# Pin Sun Wing Chun Level 1



## KPM (Oct 29, 2017)

Hi Guys!

This is REALLY going to tick off Jim Roselando!  

When someone tells me I can't do something, I usually take that as a challenge.  I'm stubborn like that!  So I have decided that Pin Sun Wing Chun is indeed unique and special and I am going to teach it to my small group in parallel to our Wing Chun Boxing.  This way they will have a relatively rare "traditional" system, will have a better idea of where I am drawing inspiration from, and will have a source for their own inspiration.  So I put up a series of lessons for them to follow and decided to make them "public" rather than "private" like my long pole lessons

If any of you believe that my Pin Sun was "quickly learned" and therefore I don't know what I am talking about, then you are free to ignore what I have to say and show.   However, if you are interested in seeing what a different version of Wing Chun looks like, I welcome your feedback and questions.

I wasn't originally going to post any of this, until Jim chose to make a big deal out of it and attack my credibility.   Most of this footage was shot over 3 years ago.  I was sharing my Pin Sun with 2 friends at the time and had come up on deployment orders to Egypt courtesy of Uncle Sam.  When we were discussing how they would be able to continue without me one of my friends asked if I would be willing to let his brother film me.  His brother had worked as a videographer and had all the equipment.  So I said "why not?!"  Originally this footage was only shared with the two of them, and a copy sent to Marc Kenney in Boston for his approval.  He was impressed with what I did.   Now I have gone back and re-edited the footage and added a bit to it to create video lessons on youtube.  I hope you all realize how rare a thing this is for Pin Sun Wing Chun!   But its time to come out of the secretive dark ages and share information with our Wing Chun brothers. 

So there it is!  


























PSWC Lesson 4: Dai Lim Tao Progression

PSWC Lesson 4 - b: Dai Lim Tao 2nd Order

PSWC Lesson 5: Cup Da Sau Progression

PSWC Lesson 6: Level 1 Associated Training

PSWC Lesson 7: Level 1 Chi Sau


----------



## KPM (Oct 29, 2017)

Oops!  Missed a couple!


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 30, 2017)

Keith Myers -- part time chunner, _*full time savage.*_


----------



## DanT (Oct 30, 2017)

Keith, 

Are there Butterfly swords or long pole in Gulo Wing Chun? If yes were they there originally or added later?


----------



## KPM (Oct 30, 2017)

DanT said:


> Keith,
> 
> Are there Butterfly swords or long pole in Gulo Wing Chun? If yes were they there originally or added later?



Leung Jan did not teach Butterfly knives when he retired to Ku Lo Village.  But it didn't take long for the Ku Lo guys to realize that their San Sik could easily be adapted to the knives.  Leung Jan did teach a shortened version of the pole in Ku Lo.  This was the "Saam Dim Boon Kwan" or "3 1/2 point pole" instead of the 6 1/2 point pole.  And it uses a shorter pole with stances closer to the empty hand method rather than the deep stances one usually associates with the pole.   I have not learned the Pin Sun pole method.  Instead I do the Tang Yik pole method, but have organized what I know of it into shorter San Sik rather than trying to remember and practice the long form.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2017)

Keith, you're evil. Post content like that, and I'll have to watch it, then I'll pick parts and try to find some principles to work with. Then I'll find something to incorporate, but it'll take lots of practice, which I will put in when I should be doing something else. Pure evil, man.


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2017)

In my experience, if you want to learn about another branch or style, you usually can get a better general picture from an intelligent "rebel" than from a from a "true believer"  ...even if the "rebel" hasn't had the depth of training as the "believer".

It has more to do with the "rebel's" questioning mindset, willing to make honest comparisons between styles and branches. True believers see everything through blinders ....a right or wrong , or "Sifu said" perspective. Hard to have a two-way discussion with those guys...


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2017)

One comment on the  general comparison between Yip Man WC and Pin Sun in the first clip. The Yip man WC I have studied does fight with the shoulders square to the opponent's center, and does emphasize extending energy, not withdrawing or "swallowing" just as Keith stated ....yet we _also_ emphasize compressing and turning to absorb oncoming force, so without withdrawing our energy, we are soft and yielding, and slip aside, moving offline. We just use our _opponent's energy_ to get there.  

In short, we do not stand toe-to toe in front of an opponent! That's a bad place to be, especially for a little guy!


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2017)

A comment on "quick learning". Generally a bad idea. But if your time is short, you have to teach and learn quickly. It sounds like this was exactly Dr. Leung Jan's situation when he retired to Kulo village.

...So _maybe_ his students never got everything that Leung Jan's Fo'shan students learned. But maybe they got _enough_ to combine with their own martial experience to build and develop an origianal equally complete WC system over generations.

Hey, anyone who says that people can't develop a very high level of skill being largely self-taught doesn't know history or understand human potential. It just more difficult and takes longer. Perhaps _ generations_. For example, the Plains Indians in the United States became _superb_ horsemen, but were originally self-taught after capturing mustangs ...escaped horses brought to the American continent by the Spanish conquistadors.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 31, 2017)

Interesting video clips KPM. I now have a much better grasp of PSWC. Hope you post more of them.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 31, 2017)

geezer said:


> ...So _maybe_ his students never got everything that Leung Jan's Fo'shan students learned. But maybe they got _enough_ to combine with their own martial experience to build and develop an origianal equally complete WC system over generations..



Speaking of which, do any videos of the Lo Kwai branch exist? Supposedly they preserve LJ's actual Foshan teachings, including Siu Lien Tao as one long set similar to the Cho family version. Allegedly Leung Jan and Wong Wah Bo were the ones that later broke it down into the three hand forms we know today:

WingChunPedia | WCP / LoKwaiChaoFamilySystem browse

Cho family form:






Cho family san sik (some of this should look familiar to you, KPM):


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 31, 2017)

KPM said:


> Leung Jan did not teach Butterfly knives when he retired to Ku Lo Village.  But it didn't take long for the Ku Lo guys to realize that their San Sik could easily be adapted to the knives.  Leung Jan did teach a shortened version of the pole in Ku Lo.  This was the "Saam Dim Boon Kwan" or "3 1/2 point pole" instead of the 6 1/2 point pole.  And it uses a shorter pole with stances closer to the empty hand method rather than the deep stances one usually associates with the pole.   I have not learned the Pin Sun pole method.  Instead I do the Tang Yik pole method, but have organized what I know of it into shorter San Sik rather than trying to remember and practice the long form.


I think elsehwere you posted a video of the knives with empty hand TWC forms.  Maybe due to my Kali experience I have an innate understanding that "what you can do with the empty hand, you can also do with short blades" (roughly up to machete length) and vice versa. Once that clicked from my Kali training I was kinda surprised it isn't universal.  Just put together biomechanics and weapon attributes in a logical format.  If you understand how to move with empty hands it only takes considering the attributes of a weapon to figure out what weapon can use the same motions.


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> Speaking of which, do any videos of the Lo Kwai branch exist? Supposedly they preserve LJ's actual Foshan teachings....



....so the other branches don't preserve Leung Jan's teachings? How the heck could anyone back that claim up? In my experience _everyone_ has the only original and authentic teaching, unless they have the only superior and combat effective modernized version.


----------



## dudewingchun (Oct 31, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> Speaking of which, do any videos of the Lo Kwai branch exist? Supposedly they preserve LJ's actual Foshan teachings, including Siu Lien Tao as one long set similar to the Cho family version. Allegedly Leung Jan and Wong Wah Bo were the ones that later broke it down into the three hand forms we know today:
> 
> WingChunPedia | WCP / LoKwaiChaoFamilySystem browse
> 
> ...



Super hard to find any info on that lineage.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 31, 2017)

geezer said:


> ....so the other branches don't preserve Leung Jan's teachings? How the heck could anyone back that claim up? In my experience _everyone_ has the only original and authentic teaching, unless they have the only superior and combat effective modernized version.



I'll admit that post was poorly thought out. However, I do believe that by examining and cross-referencing material from various branches we can logically work our way back to what Leung Jan might have actually taught, and then check and see if the Lo Kwai branch matches what we suspect about Leung Jan's old teachings.

I believe that we can cross reference and (more importantly) eliminate material from:

-Kulo Wing Chun
-Cho Family Wing Chun
-Yiu Choi Wing Chun
-Modern Chan Family Wing Chun
-Yip Man's Foshan Wing Chun
-Possibly Weng Chun (being associated with Wong Wah Bo and all)

Until we've somewhat confidently arrived at a picture of how Leung Jan's Wing Chun actually looked. If the Lo Kwai system bears a strong resemblance to what we've deduced, then we can know that system is probably is, in fact, an older one. It would be time consuming (and probably a waste of time), but why wouldn't it work?

On a side note, Leung Jan is actually a pretty mysterious and elusive figure in Wing Chun history when you think about it.


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2017)

geezer said:


> A comment on "quick learning". Generally a bad idea. But if your time is short, you have to teach and learn quickly. It sounds like this was exactly Dr. Leung Jan's situation when he retired to Kulo village.
> 
> ...So _maybe_ his students never got everything that Leung Jan's Fo'shan students learned. But maybe they got _enough_ to combine with their own martial experience to build and develop an origianal equally complete WC system over generations.
> 
> Hey, anyone who says that people can't develop a very high level of skill being largely self-taught doesn't know history or understand human potential. It just more difficult and takes longer. Perhaps _ generations_. For example, the Plains Indians in the United States became _superb_ horsemen, but were originally self-taught after capturing mustangs ...escaped horses brought to the American continent by the Spanish conquistadors.



Good points!  But I will also point out that the Ku Lo guys say Leung Jan spent 3 years in their village before he died.  Plenty of Ip Man students that use the title of "Grand Master" today didn't spend any more time with Ip Man than that!   So I'm not so sure that Leung Jan taught this way because he was really shortening the curriculum, or if by this time in his life he realized he could eliminate a lot of superfluous stuff and just get right down to the good stuff!  

I've made this point before.....but how much do you guys think you could learn if you spent several hours on a near daily basis training with a Master teacher for 2 or more years straight?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> I've made this point before.....but how much do you guys think you could learn if you spent several hours on a near daily basis training with a Master teacher for 2 or more years straight?


Especially with an existing base. I remember meeting someone who'd only been studying his current art for 6 months, but those guys worked longer and more often than hobbyists, and he had some significant prior training. I'd have put his understanding of the style comparable to someone who'd been training at least 3 years as a serious hobbyist.


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> I've made this point before.....but how much do you guys think you could learn if you spent several hours on a near daily basis training with a Master teacher for 2 or more years straight?



That is an interesting question. I don't know the answer. With intense training and good coaching, some people (not me) pick things up very quickly. On the other hand, some things just take time to get right. But that doesn't mean spending your entire life following a sifu.

After a certain point, there are things you _have_ to figure out on your own. Moreover, different people may discover different ways of doing things depending on what works best for them.

Some folks won't accept anything that doesn't come from their sifu. Personally, sometimes I _like_ figuring things out on my own.


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2017)

^^^ No doubt putting in the "flight time" on your own is at least as valuable and necessary as the time spent directly with your teacher.  Sometimes more valuable, depending upon the student...and the teacher.


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^ No doubt putting in the "flight time" on your own is at least as valuable and necessary as the time spent directly with your teacher.  Sometimes more valuable, depending upon the student...and the teacher.




Not to mention that there is the _financial incentive_ for keeping the to-dai forever in the student-mode and dependent upon the sifu for the advanced techniques.

Imagine if it were this way in other fields: First -- the assumption that all true knowledge was found in the past, and that instead of getting a PhD in a set period of time, you were expected to continue at the university as a "disciple" following your professors until they died. 

Actually, that sounds a bit like thought in the middle ages when nobody was allowed to question official doctrine. Thank god for heretical thinkers!!!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2017)

geezer said:


> That is an interesting question. I don't know the answer. With intense training and good coaching, some people (not me) pick things up very quickly. On the other hand, some things just take time to get right. But that doesn't mean spending your entire life following a sifu.
> 
> After a certain point, there are things you _have_ to figure out on your own. Moreover, different people may discover different ways of doing things depending on what works best for them.
> 
> Some folks won't accept anything that doesn't come from their sifu. Personally, sometimes I _like_ figuring things out on my own.


Agreed, on all points. I tend to take more calendar time to learn things, because I have to think them through to really internalize the concepts. Until I do that, I will only ever be moderately good at it.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2017)

Here is some very old footage of Fung Keung doing the basic Ku Lo Pin Sun Chi Sao at a demo.


----------



## DanT (Nov 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is some very old footage of Fung Keung doing the basic Ku Lo Pin Sun Chi Sao at a demo.


It looks a lot like Bak Hok push hands. The only thing missing is groin strikes and thoat grabs. Lots of groin strikes and throat grabs...


----------



## geezer (Nov 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> It looks a lot like Bak Hok push hands. The only thing missing is groin strikes and thoat grabs. Lots of groin strikes and throat grabs...



How about throat strikes and _*groin grabs?*_ Call it Donald style.


----------



## DanT (Nov 2, 2017)

geezer said:


> How about throat strikes and _*groin grabs?*_ Call it Donald style.


Oh believe it or not Bak Hok has plenty of ways of grabbing the groin. Master Ken got most of his methods from Bak Hok apparently.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> I've made this point before.....but how much do you guys think you could learn if you spent several hours on a near daily basis training with a Master teacher for 2 or more years straight?



I think I'm more important point before you get to this is the overall method. When you look at how Wing Chun is taught traditionally one can make a very solid argument that the method is to a degree superfluous.

Over and over again in many lineages you see 108. That number is neither you need to Wing Chun more arbitrary. 108 is a very important number in Chinese culture and I believe its origin is in Buddhism. So you have a teaching method that is arguably not tied to the actual learning of the martial art but tie to a cultural tradition and religious superstition.  

As such it would seem natural to me for someone to come along and and potentially see a usefulness 4 changing if not the function of the art how it is taught.  I say this because you can have the greatest teacher on the face of the planet but if a teaching method is complicated this can work against his skills as an instructor.  

In modern martial arts I think good examples are how the military teaches combatives. It is very highly tied to traditional martial arts the techniques will not create it out of whole cloth but understanding that in the military you have to A. teach speedily and B. Have a method that can be absorbed by the lowest common denominator you end up getting a more streamlined teaching process.

In reading this thread it has made me ask "what would TWC be if we just did the drills?" When we do the drills, which sound very much like the San sik you describe, the instructor will often step back and say "see just like in the form".  Well if it is just like in the form isn't the inverse true?  If the inverse is true, while the form definitely helps provide a richer context, is the form strictly necessary for most practical purposes?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think I'm more important point before you get to this is the overall method. When you look at how Wing Chun is taught traditionally one can make a very solid argument that the method is to a degree superfluous.
> 
> Over and over again in many lineages you see 108. That number is neither you need to Wing Chun more arbitrary. 108 is a very important number in Chinese culture and I believe its origin is in Buddhism. So you have a teaching method that is arguably not tied to the actual learning of the martial art but tie to a cultural tradition and religious superstition.
> 
> ...


If we start from the assumption that teaching by forms is overly complicated (and let's not question for the moment whether that's true), training would likely still follow that method. The easiest way to teach is pretty similar to how you were taught. To do otherwise means learning a whole new set of drills, starting points, and transitions - not to mention learning to recognize a new set of bad habits engendered by the new approach. And that means instruction likely becomes worse before it becomes better. So, even if an instructor doesn't think it's the best approach, they are likely to continue with it, rather than experiment (on students) with an entirely new approach.


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 2, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think I'm more important point before you get to this is the overall method. When you look at how Wing Chun is taught traditionally one can make a very solid argument that the method is to a degree superfluous.
> 
> Over and over again in many lineages you see 108. That number is neither you need to Wing Chun more arbitrary. 108 is a very important number in Chinese culture and I believe its origin is in Buddhism. So you have a teaching method that is arguably not tied to the actual learning of the martial art but tie to a cultural tradition and religious superstition.
> 
> ...



Give me something to count and I will count it in a way that it comes out to 108, or 8, of 5, or 18, but never 4. It is true that those numbers are superstitions, but I think that the forms are the forms, the techniques are the techniques and the coincidence that it happens to come out to 108 has more to do with how and what you count than what you actually do. It's easy (easier in fact) to count differently and come out to a different number. I've done some business in China with modern tech companies and when you look at their org charts and project plans, you'll see these numbers as well. It's steeped in their culture. It's fun to play along, but I don't think that it actually means anything. 

For me, the forms matter. They help me and they help my students. We spend a lot of time on application, most of our time, in fact, but I think the forms ground us. I still get things out of them after all these years. Things that I wasn't necessarily taught, but having the forms is like having a set of encyclopedias ... or a science text book on Kindle. It's reference material, certainly no harm comes from it. I suppose I could teach the system without it, but I wouldn't want to.


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If we start from the assumption that teaching by forms is overly complicated (and let's not question for the moment whether that's true), training would likely still follow that method. The easiest way to teach is pretty similar to how you were taught. To do otherwise means learning a whole new set of drills, starting points, and transitions - not to mention learning to recognize a new set of bad habits engendered by the new approach. And that means instruction likely becomes worse before it becomes better. So, even if an instructor doesn't think it's the best approach, they are likely to continue with it, rather than experiment (on students) with an entirely new approach.



Good points and perspective. Perhaps a pedagogy could be developed and perfected to teach Wing Chun without teaching forms, but it might take a few generations of teachers.

I just don't see the forms as a liability or a tax that is worth investing eliminating.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> Good points and perspective. Perhaps a pedagogy could be developed and perfected to teach Wing Chun without teaching forms, but it might take a few generations of teachers.
> 
> I just don't see the forms as a liability or a tax that is worth investing eliminating.


That's why I made the assumption for my statement. There are both positive and negative effects of forms. Some good stuff has been taught with them. Some other good stuff has been taught without them. I like them, and dislike some of the effects they have on students. I've added new ones and de-emphasized old ones in my curriculum. I have a definite love-hate relationship with them.


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 2, 2017)

In Yip Man Wing Chun, though there are only 3 forms + Mook Jong + weapons. Putting the weapons aside, I don't know which one I'd do without.

I know that some systems have dozens and they are some times more esoteric, but Wing Chun is fairly bare-bones.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 2, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> Give me something to count and I will count it in a way that it comes out to 108, or 8, of 5, or 18, but never 4. It is true that those numbers are superstitions, but I think that the forms are the forms, the techniques are the techniques and the coincidence that it happens to come out to 108 has more to do with how and what you count than what you actually do. It's easy (easier in fact) to count differently and come out to a different number. I've done some business in China with modern tech companies and when you look at their org charts and project plans, you'll see these numbers as well. It's steeped in their culture. It's fun to play along, but I don't think that it actually means anything.
> 
> For me, the forms matter. They help me and they help my students. We spend a lot of time on application, most of our time, in fact, but I think the forms ground us. I still get things out of them after all these years. Things that I wasn't necessarily taught, but having the forms is like having a set of encyclopedias ... or a science text book on Kindle. It's reference material, certainly no harm comes from it. I suppose I could teach the system without it, but I wouldn't want to.



The thing is that the idea of 108, isn't mine, its from rather reputable scholars of Wing Chun like Sifu Danny Xuan (among others).  Next when it is in form after form it beggars, imo, coincidence.  It would not be unusual either, if we take the origin of WC (coming from the 5 Shaolin Masters) at face value as Shaolin is steeped in Buddhist thought.

Also note, I am not saying that the forms do not matter.  I find them extremely useful myself.  I make sure I do the forms daily just as a form of meditation, and in meditating I reinforce my Art.  It also reinforces me overcoming my right side dominance and the like.  My final point is simply connected to my reference of Paramilitary training.  If you are looking to create a practically effective fighter as fast as possible, not being concerned about the richer context of the art, the rituals which can  aid training (emptying the cup and the like), and continuing the tradition, there are other ways to teach. So it's not about a better method, it's about what method do your current circumstances demand. 

All teaching is like this.  As an example I see the Socratic/Confucian method of teaching to be similar to that of Traditional Martial Arts training with forms.  You not only learn the subject matter, but you also learn deeper topics.  Since the learning process includes an open dialogue between the student and the instructor, it can take longer to learn the "facts" but as you learn the facts you have a deeper understanding of the topic (not just the what or how but the "why"), learn critical thinking skills, it encourages creativity, listen skills and the ability to actively reflect on issues.  

The more typical, and faster, method of learning that largely revolves around the memorization and regurgitation.  You are practically effective, you know what happened on a specific date, know how to solve a particular equation or a passage from a great play, but the deeper lessons can be lost.  The thing is, depending on your circumstances, learning the deeper lesson may be impractical.  In the Martial Arts context maybe the teacher is quickly trying to train fighters for an existing conflict, as an example.  In such a scenario waiting many months, even years to have an effective fighter is simply not an option.


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 2, 2017)

I know that the 108 thing isn't yours. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that there are really 108 techniques or moves in everything that people say there is. I can count that way, but it feels convulutated and if I count as I see it, I usually come up with a different (insignificant) number. It is important that they/we SAY that it comes out to 108 for the reasons you described.

But, if I'm asked to teach a self defense seminar, I would not teach forms. If someone from another system wanted to work with me on some aspect of something to solve some problem they were having in ... I don't know...sparring, I would not teach forms.

But when someone comes to me to learn Wing Chun, over time, I think the value of the forms far outweighs the effort.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> Perhaps a pedagogy could be developed and perfected to teach Wing Chun without teaching forms, but it might take a few generations of teachers.



It already has! That's what Pin Sun Wing Chun is!  Unless you are considering the San Sik as "short forms", which they are.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 2, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> I know that the 108 thing isn't yours. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that there are really 108 techniques or moves in everything that people say there is. I can count that way, but it feels convulutated and if I count as I see it, I usually come up with a different (insignificant) number. It is important that they/we SAY that it comes out to 108 for the reasons you described.
> 
> But, if I'm asked to teach a self defense seminar, I would not teach forms. If someone from another system wanted to work with me on some aspect of something to solve some problem they were having in ... I don't know...sparring, I would not teach forms.
> 
> But when someone comes to me to learn Wing Chun, over time, I think the value of the forms far outweighs the effort.



You kind of touch on what I'm saying. Tumi studying Wing Chun is about more than just wanting to defend myself. However I have taught certain techniques to people I work with and friends of mine, largely females who want to learn to defend themselves, that are from Wing Chun, but I was not teaching WC.  A good example is the straight punch.  It was funny really.  I taught a friend, with her husband, the straight punch.  He was holding the pad and when she finally got it he said "damnit Juany!!!!" Because she is 5'4, he is 6'0" and she about knocked him on his butt.  

What the above means is that, imo, how you teach a Martial Arts is very much about "why" you are teaching it and the "why" will influence the "how." Whether the how is correct or not depends on the why.


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2017)

Here is a clip of Fung Leung working the dummy.  It is a FB video, so not sure if it is going to work for people.  As I've said, you won't find much on youtube in regards to Pin Sun Wing Chun!





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10207888781075563


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2017)

Well!  It appears at least 2 of you were able to see the previous video, so let's try a couple more!  

Fung Leung doing some Chi Sau at some kind of demo event:





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10207105808461737
			




Fung Leung doing some of the third level sets:





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10207888768955260
			





Fung Leung and Fung Keung are Fung Chun's sons.  Fung Chun was the "patriarch" of Pin Sun Wing Chun until his death in 2012 in his 90's.  Realize that Fung Chun studied with Wong Wah Sam who studied with Leung Jan.  So here was a man who was Leung Jan's grand student and heard direct stories about Leung Jan from someone who actually knew him and studied with him in person!  And he was around until 2012!

Anyway....Fung Leung is the older brother and known as more a fighter.  This is the guy I  would love to figure out how to visit in Shaping China.


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 4, 2017)

From looking at Kulo stuff it's become apparent to me that Wing Chun was once something far greater and more practical than it is today and that saddens me because you would think it'd be the other way around. What went wrong?


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> From looking at Kulo stuff it's become apparent to me that Wing Chun was once something far greater and more practical than it is today and that saddens me because you would think it'd be the other way around. What went wrong?



Maybe it went from a "fighting art" to an emphasis on being good at Chi Sau?  I think it certainly has become too "specialized" and somewhat narrow in focus.


----------



## VPT (Nov 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is some very old footage of Fung Keung doing the basic Ku Lo Pin Sun Chi Sao at a demo.



I see so many rope hands in this video; rope hand, rope hand, rope hand... Bak Mei just does not do chi sau.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2017)

VPT said:


> I see so many rope hands in this video; rope hand, rope hand, rope hand... Bak Mei just does not do chi sau.


What is “rope hands”?


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> What is “rope hands”?



Used to get rope hands badly...when rappelling or fast-roping out of helo's...


----------



## VPT (Nov 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> What is “rope hands”?



Rope hand, or sook sau, is one of the signature techniques of Bak Mei. I think every form has at least two sook sau in it. Nine steps push has, wait... six or seven of those in it! And it's a decently short form!

Here's a video:


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 10, 2017)

VPT said:


> Rope hand, or sook sau, is one of the signature techniques of Bak Mei. I think every form has at least two sook sau in it. Nine steps push has, wait... six or seven of those in it! And it's a decently short form!
> 
> Here's a video:



So, in WC terms...it looks like lop sau & jut sau


----------



## VPT (Nov 10, 2017)

I'm not familiar with WC jargon and orthography... Laap (拉/pull) and Jyut (?), I guess?

This should be the expression: 




Also, either of the pulling hands should be available for punch in the rebound as instantly as possible.


----------



## KPM (Nov 10, 2017)

VPT said:


> Rope hand, or sook sau, is one of the signature techniques of Bak Mei. I think every form has at least two sook sau in it. Nine steps push has, wait... six or seven of those in it! And it's a decently short form!
> 
> Here's a video



That two-hand grab and pull is called "Lung Na" or "Dragon Grab" in Pin Sun.  There is an entire set devoted to it with its own 2 man training.      I will be putting up a video of it at some point when I get around to posting the 2nd level training.


----------



## cwk (Dec 5, 2017)

First post in years-
We call it ‘lit sao’, it’s one of our 13 hands. You can see Ku (choi Wah)Sifu doing it in the Cho Gar clips posted. Very useful technique and doesn’t always have to be a pull.


----------



## KPM (Dec 7, 2017)

Well, I guess you guys saw that I have been ousted from the Boston Pin Sun family for posting youtube videos.  But what do you guys think?  Is that legit?  Or should I keep sharing videos?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 8, 2017)

KPM said:


> Is that legit?



Well, it seems on par with WC life... especially if it is a kung fu family that values its privacy.



KPM said:


> Or should I keep sharing videos?



If you have been "ousted"...then I guess it doesn't matter.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> Well, I guess you guys saw that I have been ousted from the Boston Pin Sun family for posting youtube videos.  But what do you guys think?  Is that legit?  Or should I keep sharing videos?



I for one have found the stuff you've been posting to be useful and insightful. I say keep posting.

If PSWC guys don't want their stuff on YT, and what you're teaching isn't *TEH REAL* PSWC, then what's the problem?


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2017)

Here is some Pin Sun Wing Chun out of Saaping China:





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10212763398697957


----------



## geezer (Dec 23, 2017)

"Ousted" ....ooooh. Sounds painful.  

Anyway, I thought you were already done with that bunch. They were accusing you of trying to misrepresent yourself as some kind of master of _their _system when you were doing nothing of the sort. They never even got that you are training "WC-Boxing", drawing on your _varied _WC experiences (Fong's WC, Cheung's TWC, Pin Sun, etc.) as well as Western boxing, and maybe some historical Western bare-knuckle pugilism (?). 

Personally, I thought they came off like another group of "true-believers" spouting off about lineage, authenticity, etc. etc. Been there, done that myself. Wouldn't go back even if I could.


----------

