, let your opponent do the work! In the "Biu-sau" example given, _our_ objective is pierce through, clearing aside our opponent's arms _and striking_ ...typically to the neck, throat or jaw with the outside edge of the hand or even the bridge of the extended arm. We do _not_ strike forcefully with the finger tips in either "biu" or biu-tze sau, ... although they can be  a useful distraction if they flick into an opponent's eyes. BTW this technique from SNT in our system is called _"shang (double) biu-tze sau"_). 

The real point here is that all three videos show techniques that move off centerline and use force in directions other than toward your opponent (including withdrawing force in the first clip when the instructor says ..."usually what you do is you pull 'em in...."). In my view, this makes for more complexity, less efficiency, and is generally quite different from our orientation.


----------



## simplewc101 (Jul 8, 2012)

geezer said:


> Mook comes out of the TST-Yip Man lineage, while my lineage is LT-Yip Man, but regardless we agree on the above 100%. In my lineage, even the lead hand Pak-Sau is directed outward along the centerline (as in our "lat-Sau drills") It only moves to the side if our opponent's oncoming strike compresses our arm _and actually pushes the hand aside_.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...



well geez, you two definitely have given me a lot to chew on. Thank you for your input.

One thing that I don't really understand is what you mean by "pak sao is directed outward along centerline, (as in our "lat-Sau drills")

being a novice student, I'm honestly not really sure what lat sao drills are, and maybe that's what's adding to my misunderstanding of what you mean in the first 3 lines.

you know, I personally didn't see anything wrong really with him saying "usually what you want to do here is pull him in".. 
I understand that the objective is usually toward your opponent as you and Mook emphasize, but what about lap sao? does that not pull your opponent? jut sao? upper gan? gum sao?  what about a pak sao that starts out as an outstretched hand, maybe like you just threw a punch, and then reverses to the centerline or a little further if you need more room to clear the punch from your face?
don't you have bong-lap-da drills that use pulling and pushing energy at the same time? lap his arm and hit him in the face?
so if you bui sao, then lap and kick, it's still the same principle? you musn't always move forward to your opponent, sometimes he is coming to you, or you can make him come to you. maybe it adds complexity because it's a kick? but I don't see it as a bad thing to do..

thanks again, it's good to hear WC from another person's point of view.


----------



## geezer (Jul 8, 2012)

_SimpleWC:_ I like the way you are really _thinking_ in your response. You make some good points, namely that every rule has apparent exceptions. When you convert a lead hand into a pak sau, yes you do withdraw it to contact your opponent's arm. And, yes, the common application of lap-da-sau (lap-sau pulling down your opponent's bong sau applied together with a punch) is often applied pulling inward... in many branches of WC (we don't do it that way). 

As I said, my _VT_ comes from Leung Ting's _WT_ system (I spent more than a decade as his "todai" (disciple) before I moved on. One thing that is very central to LT's interpretation of Yip Man's art is that you train your body and limbs to behave like pieces of _springy bamboo_ or rattan cane. Your intent is always directed forward, and you borrow your opponent's force to make your defenses. So, bong-sau, for example, is simply "what happens" when your opponent bends and rolls your "springy" arm with a forceful punch over and across your bridge. Likewise tan-sau is what happens when their force comes from the other side. Same for jum-sau in dan-chi. In each case, your opponent's force _literally makes your defense by bending your arm. _Like bending a springy rod. And when the "spring" slips free... SNAP! your arm flies forward and strikes your opponent ...like getting smacked in the face by a sapling.

Incidentally, this is best summed up in the famous WC kuen kuit (boxing aphorism), _"Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung"_ which is variously translated as something like, "Stay with what comes, follow the retreat, and thrust forward when the way is free". Or, to fit the bamboo-spring analogy above, you could say: "Bend and yield under pressure, extend and follow as the pressure withdraws, and when released snap out and hit!" 

Oh, and regarding the term "Lat-sau", don't sweat it. Each WC branch has different terms to describe some of their drills and movements. For us, _lat-sau_ is a set of such drills. In fact, even the different offshoots of the _WT_ lineage do them differently. The important terms like tan, bong, fook, etc. are pretty universal. In the future, if anybody from another lineage gives you grief about the details of terminology, just remind them that _you are studying WC, not Cantonese_ and walk away! And, good luck in your training.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 9, 2012)

This is a very interesting technical discussion.
I will give the stuff about lat sau drills etc a miss because I know nothing about it.

But I might chime in about the issue of pulling the opponent in.
In the TST lineage when we apply "sinking elbow energy" to pull an opponents arms down , we are not only sinking the elbow , we are slightly contracting the angle in our arm at the same time.

This has the effect of pulling the opponents arms down and slightly pulling him forward and off balance , this is where it gets tricky , even though the whole arm is sinking and the angle of the arm is slightly contracting , we must still have "forward force " directed at the opponent the whole time , even though our arm is physically going back to a small degree.


To make it a bit simpler to understand we are not pulling the opponent in towards our body , we are actually pulling him in down towards our feet.

You could think of it this way , if the opponent is resisting , and I cut straight down on his arm , I am actually making him heavier and myself lighter.
He is underneath and can apply 100 percent of his body weight to that structure , in comparison with my arm on top I can only apply a smaller percentage of my body weight.

By slightly contracting the angle of my arm as I sink the elbow , it becomes a more circular type of force , like a spinning wheel pulling his arm in and down at the same time.
So instead of directly opposing his resistance and making him heavier and me lighter by just pressing down , I avoid this by using a different force vector that doesn't destabilise me and will off balance the opponent and destroy his structure at the same time.

It is imperative though that it is only a slight contraction of the arm , don't over emphasise the pulling aspect , then you run the risk of destabilising your stance by pulling the opponent into you which is not what we want.
We only want to off balance him slightly to destroy his structure so he can't resist our cut down or fook sau movements and our other arm can punch through.
If I had to put a figure on it I would say that it would probably be about 90% sinking of the elbow and 10% pulling the opponent in.

Hope that made sense.


----------



## geezer (Jul 9, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> This is a very interesting technical discussion.
> I will give the stuff about lat sau drills etc a miss because I know nothing about it.
> 
> But I might chime in about the issue of pulling the opponent in.
> ...



_Mook_, I think this is a _very_ clear explanation that completes the point I was trying to make. By sinking the elbow or even jerking downward you effectively unbalance your opponent and may even topple him towards you, but because you are maintaining forward energy, you don't give him anything to use against you. On the other hand, if you _withdraw_ energy and truly pull your opponent inward toward your center, he can exploit that  withdrawing energy and use it t against you. Maintaining forward energy prevents this.

Along this line, we've probably all seen senior practitioners doing chi-sau literally play with their juniors, knocking them back, then reeling them into the next attack and tossing them back again, as effortlessly as if they were a  human yo-yo. But examined closely, it's not a brutish matter of slamming-outward and hauling-inward. It's really more of a timing and balance game, using the techniques you described to off-balance and control the "victim", letting him do most of the work.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 9, 2012)

geezer said:


> _Mook_, I think this is a _very_ clear explanation that completes the point I was trying to make. By sinking the elbow or even jerking downward you effectively unbalance your opponent and may even topple him towards you, but because you are maintaining forward energy, you don't give him anything to use against you. On the other hand, if you _withdraw_ energy and truly pull your opponent inward toward your center, he can exploit that  withdrawing energy and use it t against you. Maintaining forward energy prevents this.
> 
> 
> Along this line, we've probably all seen senior practitioners doing chi-sau literally play with their juniors, knocking them back, then reeling them into the next attack and tossing them back again, as effortlessly as if they were a  human yo-yo. But examined closely, it's not a brutish matter of slamming-outward and hauling-inward. It's really more of a timing and balance game, using the techniques you described to off-balance and control the "victim", letting him do most of the work.



Absolutely  , one of the reasons that it works , is due mainly to the forward energy.
The opponent senses this force coming at him and perceives it as resistance , so he tenses up and commits even more of his body mass to try and overcome it.
But it's all just a trap , we wait till he reaches a tipping point and then take advantage of his overly committed movement.

Without the forward force , the opponent would not commit himself because he feels no threat and not fall into our trap, or worse he could just barge in and collapse the angle of our arm and we end up with our arm essentially jammed and trapped up against our own body.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 12, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> ,...it's all just a trap , we wait till he reaches a tipping point and then take advantage of his overly committed movement.



YES! My instructor would tell me often (still does), "we don't trap he traps himself. Set him up, time him, let him trap himself." Took me a long time to truly understand sink the elbow while giving just enough pressure that he stiffens with resistance, wait for the change in his center of gravity and let him trap himself.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 12, 2012)

Technical details aside I like the technological advance of seeing a video from this point of view.  Cool!


----------

