# Sup Gee Sao



## futsaowingchun (Jun 26, 2015)

A short explanation on how I use and interpret the Sup Gee Sao or 10 Character Hand or crossing hand. As found in the beginning of all three hand sets



 Siu Nim Tau, Chum Kiu, and Bil Tze.


----------



## KPM (Jun 27, 2015)

Thanks for the explanation! That makes sense.   I've always considered it a way to define the centerline.  I was taught that it goes back to the time when big mirrors in nice training halls were not common.  So the student was taught to use this motion to make sure they were "square" and to define the centerline so it is set in mind at the beginning of the training.  Not all lineages use the rolling Kwan motion when transitioning from the low to high positions.  Some just pivot at the wrists.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 27, 2015)

There is a lot in this video on a basic aspect I agree with and use.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 27, 2015)

I like your clip. The "double switching hands" is an important skill in CMA. Just for the sake of discussion, you move from your opponent's one side door to another side door and "by pass" his front door. Do you ever move from your opponent's side door to his front door, or move from his front door to his side door? Is there any reason that you "by pass" your opponent's "front door"?

I like to attack through my opponent's front door because his whole body is exposed under my attack. I can use left Tan Shou and right punch to enter between my opponent's arms. If he punches with his left hand, I can change my right punch into right Tan Shou, change my left Tan Shou into left punch, and I'm still inside of his front door. What's your opinion on this?

Here is a "side door" attack.







Here is a "front door" attack.


----------



## KPM (Jun 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to attack through my opponent's front door because his whole body is exposed under my attack. I can use left Tan Shou and right punch to enter between my opponent's arms. If he punches with his left hand, I can change my right punch into right Tan Shou, change my left Tan Shou into left punch, and I'm still inside of his front door. What's your opinion on this?



In TWC a primary tactic is to avoid fighting at the opponent's front door when you can.  The idea is that if you are standing square in front of the opponent within his front door he has the opportunity to use both of his arms equally.  So you are fighting with your two arms against his two arms in a relatively "even" match.   However, if you move to the side door then he cannot use both of his arms equally.  This way you are fighting with two arms against his one arm and have given yourself an advantage.  And you don't have to be on the outside of his arm as in your example to be at the side door.  You can be between his arms but can step out to the side to off-balance him and move away from his other arm while still coming at him from the side angle.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> if you are standing square in front of the opponent within his front door he has the opportunity to use both of his arms equally.


Agree that you have to deal with both of your opponent's arms. But he also has to deal with both of your arms too. One has no advantage over the other.

If you think that you are

- better than your opponent, you attack him through his front door (aggressive approach).
- equal or less skill than your opponent, you attack him through his side door (conservative approach).

From a wrestler point of view, "It's better to be inside than to be outside". This is why I prefer to move in through the front door. Instead of trying to get a lucky punch from the side door, I'll commit myself and deal with my opponent's both arms ASAP. This way, either I win, or I lose, there won't be anything in between.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> In TWC a primary tactic is to avoid fighting at the opponent's front door when you can.  The idea is that if you are standing square in front of the opponent within his front door he has the opportunity to use both of his arms equally.  So you are fighting with your two arms against his two arms in a relatively "even" match.   However, if you move to the side door then he cannot use both of his arms equally.  This way you are fighting with two arms against his one arm and have given yourself an advantage.  And you don't have to be on the outside of his arm as in your example to be at the side door.  You can be between his arms but can step out to the side to off-balance him and move away from his other arm while still coming at him from the side angle.


In a fight you'll have to take what you get, inside or outside. There won't be time to transition from in or out or vice versa. So your right if your inside a " side door" or slight angle can give you an advantage. Rather then coming straight up the middle. A slight angle could mean you're square but you've taken your opponent slightly of center. You make his body the angle.. I prefer the inside in most circumstances. It just takes confidence and full commit. I like the outside when fighting in opposite lead situations. But like I previously said. You take what your given.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you ever move from your opponent's side door to his front door, or move from his front door to his side door? Is there any reason that you "by pass" your opponent's "front door"?


I think he's bypassing the front door for purpose of demonstrating an idea? But you can't do that in a fight with someone going full speed and with intent. There just isn't going to be enough time. You will get mowed over. You can't conform around an opponent. A better idea is making your opponent conform around you. This way the front door, side door, inside, and outside become irrelevant. You are dictating where he goes not vice versa.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 27, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> You take what your given.


But which door that you want to enter is up to you. When your opponent punches you with his right hand, if you block your

- left Tan Shou from your right to your left and punch back with your right fist, you will enter through his front door.
- right Tan Shou from your left to your right and punch back with your left fist, you will enter through his side door.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 27, 2015)

Front door sometimes, side door sometimes, every situation is different. What is the opponent's weakness, what is the opponent giving, is the opponent empty handed or is there a weapon.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But which door that you want to enter is up to you. When your opponent punches you with his right hand, if you block your
> 
> - left Tan Shou from your right to your left and punch back with your right fist, you will enter through his front door.
> - right Tan Shou from your left to your right and punch back with your left fist, you will enter through his side door.


Yes but for me that's  too much thinking. Personally I'm going to react in Oh Sheet kind of way if I'm being attacked. If I'm sparring then yeah I can be more technical. But being attacked I'm just going to react. I'm not going to think tan bong, fuk. I'm thinking kill kill kill! I'm taking what I get.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - left Tan Shou from your right to your left and punch back with your right fist, you will enter through his front door.
> - right Tan Shou from your left to your right and punch back with your left fist, you will enter through his side door.


Why not just punch from tan if inside? So if opponent leads with right cross angle right slightly and throw left tan as punch instead of block? You can still maybe fire off right lead punch but if left tan has the line throw it. Instead of chasing for a block? Because while you are tan and punching the opponent is not eating a sandwich. His other punches are coming in and fast!


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 27, 2015)

What I'm saying is. I'm not going to tan punch left then tan punch right and so on. I'm going to maybe use tan to block if I'm late. If I'm early I'm hitting you with it. No more blocking. The tan punch drill will not work in a fight IMO against a halfway decent fighter. Unless he's eating a sandwich or baking a cake. Like you see in demos.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 27, 2015)

My personal expression and practice is vs a weapon being involved in some manner. What I have experience (for myself) when an edged weapon is being defended there are many aspects that are different vs an empty hand. If it works vs a blade it will also work vs an empty hand however, there are many empty hand techniques than do not work vs a blade. I prefer to bring my 6 major gates against the opponent's 3 rather than 6 vs 6. When on the inside vs a weapon the actions that allow simultaneous defenses vs the opposite hand keeps you exposed for major damage from the weapon arm. On the outside gates that changes giving you more coverage.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 27, 2015)

Yes knife is tricky cause there doesn't need to be power or torque or wind up behind it. Like a punch. Just a slight angle or direction change. And your cut. Inside is more dangerous agreed. But again controlling and not conforming is key. The 3 vs 6 gate theory is even  more crucial against a bladed weapon and even more so when on the inside.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 27, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I'm not going to tan punch left then tan punch right and so on.


This is why I like to evolve the "Tan/punch" into "rhino horn" that both arms are Tan and both arms are punch. It works as a wedge, integrate both offense and defense as one move, and be able to deal with opponent's punches from both directions.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jun 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> Thanks for the explanation! That makes sense.   I've always considered it a way to define the centerline.  I was taught that it goes back to the time when big mirrors in nice training halls were not common.  So the student was taught to use this motion to make sure they were "square" and to define the centerline so it is set in mind at the beginning of the training.  Not all lineages use the rolling Kwan motion when transitioning from the low to high positions.  Some just pivot at the wrists.



Thanks KPM glad you liked the video..I was worried when I made it if it was to overly simple,but to me it's important. Without centerline there is no Wing Chun in my opinion. What I wanted to also to say in the video which I did not properly touch on was how important those movements are. It shows how to use the centerline as well how to mantain it and recover when you lose it. The motions them self speaks louder then words but sometimes it need to be spoken.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jun 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like your clip. The "double switching hands" is an important skill in CMA. Just for the sake of discussion, you move from your opponent's one side door to another side door and "by pass" his front door. Do you ever move from your opponent's side door to his front door, or move from his front door to his side door? Is there any reason that you "by pass" your opponent's "front door"?
> 
> I like to attack through my opponent's front door because his whole body is exposed under my attack. I can use left Tan Shou and right punch to enter between my opponent's arms. If he punches with his left hand, I can change my right punch into right Tan Shou, change my left Tan Shou into left punch, and I'm still inside of his front door. What's your opinion on this?
> 
> ...


I believe the Sup Gee Sao is used for the side door because of a 45 degree of the double Tan and Gan. We have a 90 angle tan sao and gan sao which is used for the inside gate but it can also be used on the outside as well. using eaithe the inside or out has both good and bad. Staying to the outdoor in general is safer because you opponent is not facing and is out falnked so you have a tactical advantage. Fighting on the inside is better if your faster,have more mass and stronger then your opponent. you can take advantage of your opponent smaller size and end the fight fast. However,if your smaller and weaker this is not a good tactice. Which is why WC INO if designed for a women which is smaller and weaker then a man she would never attack on the indoor. that would be suicide. It would be smarter to out flank her bigger and stronger opponent and use his strenght against him by, That would be the only way she could win. Of course,if your a WC guy who is 200lbs and very strong then you have options. If you can end the fight fast then don't waste time move in for the kill..

Also using the indoor to attack is dangerous with a good grappler it would be better aagain to not fight him like your picture..it would better smarter to move around hin and strile at diferent angles having him gusssing when the next attack is going to be..


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I believe the Sup Gee Sao is used for the side door because of a 45 degree of the double Tan and Gan. We have a 90 angle tan sao and gan sao which is used for the inside gate but it can also be used on the outside as well. using eaithe the inside or out has both good and bad. Staying to the outdoor in general is safer because you opponent is not facing and is out falnked so you have a tactical advantage. Fighting on the inside is better if your faster,have more mass and stronger then your opponent. you can take advantage of your opponent smaller size and end the fight fast. However,if your smaller and weaker this is not a good tactice. Which is why WC INO if designed for a women which is smaller and weaker then a man she would never attack on the indoor. that would be suicide. It would be smarter to out flank her bigger and stronger opponent and use his strenght against him by, That would be the only way she could win. Of course,if your a WC guy who is 200lbs and very strong then you have options. If you can end the fight fast then don't waste time move in for the kill..
> 
> Also using the indoor to attack is dangerous with a good grappler it would be better aagain to not fight him like your picture..it would better smarter to move around hin and strile at diferent angles having him gusssing when the next attack is going to be..


I can see what your saying for a smaller opponent having to use more angling and flanking. But I think there is a difference between moving around someone and making them move around you, wouldn't you agree? Even if the opponent is much larger and stronger. I think you can redirect there committed energy and guide it to where it needs to be? Which I see in your video I think?


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

I don't think being on the inside means you have to be faster? I think you are faster by default anyway inside. Since  the target is closer and depending on angle of attack it may end up being a straighter and more direct shot. Also I don't see how mass or strength changes from outside to inside. Structure is structure? Mass is mass?


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I like to evolve the "Tan/punch" into "rhino horn" that both arms are Tan and both arms are punch. It works as a wedge, integrate both offense and defense as one move, and be able to deal with opponent's punches from both directions.


Exactly. IMO A big misconception in martial arts is that you can somehow block everything and avoid being hit. That's a dangerous mentality to have.


futsaowingchun said:


> Also using the indoor to attack is dangerous with a good grappler it would be better aagain to not fight him like your picture..it would better smarter to move around hin and strile at diferent angles having him gusssing when the next attack is going to be..


Not trying to beat you up here on this stuff. But good grapplers angle also. They are going to track your movements and take you down. So again the smaller and more direct your movements are. The less you give them to work with. A good grappler will seize his opportunity to throw or takedown once you start to move. So a downside of being on the outside is the movements tend to be larger than in the inside.. But different strokes for different folks. This is just my experience.


----------



## Marnetmar (Jun 28, 2015)

Awesome insight, but I thought SGS was the name for that snake hand thing mainland styles like to do?


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 28, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree that you have to deal with both of your opponent's arms. But he also has to deal with both of your arms too. One has no advantage over the other.
> 
> If you think that you are
> 
> ...




Agree! One should have even amount of skill to do both ("front" and "side" door methods)...however, generally speaking one must be very aggressive when dealing with the front door approach. It is sometimes called crashing in the door wing chun. To do the side door approach...your footwork must be trained very well (obviously).


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> But I think there is a difference between moving around someone and making them move around you, wouldn't you agree?



Oh heck yeah!!! One takes a lot more time than the other. And as those critical nano-seconds are ticking by...there may not be enough time for moving around someone. But making them move/turn around you is more economical if you can pull it off.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> ...Also I don't see how mass or strength changes from outside to inside. Structure is structure? Mass is mass?


It doesn't.
The opponent's as well as yours. If his mass and structure is greater than yours you will be at smashed. It is why we also have footwork associated within maintaining our structure.


----------



## KPM (Jun 28, 2015)

Agree that you have to deal with both of your opponent's arms. But he also has to deal with both of your arms too. One has no advantage over the other.

---Which is why you go to the side door.  Because you DO have an advantage!   And granted, you may not always have the opportunity to start there.  But when you can, it is to your advantage to work from there.

From a wrestler point of view, "It's better to be inside than to be outside". This is why I prefer to move in through the front door. Instead of trying to get a lucky punch from the side door, I'll commit myself and deal with my opponent's both arms ASAP. This way, either I win, or I lose, there won't be anything in between.

---What do mean "get a lucky punch"?  Working from the side door is no different than working from the front door when it comes to the ability to use both arms to strike the opponent.  Its actually easier to hit him from the side door than the front door because you only have to worry about one of his arms.


----------



## KPM (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> In a fight you'll have to take what you get, inside or outside. There won't be time to transition from in or out or vice versa. .



Why do you say that?  A fight often ends up in a "face off."  If I am ready and facing my opponent I have a choice to go up the center or angle off to the side.  All it takes is good footwork.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 28, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> there may not be enough time for moving around someone.


To drag your opponents leading arm in circle and move toward his side door is an excellent strategy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 28, 2015)

KPM said:


> If I am ready and facing my opponent I have a choice to go up the center or angle off to the side.  All it takes is good footwork.


Agree that if you truly want to enter through your opponent's "front door", it's not hard to do.

IMO, all it takes is which direction that your arm will move. If both of your hands are in your center line, when your opponent punches, if you just move your

- left Tan Shou to your left to deal with the right punch,
- right Tan Shou to your right to deal with the left punch,

you will enter your opponent's "front door". The general MA term for this is called "分手 (Fen Shou) - separate hands" that you separate your opponent's arms from inside out.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

KPM said:


> Why do you say that?  A fight often ends up in a "face off."  If I am ready and facing my opponent I have a choice to go up the center or angle off to the side.  All it takes is good footwork.


I say this because even through a fight might end up in a face off. What if your opponent doesn't cooperate and allow time for your fancy footwork. He tracks you and if he's a wrestler he "turns the corner"?  Then what?

So let's say you throw an angle off attack? So does he, but with a better angle. He cuts your angle and now your on the inside. So whatever you thought your game plan was from an angled "side door" is now going to change to "front door". So do you try and go back to the side? Or do fight from where ever you end up? The front door/ inside doesn't necessarily mean straight in or squared shoulder to shoulder two arms vs two arms. I train to react. I let my training partners/brothers/friends/strangers off the street attack me anyway they want. Then I react. I still drill certain skills and practice entries. But my favorite training is letting people just attack and i react.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

Here KPM  





Pretty much sums up what I'm saying. There's a little more to it that I'm learning. But Alan nails it.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Oh heck yeah!!! One takes a lot more time than the other. And as those critical nano-seconds are ticking by...there may not be enough time for moving around someone. But making them move/turn around you is more economical if you can pull it off.


Well yeah, that the real skill. But there are tricks that help make someone move where you want. Like disruption and pain compliance .


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> my favorite training is letting people just attack and i react.


My favor training is always

- I attack my opponent.
- Let my opponent to react,
- I then react to his reaction.

Some Karate guy said,

- If you punch me, I'll move back.
- If you punch me again, I'll move back again.
- If you punch me the 3rd time, I'll move back the 3rd time.

If you dare to punch me again, I'll jump back in and eat you alive.

I may not move back 3 times but I like his strategy that you only move back and not react to your opponent's attack. The reason is you may not have decided whether you want to take that fight or not. The moment that you have decide to take that fight, you attack. The advantage of this approach is "it gives you more time to think".


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

KPM said:


> Agree that you have to deal with both of your opponent's arms. But he also has to deal with both of your arms too. One has no advantage over the other.
> 
> ---Which is why you go to the side door.  Because you DO have an advantage!   And granted, you may not always have the opportunity to start there.  But when you can, it is to your advantage to work from


Again the front door does not mean you have two arms vs two arms. I can come in your front door overhook an arm and shift slightly then it's 2 vs 1 1/2  arms. Because as I over hooked and turned I broke your elbow or dislocated a shoulder. Wow maybe there's a reason grapplers like the inside also? I know the secret form of bui jitsu


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My favor training is always
> 
> - I attack my opponent.
> - Let my opponent to react,
> ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Again the front door does not mean you have two arms vs two arms. I can come in your front door overhook an arm and shift slightly then it's 2 vs 1 1/2  arms. Because as I over hooked and turned I broke your elbow or dislocated a shoulder. Wow maybe there's a reason grapplers like the inside also? I do bui jitsu


When you use under hook or over hook on one of your opponent's shoulders, you can pretty much ignore his other arm. You can even use both arms to deal with his one shoulder.

Here is an example.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you use under hook or over hook on one of your opponent's shoulders, you can pretty much ignore his other arm. You can even use both arms to deal with his one shoulder.
> 
> Here is an example.


Exactly! You must know secret bui jitsu form too! Haha!


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you use under hook or over hook on one of your opponent's shoulders, you can pretty much ignore his other arm. You can even use both arms to deal with his one shoulder.
> 
> Here is an example.


Wow look the grappler gets an angle too.How come he doesn't stand in the same place and eat a sandwich like most Striker vs grappling videos?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Wow look the grappler gets an angle too.How come he doesn't stand in the same place and eat a sandwich like most Striker vs grappling videos?


Because both "stealing step" and "wheeling step" are wrestler's must train footwork.

You want to

- take over your opponent's position, and
- let your opponent to fall right at your original position.

In order to do so, you will need to move yourself out of your opponent's moving path (that you guide him into), give him all the space that he will need, so he can "fall" properly (not fall on top of you).


----------



## geezer (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Here KPM
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You beat me to it. Yesterday, purely by chance I was watching this same clip over on Youtube and thinking about how I should post it on this thread. Alan Orr's adaptation of WC would fit very well with DTE.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I can see what your saying for a smaller opponent having to use more angling and flanking. But I think there is a difference between moving around someone and making them move around you, wouldn't you agree? Even if the opponent is much larger and stronger. I think you can redirect there committed energy and guide it to where it needs to be? Which I see in your video I think?



I'm a big guy so he has to move around me he has no choice. I on the other hand I don't have to move around him. thats the difference. When your smaller things like redirecting the opponents force and using angles etc is a wise for the smaller person. In general if your bigger and stronger just go in for the kill and get it over,


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jun 28, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I don't think being on the inside means you have to be faster? I think you are faster by default anyway inside. Since  the target is closer and depending on angle of attack it may end up being a straighter and more direct shot. Also I don't see how mass or strength changes from outside to inside. Structure is structure? Mass is mass?


 
inside or outside does not mean you are closer or father away,but being on the outside is safer because you have a better position.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

geezer said:


> You beat me to it. Yesterday, purely by chance I was watching this same clip over on Youtube and thinking about how I should post it on this thread. Alan Orr's adaptation of WC would fit very well with DTE.


I sound like a broken record sometimes but, good fighting is good fighting. So yeah very similar to the DTE WC I'm learning. Alan's video is a great example of what I was trying to explain.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 28, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> being on the outside is safer because you have a better position.


Through the "front door", if you can wrap one of your opponent's arms, you only need to deal with one of his arms.






If you can wrap both of your opponent's arms, you don't have to deal with any of his arms but his head only.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I'm a big guy so he has to move around me he has no choice. I on the other hand I don't have to move around him. thats the difference. When your smaller things like redirecting the opponents force and using angles etc is a wise for the smaller person. In general if your bigger and stronger just go in for the kill and get it over,


I'm not a small guy I'm 5'10-11 and shrinking. I weigh about 195lbs. I train sometimes with and have sparred with my senior MA brother who is 6.4" and 275lbs. I don't move around him MUCH. I may take a slight angle or I make him my angle by distorting him. He's very skilled so I don't toss him around like a rag doll. But I can move him and I don't need to make big exaggerated movements to do so. He has probably 6" reach and I can come through the front door. I use subtle angling. So being big doesn't mean you can just go in for the kill. Now I train my butt off every week and it's not easy.  But being big in stature means nothing to me. Like I said he's big and very skilled. So the average unskilled big guy is usually a walk in the park.. Cause I'm rad!!!!

The inside usually offers more target area and depending  on angle is a shorter distance. Maybe I'm in deeper idk? But usually my fist are at the target instantly.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 28, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Through the "front door", if you can wrap one of your opponent's arms, you only need to deal with one of his arms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is why I like the front door! The matrix video when he wraps both arms up can easily become a throw. Just suck in second arm and hip throw or trip.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 29, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can wrap both of your opponent's arms, you don't have to deal with any of his arms but his head only.




Perhaps.  But what about the legs?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 29, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> But what about the legs?


You can bite your shin bone on the inside of your opponent's leading leg (not on his shin bone) and  obtain a "leg bridging".


----------



## KPM (Jun 29, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Again the front door does not mean you have two arms vs two arms. I can come in your front door overhook an arm and shift slightly then it's 2 vs 1 1/2  arms. Because as I over hooked and turned I broke your elbow or dislocated a shoulder. Wow maybe there's a reason grapplers like the inside also? I know the secret form of bui jitsu


 
Jake I think we are defining things differently.  See my earlier post in reference to John's illustration where I said that using the side door does not necessarily mean being on the outside of the opponent's arm.


----------



## KPM (Jun 29, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Through the "front door", if you can wrap one of your opponent's arms, you only need to deal with one of his arms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

In TWC terms, this would still be consider using the "side door" or the "blind side" because you are not directly in front of the opponent.


----------



## Eric_H (Jun 29, 2015)

A bit late to the party, and I (perhaps unsurprisingly) don't agree with the OP's assessment of the crossing hand. In terms of application, it's almost always a bad idea to thread underneath against someone with forward energy. It only works when they don't have fwd energy or you can overpower them to begin with. Also I see you shifting your footwork a lot and stepping to the side, neither seem to give you much of an advantage and would only serve to offer up your COG. You're already dominating the line of engagement... why not just move down that?


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 29, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> A bit late to the party, and I (perhaps unsurprisingly) don't agree with the OP's assessment of the crossing hand. In terms of application, it's almost always a bad idea to thread underneath against someone with forward energy. It only works when they don't have fwd energy or you can overpower them to begin with. Also I see you shifting your footwork a lot and stepping to the side, neither seem to give you much of an advantage and would only serve to offer up your COG. You're already dominating the line of engagement... why not just move down that?


When someone moves there COG. I take it. So move wisely! Luckily I've had good instruction past and present! Cause I'm rad!


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 29, 2015)

KPM said:


> Jake I think we are defining things differently.  See my earlier post in reference to John's illustration where I said that using the side door does not necessarily mean being on the outside of the opponent's arm.


Probably. I think you and I aren't to far off in our approaches? Matter fact anyone who trains in a realistic manner. I'm probably going to be on the same page with.


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 29, 2015)

KPM said:


> In TWC terms, this would still be consider using the "side door" or the "blind side" because you are not directly in front of the opponent.


What about inside the arm or box, but angled the same?whats that considered. Cause maybe arm won't be there?


----------



## KPM (Jun 30, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> What about inside the arm or box, but angled the same?whats that considered. Cause maybe arm won't be there?


 
Still the "blind side" because you are relatively "square on" and the opponent is relatively "side on."


----------



## Danny T (Jun 30, 2015)

We use:
Center line, Inside Quarter line, Outside Quarter line, Splitting the lines (inside-outside or outside-inside), Side lines, Back door and back quarter lines.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 30, 2015)

I just use: "get er done!"


----------



## Vajramusti (Jun 30, 2015)

Threads go off in so many different directions. In any case the startup
used the term sup gee sao- a term used in describing a movement
in the sil lim tao. IMO- the slt motions are not simple techniques. I know that the Ip  sons regard the motions as ways to find the center line.The brothers joined IM in 1962.But I am not in the Ip Chun or Ip Ching lineages, though I respect them and my journey is therefore different. So I am sharing not arguing.
IM's HK teaching really had 3 natural phases- startup 50 to about 53, sustained teaching 1953 to 1962, slowing down 1963 to death in 1972.

Well ,ANY motion in the slt can be used to teach the center line and balances.
Very briefly-(an opinion fwiw)

IMO sup gee sao has additional tasks early on including-
1. square bodied cooperation between both hand structures with each elbow joint as a fulcrum for providing direction and leverage.

2. It allows a shooting  down ward and a little forward to the lower gate,
followed by a kwan sao roll to the upper gate.

3. Its for close quarters hand development when developing the slt- that little idea is expanded with chum kiu stepping and turning as may be needed.

4. the sup gee sao can be use for controlling a knee or foot strike to the groin
and affecting the balance of the other person.
 5. the follow up kwan sao can result in a throw- with the ground being your friend.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 7, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> A bit late to the party, and I (perhaps unsurprisingly) don't agree with the OP's assessment of the crossing hand. In terms of application, it's almost always a bad idea to thread underneath against someone with forward energy. It only works when they don't have fwd energy or you can overpower them to begin with.



Heh, I was going to post something almost identical. (maybe also unsurprisingly?)
Threading the hand underneath takes away the idea of the wu sau's ability to provide 2-lines of offense/defense for the jong sau, and leaves both of your hands open to being trapped by your opponent's single hand from anyone with a little skill and (as you mentioned) fwd intent when you try to 'thread' needlessly underneath. Unless of course the opponent is much smaller and less skilled as even somewhat admitted by the OP.


----------



## geezer (Jul 9, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> IMO- the slt motions are not simple techniques.
> 
> Well ,*ANY motion in the slt can be used to teach the center line and balances.*
> Very briefly-(an opinion fwiw)
> ...



As Joy said in the bolded portion above, this "sap gee" movement sequence, (which we also refer to as _gow-cha tan-sau_ to _gow-cha gaun-sau_ and _kwun-sau_ returning to g_ow-cha tan-sau)_ do indeed locate center-line and describe the vertical mid-line, but _so do most movements in the form._  That's because WC/VT/WT is a _system, _not just an aggregate of movements and techniques. Applications, like those demonstrated in the OP do have their place as _examples. _ Nevertheless, we need to be mindful that these are not mere "techniques" but rather foundational structures that are integrated into the way of movement and dealing with energy that we call WC/VT/WT.

Now, regarding the specific techniques demonstrated in the OP, my sentiments also coincide with Eric and JP. But if Futsao makes it work, I'm cool with that.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 10, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Heh, I was going to post something almost identical. (maybe also unsurprisingly?)
> Threading the hand underneath takes away the idea of the wu sau's ability to provide 2-lines of offense/defense for the jong sau, and leaves both of your hands open to being trapped by your opponent's single hand from anyone with a little skill and (as you mentioned) fwd intent when you try to 'thread' needlessly underneath. Unless of course the opponent is much smaller and less skilled as even somewhat admitted by the OP.




using two hands is like a sheild that is hard to break through your defense so no wu sao is needed. the sup gee sao hands are the strongest structure IMO which is why its in all 3 hand forms,


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 10, 2015)

Then why is the wu sau there at all? Why not just use crossed hands Sup Gee Sao for your bai jong ready position?  Not trying to be argumentative, but I think what you are saying now and doing in the clip greatly contradict each other. If this is the strongest structure in your opinion, then why doesn't it survive even his weak, half hearted trap later on, resulting in you to having to change to something else like kwan sau? (which was my initial point anyway)

IMO, this is the risk you run into when creating a demo with smaller & less-skilled opponents who aren't really trying to pressure you in any way - all sorts of things can be made to work. I realize 'it's just a demo', but to get back to my initial point: if your opponent had been stepping in and actually trying to hit you with any type of force or structure from the start (vs punching with no intent and fist still over a foot away from you even when fully extended), then you wouldn't have the time or space to abandon your already-good wu sau position to thread your hand under the other.

So again, if this strong structure can't withstand even his simple trap as shown in the later part of the clip, how is it going to survive someone coming in with elbow down really trying to smash you on center? His structure and pressure is going to trap both arms when you cross them without even having to use a grab for the trap.


----------

