# Placement of Pak Sao



## lansao (Dec 11, 2016)

Hey all, curious to learn pak sao placement from different lineages. Some questions below:

Where on your hand do you make contact?
Where on your opponents arm (in fighting range) does your hand stop?
What pak sao exercises do you practice?
~ Alan


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 11, 2016)

We try to _pak_ as close to the wrist as possible but also train for the "oh crap" when the best you can pull off is the elbow.  Regardless the idea is to pak at or near a joint.  

When you are starting we do the standard basic drill, just repeated addressing of the straight punch.  After that we have a lot.  One is when we will train a basic entry movement to the blind side, say _pak_>_gum_ (at the elbow)>punch, while zoning in on the side that the strike initially came from.  This one is good because we have the idea of "face" your block point  (which means body facing, you don't look at the block point because you know where it is by feel), for everything you use once on the "blind side" (it also applies to powerful round attacks, say a round kick or major haymaker.  Because of this the drill doubles as footwork training because if your footwork was correct just beyond your block point (on your center line) should also be the center line of the opponent and so you are in a position to properly strike. 

We also do one that I don't think is a "traditional" Wing Chun drill.  Your training partner will randomly throw a straight punch, a round punch or knee strikes.  It's on you to decide how to address the incoming strikes, the straights are usually addressed with a _pak_, I prefer _bil_ or the Kali cover I mentioned elsewhere for the round personally and _gum_ the knee (the drill is limited to using hands and arms to deflect.)  This particular drill is eventually done at full speed so it is also a very good way to make sure you are watching elbows and knees and maintaining proper structure and ready position.  If your _man_ and _wu_ are out of position you are going to have issues.

As you can see we try to incorporate various principles in a single drill.  Not only does it help you see how say footwork and hand/arm techniques integrate and provides the muscle memory but it also forces divided attention for newer students which is vital for actual fighting.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[/I][/I]


----------



## Treznor (Dec 12, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> We try to _pak_ as close to the wrist as possible but also train for the "oh crap" when the best you can pull off is the elbow. Regardless the idea is to pak at or near a joint.



We try to avoid a pak too close to the wrist as it opens up too many options for an elbow to the face.

Personally, I find that mid to lower forearm (ie closer to the elbow) allows for more control..

As for where on the hand, palm / heel to allow for the pak to easily become a strike if the situation allows.

Mat


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 12, 2016)

Treznor said:


> We try to avoid a pak too close to the wrist as it opens up too many options for an elbow to the face.
> 
> Personally, I find that mid to lower forearm (ie closer to the elbow) allows for more control..
> 
> ...



Catching on the wrist is for the basic drill only.  You don't necessarily want students, in the drill, following all the way through with their punch because that could end in tears (literally).  The basic drill is simply to become accustomed to making contact in such a manner, learn the proper structure of the pak (along the center line), the shape of the hand (which is using the palm as you said) and that we are "catching" the incoming punch so you don't over commit etc.  If the punch was a full on punch, with follow through, it would naturally end up further along the forearm.


----------



## lansao (Dec 12, 2016)

Interesting how much diversity there is. To contribute, we start the "filleting motion" from the forearm and aim to land the pak sao behind the elbow. We try to make contact on the work area of of the palm below the pinky and ring finger (abductor digiti minimi). Anatomy Of The Hand Tendons


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 12, 2016)

lansao said:


> Interesting how much diversity there is. To contribute, we start the "filleting motion" from the forearm and aim to land the pak sao behind the elbow. We try to make contact on the work area of of the palm below the pinky and ring finger (abductor digiti minimi). Anatomy Of The Hand Tendons



Note the below maybe because I am picturing it wrong.

Hmmm.  I can see why you might use that part of the hand but behind the elbow gives me some concerns.  Not based on WC specifically, every lineage has differences most of which are more or less semantics.  It's more based on what I have experienced dealing with resisting and/or out right fightings suspects.

First if it is just there as a drill target (like the one at the wrist we use in TWC) I would be concerned as to where your pak is with a punch executed in true anger.  To pak that far up the arm (as I picture it in my head) would have your arm fairly well extended.  Now maybe your theory of the pak is different.  With ours you are trying to "catch" a punch along the centerline, albeit at the forearm vs deflecting.  For that to work against a punch with real power you need to be able to allow that force to travel into and through your structure and if your arm ends up to straight that doesn't happen because you lose support at the tendons and ligaments of the elbow and and so the elbow structure risks collapse.  

With full follow through, if someone is punching along the centerline, even if the elbow structure remains intact I see the defender eating the punch, if the opponent has longer reach.

Second.  If it works out as it should and the punch is stopped.  The elbow is between your pak and you.  Having that kind of flexibility for the opponent to trap or displace one of my limbs makes me twitchy.

One of the things we say in my school is "control the wrist, you control the hand, control the elbow and you control the man."

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## lansao (Dec 12, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Note the below maybe because I am picturing it wrong.
> 
> Hmmm.  I can see why you might use that part of the hand but behind the elbow gives me some concerns.  Not based on WC specifically, every lineage has differences most of which are more or less semantics.  It's more based on what I have experienced dealing with resisting and/or out right fightings suspects.
> 
> ...



This works for us because of our sidestep footwork. Elbow stays bent between 90 to 135 degrees. Once behind (and to the side of) the elbow, we take control of the center. I think they are very different but it's great to hear thinking from other methodologies.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 12, 2016)

lansao said:


> This works for us because of our sidestep footwork. Elbow stays bent between 90 to 135 degrees. Once behind (and to the side of) the elbow, we take control of the center. I think they are very different but it's great to hear thinking from other methodologies.



Oh the footwork has it make sense then, we are all about moving to the blind side as well (that's TWC for ya).  Wondering where that comes from in your Lineage bucause as I understand it there is more than a little TWC in yours.

I think it would still cause an issue for us though because we step in and to the side simultaneously and if the target was the other side of the elbow we would still each a punch rather soundly as you would in essence be walking into it.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 12, 2016)

Treznor said:


> We try to avoid a pak too close to the wrist as it opens up too many options for an elbow to the face.
> 
> Personally, I find that mid to lower forearm (ie closer to the elbow) allows for more control..
> 
> ...



Pretty much like this. Wrists move faster and a greater distance than elbows and are more difficult to catch. Wing Chun guys can (and too often do) get fixated on millimetre anatomical accuracy which is basically impossible at any realistic speed.

If you're trying to pak a boxer's jab, be real careful with your angle and preferably put something in his face he has to deal with at the same time. Any half decent boxer will turn that left jab straight into a left hook and nail you if your pak is not on point.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 12, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Pretty much like this. Wrists move faster and a greater distance than elbows and are more difficult to catch. Wing Chun guys can (and too often do) get fixated on millimetre anatomical accuracy which is basically impossible at any realistic speed.
> 
> If you're trying to pak a boxer's jab, be real careful with your angle and preferably put something in his face he has to deal with at the same time. Any half decent boxer will turn that left jab straight into a left hook and nail you if your pak is not on point.



I think part of the issue was "drill" there are so many drills that involve the pak sau that simply using the term "drill" creates issues.  As an example, I was thinking the absolute basic pak sau drill as I clarified above, so when @lansao noted his target I was confused because I was picturing a drill with no footwork, which clearly contributed to a ? In my head.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 12, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I think part of the issue was "drill" there are so many drills that involve the pak sau that simply using the term "drill" creates issues.  As an example, I was thinking the absolute basic pak sau drill as I clarified above, so when @lansao noted his target I was confused because I was picturing a drill with no footwork, which clearly contributed to a ? In my head.



You replied to my post with this, but ... I said nothing about drills.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 12, 2016)

anerlich said:


> You replied to my post with this, but ... I said nothing about drills.




Was referring to your post in the context I originally took from the OP.  Which is why I corrected myself in a response to the same post you answered.  I think after the last few threads a certain two people have jumped up strongly in, on the forms here I have begun to see "drill" in my head when I read stuff because that is their frame of reference and the context we get trapped responding to.

Maybe I need a week off to clear my head lol.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 12, 2016)

Fair enough.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 12, 2016)

Treznor said:


> We try to avoid a pak too close to the wrist as it opens up too many options for an elbow to the ...


Agree! The safe blocking contact point is at your opponent's elbow joint. Any forearm contact can be bad idea. Your opponent may just throws a fake punch. When you try to use Pak to block his forearm, his other hand is ready to re-block your Pak and then drop his elbow into your chest.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 12, 2016)

In CMA, there is an important skill called "wash hands". It's used to deal with any "fore-arm blocking".

You have the back of your hands facing each other (almost touching). When you move

- right hand out, you pull the left hand back.
- left hand out, you pull the right hand back.

If you move your left hand out

- below your right hand, your right elbow is ready to strike upward.
- above your right hand, your right elbow is ready to strike downward or horizontally.


----------



## Treznor (Dec 13, 2016)

Nice little vid on the WSL Pak Sao drill by David Peterson...


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 13, 2016)

My take:
_"Where on your hand do you make contact?"_

There is a spot on my palm that feels right to me. If it's too close to my fingertips, it doesn't have enough structure behind it, if it's too close to the heal of my palm, it doesn't have the right quality to be pak sao. When the question comes up in a class, I can point to it, but I always add that my phisoloogy is different than everyone else's and it may not be the same spot. You find your sweet spot by doing 10,000 pak saos or something like that._

"Where on your opponents arm (in fighting range) does your hand stop?"_

When this question comes up, my answer is always that it's the wrong question. When I throw pak sao or really any of our hands, I'm not targeting a place on the other person's arm, I'm claiming space. What I think might be there informs which hand I chose to use (pak sao), but thinking of that contact being an objective is not what I teach. The object is to occupy that space. If his arm is there as I predicted, great, I'll take what I get and flow on from there, if not then there is a hole that I want to flow into. As soon as you start thinking that success looks like x" from the wrist or elbow, you've lost track of what you're really doing in Wing Chun which is bridging, taking center, flowing. _

_


----------



## Treznor (Dec 13, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> As soon as you start thinking that success looks like x" from the wrist or elbow, you've lost track of what you're really doing in Wing Chun which is bridging, taking center, flowing.



While I SORT of agree with you on this point, in that we should be training the concept of how to deal with the attack rather than a specific response of _'opponent throws punch... I respond with pak sao to this part of his arm with that part of my hand'_ etc... the whole point of the drill is to ensure that when this technique IS used... it's used in the most effective way possible... which for my money is the mid-forearm to elbow area.  The 'bridging, taking centre, flowing' aspect is (or at least should be) a natural progression from this.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 13, 2016)

Well, I sort of appreciate that, I guess.

My position on this doesn't change, though. I don't teach my students to chase hands. There are a number of things that are more important in a pak sao than where you make contact and you have more control of all of them than you do targeting a spot on a non-compliant opponent's arms. I'm much more concerned in the drills that you guys are talking about in ensuring their pak sao has the proper energy, so that it isn't a palm strike. 

In my experience teaching this system, when students rat-hole on things like this it takes them further from success with the system rather than closer to it. But, that's just my pedagogy. Treznor, if you're a wing chun sifu as well, then you're free to teach the way that you see fit or the way that your lineage advises.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 13, 2016)

Treznor, I just watched the David Peterson video that you posted. It's very good, thank you for sharing it. I had not seen him or heard him speak before and I really enjoyed it. I continue to be impressed by what I see of the top WSL sifus, I hope to get a chance to train with someone close to them some day, because I'd love for some of what they have to rub off on me.

I continue to have trouble reconciling what I see to what WSL students post on this forum, though. I think what he was doing and saying did a much better job of making my point than yours. 

To the point being debated in this thread:
At about 2:40 he says that he wants to make contact between the middle of the forearm and the elbow and that they worst thing is to contact close the the wrist. I get what he means and I don't disagree.

But, forward to after the 4 minute mark in his video and look where he is most consistently making contact...pretty close to the wrist. Is he doing it wrong? According to what he said earlier he is, if you want to rat hole on that point, but listen to what he is actually saying. It's not what he's training or the point that he's trying to convey, which is what I said before I watched his video and you SORT of agreed with, but felt the need to correct me on.

@:46 he says "too many people think it is a defensive drill...about blocking punches...It is about attacking and attacking with the right timing...aiming as if I'm hitting him in the chest."

Which was my point. If you watched his whole video and listened to what he said and watched what he did and took away from that that the drill is about targeting a spot on his arm, well, then I don't know what to say. Watch it again. Talk with your sifu about it. I get that WSL students are pre-disposed to argue with and discredit sifus from other lineages, but I don't think you're paying close enough attention to what your own source is telling you and demonstrating.

But again, you've got your way and I've got mine and it's a big beautiful world.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 13, 2016)

Well I think most of the defenses follow the "it's as if I am attacking" idea.  If I use a bio sau, tan sau, bong sau or pak sau they should be using forwarding energy.  If they somehow don't encounter a limb then they easily transition into a strike because of the fact they are using forwarding energy.  Off the top of my head I can only think of one defense that doesn't transition well into some sort of strike and that is a Chun sau.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 13, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> I continue to be impressed by what I see of the top WSL sifus, I hope to get a chance to train with someone close to them some day, because I'd love for some of what they have to rub off on me.
> 
> I continue to have trouble reconciling what I see to what WSL students post on this forum, though. I think what he was doing and saying did a much better job of making my point than yours.



Not a "top WSL sifu"


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 13, 2016)

Question.  I have a couple people on ignore now and see a "show ignored content" notice.  Would I be correct in assuming it says something disparaging about DP in terms of his status as a student/Sifu under WSL?


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 13, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Question.  I have a couple people on ignore now and see a "show ignored content" notice.  Would I be correct in assuming it says something disparaging about DP in terms of his status as a student/Sifu under WSL?



You would be correct, but that was an easy one.

How many fingers am I holding up?


----------



## Treznor (Dec 13, 2016)

I'm not a sifu... just a keen student... and although I belong to the WSL family (not by blood), I'm in NO way saying I'm right and someone / everyone else is wrong. 

As for the video, I saw the 'wrist paks' you mentioned... without wanting to look like I'm defending Sifu David, there are MANY reasons why this could have happened.... the running commentary... plain old mis-placement etc.

Again, the intent should always be to hit... but fit the sake of the dr,  we pak... and the positioning I mentioned earlier allows for better structural stability (in my experience).


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 13, 2016)

Treznor said:


> I'm not a sifu... just a keen student... and although I belong to the WSL family (not by blood), I'm in NO way saying I'm right and someone / everyone else is wrong.
> 
> As for the video, I saw the 'wrist paks' you mentioned... without wanting to look like I'm defending Sifu David, there are MANY reasons why this could have happened.... the running commentary... plain old mis-placement etc.
> 
> Again, the intent should always be to hit... but fit the sake of the dr,  we pak... and the positioning I mentioned earlier allows for better structural stability (in my experience).




Well here is how I look at "wrist" paks.  When you are doing many drills, especially when having to "talk" or with newer students your "puncher" is not going to be following through or going full speed.  As a consequence your pak is going to strike closer to the fist itself.  Like I said earlier...

The basic drill is simply to become accustomed to making contact in such a manner, that you are using forwarding force along the center line vs slapping perpendicularly, which part of you hand should make contact, and that all of the above results in "catching" the incoming punch so you don't over commit etc. If the punch was a full on punch, with follow through, it would naturally end up further along the forearm.

If you look at that 4 minute mark you see DP has the proper extension of his elbow (or close enough), its the distance between the two people and the fact the other person is often not getting proper extension that forces the contact.  At least that is how it looks to me.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 14, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Not a "top WSL sifu"



Agree. Doesn't look any better than the Phil Bayer videos.


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 14, 2016)

Wheres all the videos at showing the paks sao's done in real time? Why is everything only a demo with a partner but never showing live application after the demo?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Wheres all the videos at showing the paks sao's done in real time? Why is everything only a demo with a partner but never showing live application after the demo?



good question!


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Wheres all the videos at showing the paks sao's done in real time? Why is everything only a demo with a partner but never showing live application after the demo?


It's a good question indeed.  I think the issue is two fold though.  First a pak is arguably the easiest to train but the hardest to execute.  It's a lot easier to "miss" with it since you are just using the hand vs the arm itself as in a bong, tan etc.

I have seen it used in real competition but unless you slow it down it often looks like the person is "slap boxing".  When you are doing a demo, especially if you are filming it for publication, I suspect they want things to look "clean".

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 14, 2016)

I think that I've probably belabored my point enough in this discussion, but let me add, that I don't think there is anything about pak sao that makes it difficult to execute against a non-compliant opponent, at least not more difficult than anything else. But, it really comes down to what you think a successful pak sao is supposed to do. If your objective is to make contact with a specific spot on the arm of someone throwing a non-coopertive punch, then yeah...really difficult.

As I said in my other post, I was taught and teach that pak sao, like most of our hands are not "blocks" (actually David Peterson says the same in his video, if you listen). My objective with a pak sao is to claim space and attack center, there is some expectation that it will meet an oncoming arm or I would have chosen something else, but success is that I was able to occupy that space, maybe get a bridge and flow in from there.


----------



## lansao (Dec 14, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> My objective with a pak sao is to claim space and attack center, there is some expectation that it will meet an oncoming arm or I would have chosen something else, but success is that I was able to occupy that space, maybe get a bridge and flow in from there.


Very well said. Thank you, Sifu.

~ Alan


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 14, 2016)

I think people extend too much with a pak sao tbh, I used to do that until started sparring with an actual amateur fighter, he was seeing habits like that and setting me up for shots. So would throw a feint jab, I automatically go to do a typical pak sao and end up getting hooked instead.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I think people extend too much with a pak sao tbh, I used to do that until started sparring with an actual amateur fighter, he was seeing habits like that and setting me up for shots. So would throw a feint jab, I automatically go to do a typical pak sao and end up getting hooked instead.



Sounds like sparring too early, can be damaging to skill development


----------



## geezer (Dec 14, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Sounds like sparring too early, can be damaging to skill development



Sounds like sparring helped him identify and correct a problem!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 15, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Wheres all the videos at showing the paks sao's done in real time? Why is everything only a demo with a partner but never showing live application after the demo?


The reason is simple. When you use Pak to intersect a punch, you try to "use a point to make contact on a line".

- Your hand may contact on your opponent's fore-arm, or
- Your hand may contact on your opponent's upper-arm,

your chance is much lower.

When you use a circular motion to move your arm to block your opponent's arm, you try to "use a line to make contact on another line".

- Your fore-arm may contact on your opponent's fore-arm, or
- Your upper-arm may contact on your opponent's fore-arm, or
- Your fore-arm may contact on your opponent's upper-arm, or
- Your upper-arm may contact on your opponent's upper-arm,

your chance will be much higher.

Here is an example that you try to "use a line to make contact on another line".


----------



## Lobo66 (Dec 15, 2016)

Pak da in sparring





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10205983609125997


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

geezer said:


> Sounds like sparring helped him identify and correct a problem!



Exactly.  

One addendum, I don't know why I forgot this but another reason we shoot for the wrist at my school is because we learn Kali in tandem.  If in one half of the class we were shooting for the forearm, come knife time people would be getting "cut" with a training knife left and right.  

Obviously this isn't an issue for someone only studying WC but I think this, and the idea of sparring with the amatuer boxer is further evidence of something you and I have talked about; that a weakness of current WC training is that few spar or train with people studying other arts.  Other people aren't going to punch directly along the centerline.  Other styles make an art of the feint.  You have to adapt to the situation at hand and saying "well if that happens you should study a different art" is basically saying you are wasting your time studying what you currently are.

Now in regards to the point about learning things.  I actually always found it odd when people say "no hand chasing!!!!!" And then say "you must stop your opponent's strike here" because to me that is actually taking hand chasing to a new level.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> ...
> One addendum, I don't know why I forgot this but another reason we shoot for the wrist at my school is because we learn Kali in tandem.  If in one half of the class we were shooting for the forearm, come knife time people would be getting "cut" with a training knife left and right.
> 
> ...



Ah! That is an important clarification. 

Wing Chun and Kali are very different systems, despite the fact that they look a little bit like each other at times and a lot of people combine them and/or do both. I think we have the alliance between Bruce Lee and Dan Inasanto to thank for that. I have no judgement or condemnation for people choosing to do both or combine that two.

But, you can't attribute things from Kali to Wing Chun. They are different systems, different approaches and different methods. I get why in a weapons system you target the hands/wrists and why you want to be out of range of something sharp and pointy, but the question I was responding to was about pak sao in Wing Chun. 

In Wing Chun, you want to dominate their space. The "center" isn't their wrist or their elbow it's closer to their spine. I want my students' primary focus to be on getting to the person that has the hands attached to them, not their hands. We do occasionally talk about defending against weapons and we "spar" (if you will) with training weapons to see how that changes things and it certainly does a bit. But, I don't redefine Wing Chun around those scenarios. 

I could say "if you were in a scuba diving fight like in a James Bond movie with mutliple attackers and one of them had a spear gun, you wouldn't be able to maintain your stance". That would be true, but it wouldn't use that point to redefine Wing Chun. When you get into rules based contests, the rules favor some techniques and discount or disallow others. If you participate in those contests, you have to adjust your approach accordingly, but that doesn't change anything about the system outside of that context.

No disrespect to FMAs, but they aren't Wing Chun and Wing Chun can't be explained through them anymore than they should be changed based on Wing Chun principles.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> Ah! That is an important clarification.
> 
> Wing Chun and Kali are very different systems, despite the fact that they look a little bit like each other at times and a lot of people combine them and/or do both. I think we have the alliance between Bruce Lee and Dan Inasanto to thank for that. I have no judgement or condemnation for people choosing to do both or combine that two.
> 
> ...



First let me explain what I mean by parallel.  Most classes are 1/2 class WC, 1/2 Kali, they aren't taught at the same time, it's literally a Part I, Part 2 class.  One day a week an instructor certified as a Provisional Master by Grand Master William Cheung teaches a "pure" WC class.

That said TWC is very similar to the Kali we study (unarmed) in that while you want to attack along your centerline to the opponent's centerline you do so from the blind side whenever possible.  So a typical TWC entry will have me stepping in "jamming" him but (roughly) on a 45 degree angle.  So both arts have "zoning" built in.  Once on the flank the idea is that your attacks maintain that dominant position by taking their balance/center.  If they maintain their balance, you zone again to their new flank.

In principle however the pak in either works as follows (again unarmed).  In the pak sao drill you may aim for the wrist BUT in practice, action and reaction being what they are, you will naturally end up further on the forearm, so it is to get you used to the motion, nature of the contact, maintaining forwarding energy etc.  The Master who teaches the WC exclusive class follows this method and he knows little and has nothing to do with the Kali training.

If facing a knife in Kali it is admittedly changed a little bit. Then it is more of a pass to the side rather than a forward along the centerline and is, largely, an "oh crap" maneuver because the last thing you want to do is be simply passing a blade, you want to be controlling the limb holding the knife until disarm (if unarmed vs armed, both armed, different ball game.)

So it's more a matter of one reinforcing the other.  Aiming for the wrist in the stereotypical pak drill will likely in a real fight end up higher on the arm due to the dynamics of a real fight, also aiming for the wrist in that drill helps minimize confusion when you transition to the knife, the only mental gear that needs to be changed is the direction of the energy.

I should have been more clear but at work so took some short cuts.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 15, 2016)

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## guy b (Dec 15, 2016)

geezer said:


> Sounds like sparring helped him identify and correct a problem!



Sounds more like not enough skill development before sparring to me. When this happens you develop work arounds to cope. VT takes a long time to learn, it is essential to build it from the ground up with the correct amount of stress only


----------



## guy b (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Now in regards to the point about learning things.  I actually always found it odd when people say "no hand chasing!!!!!" And then say "you must stop your opponent's strike here" because to me that is actually taking hand chasing to a new level.



Who says this?


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 15, 2016)

guy b said:


> Sounds more like not enough skill development before sparring to me. When this happens you develop work arounds to cope. VT takes a long time to learn, it is essential to build it from the ground up with the correct amount of stress only



You are just full of **** to be honest. You literally just come on here to argue for fun.


----------



## guy b (Dec 15, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> You are just full of **** to be honest. You literally just come on here to argue for fun.



I don't say anything that I don't believe. 

You are a relatively new student of wing chun. Throwing you into sparring at this stage will just make you develop the means to survive sparring, rather than developing VT skill. This is because skill in VT is not easy to develop and takes a long time, whereas workarounds for sparring are easy to develop and don't require (difficult) VT skill


----------



## geezer (Dec 15, 2016)

guy b said:


> I don't say anything that I don't believe.
> 
> You are a relatively new student of wing chun. Throwing you into sparring at this stage will just make you develop the means to survive sparring, rather than developing VT skill. This is because skill in VT is not easy to develop and takes a long time, whereas workarounds for sparring are easy to develop and don't require (difficult) VT skill



You know, most experienced WC and VT people would agree with what you are saying in a general sense. Yet the negative way you stated your opinion, assuming that this is the case here, without knowing the particulars, is what people find presumptuous and insulting.


----------



## guy b (Dec 15, 2016)

geezer said:


> You know, most experienced WC and VT people would agree with what you are saying in a general sense. Yet the negative way you stated your opinion, assuming that this is the case here, without knowing the particulars, is what people find presumptuous and insulting.



You are saying that I am right but it's too hard for dudewingchun to be told the truth and I should have made something up to spare his feelings?


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 15, 2016)

guy b said:


> You are saying that I am right but it's too hard for dudewingchun to be told the truth and I should have made something up to spare his feelings?



I get what you mean, but in this case you are wrong. Im not a new student getting thrown into sparring, you dont know anything about the context of how im training. Im not new to wing chun at all.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

guy b said:


> You are saying that I am right but it's too hard for dudewingchun to be told the truth and I should have made something up to spare his feelings?



I would actually say that he isn't saying that at all.  Why?  Because, and he can correct me if I am wrong (I don't mind being corrected by logic) @geezer is talking about "most" and saddly most means those who do not regularly train/spar with other styles.  I once heard someone say "Wing Chun has become a Chi Sau culture" and to say that they meant that Wing Chun is becoming something that only knows how to fight other Wing Chun.

Sorry but to quote a movie "there is no special sauce".  There is no perfect art that if you simply train it against someone with the same training you can beat all comers.  You need to take the art you study and spar/compete with others who study something different, then adapt.  The essence of combat..

*Improvise, adapt, overcome*

The minute anything interferes with but ONE of those three goals, you lose the fight irl, period.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I once heard someone say "Wing Chun has become a Chi Sau culture" and to say that they meant that Wing Chun is becoming something that only knows how to fight other Wing Chun.



They are more often implying that the people concerned have become drill experts rather than fighting experts IMO.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

anerlich said:


> They are more often implying that the people concerned have become drill experts rather than fighting experts IMO.


I would not object to that either.  Maybe I am being a bit anal retentive, as I admit I can be but, imo at least, to be considered a "fighter" you must train, or at least consider, fighting other styles as well because if you drill vs fight someone using identical principles and techniques, if all things are equal (skill, size, fitness, experience isn't that but a drill) is there a difference between a drill and and fight?


----------



## guy b (Dec 16, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I get what you mean, but in this case you are wrong. Im not a new student getting thrown into sparring, you dont know anything about the context of how im training. Im not new to wing chun at all.



Okay, that's fine. It's just the impression I you were new to training from your posts (e.g. you talked a lot about looking around for wing chun teachers, finding Alan Orr, and how you hope one day to be an MMA fighter).

Fighting is a necessary part of the VT training process, but needs to be started at the correct time


----------



## guy b (Dec 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I would actually say that he isn't saying that at all.  Why?  Because, and he can correct me if I am wrong (I don't mind being corrected by logic) @geezer is talking about "most" and saddly most means those who do not regularly train/spar with other styles.  I once heard someone say "Wing Chun has become a Chi Sau culture" and to say that they meant that Wing Chun is becoming something that only knows how to fight other Wing Chun.
> 
> Sorry but to quote a movie "there is no special sauce".  There is no perfect art that if you simply train it against someone with the same training you can beat all comers.  You need to take the art you study and spar/compete with others who study something different, then adapt.  The essence of combat..
> 
> ...



The timing of different parts of the training process is important in VT. If not done correctly then is detrimental


----------



## guy b (Dec 16, 2016)

double


----------



## geezer (Dec 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> You are saying that I am right but it's too hard for dudewingchun to be told the truth and I should have made something up to spare his feelings?



No I'm saying that you may have a point_ in general_, but since _you don't know_ _the dude_, you are just spouting off as usual!


----------



## guy b (Dec 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> No I'm saying that you may have a point_ in general_, but since _you don't know_ _the dude_, you are just spouting off as usual!



Just taking my general point and working from the information that dudewingchun has provided about his own wing chun experience.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> You are a relatively new student of wing chun. Throwing you into sparring at this stage will just make you develop the means to survive sparring, rather than developing VT skill.


There are some important skills that you just cannot learn through WC training but through sparring. In sparring, you learn how to control the distance. When your opponent punches at your head, you learn how to move your head side way, backward. You just don't learn "head dodging" through WC forms or WC sticky hand training. IMO, there is no such thing as "spar too early".

It's very difficult (if not impossible) to find a form that has "head dodging" in it. I only know 1 form because it's a "2 men form". The "head dodging" training is most missing in many CMA systems training. Lucky enough, if you spar long enough, you can figure it out all by yourself.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 16, 2016)

This is all a question of pedagogy. In most things of this nature: classical violin, calligraphy, watchmaking...

teachers develop methods and sometimes those methods become repeated and followed by others who attribute that method to them. People in those fields ultimately become successful or not on their own merits, not because of which method they learned under. No one buys a $1,000 watch because of who someone studied with or what tools they used. They do so if the result of that training produces something that speaks to them in that way.

Martial arts is one of the only fields where adherence to the method is equated to success on its own.


----------



## Callen (Dec 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Maybe I am being a bit anal retentive, as I admit I can be but, imo at least, to be considered a "fighter" you must train, or at least consider, fighting other styles as well because if you drill vs fight someone using identical principles and techniques, if all things are equal (skill, size, fitness, experience isn't that but a drill) is there a difference between a drill and and fight?


Depends on how you drill.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> Martial arts is one of the only fields where adherence to the method is equated to success on its own.


I agree this happens and I think it's silly but I think I understand why this becomes an issue with TMAs in the civilian world.  I say civilian world because I doubt say the Filipino Recon Marines care about the stick adherence to method in the use of PTK.  Most people who study TMAs don't actually use them in anger or even "true" competition.  In other endeavors the measure of success is found in the accomplishment of a goal of sorts.  How accurate did you play the violin, did it move people?   How accurate is the watch and how artful is the case?  

Without an independent measure of success such as combat or competition one of the only measures of success is how well you adhere to method.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 16, 2016)

No one should claim to be "a fighter" unless they fight...not train...not do drills...fight.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> No one should claim to be "a fighter" unless they fight...not train...not do drills...fight.



The problem is some people see light sparring as "fighting" and see that as proof of concept, it gets even "twitchier" imo if that light sparring is against the same fighting methodology.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> No one should claim to be "a fighter" unless they fight...not train...not do drills...fight.



A lot of people will say that sparring is not fighting. Neither is competition, although it may well be closer.
I have to fight in the ER far more often than I like. But I'm not a fighter.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 16, 2016)

Right you are. Sparring isn't fighting, it's training. 

You can spot a fighter from across the room and a lot of them won't call themselves fighters either.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> Right you are. Sparring isn't fighting, it's training.
> 
> You can spot a fighter from across the room and a lot of them won't call themselves fighters either.



The term we tend to use at work on the occassion some rookie starts using the term "fighter" is, "no we have to fight, but that doesn't make us 'fighters'.". You can actually tell the cocky rooks who need an attitude adjustment if/when they start bandying that particular term around.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 16, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> No one should claim to be "a fighter" unless they fight...not train...not do drills...fight.



Georges St Pierre is definitely a fighter, but prefers to call himself a martial artist.

Arguments about who is or isn't entitled to claim what are the lifeblood of forums like this.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Georges St Pierre is definitely a fighter, but prefers to call himself a martial artist.



Is he? Spends a lot of time fighting, does he? I'll grant that he's an excellent competitor, but competing isn't fighting, to my way of thinking.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 16, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'll grant that he's an excellent competitor, but competing isn't fighting, to my way of thinking.



Arguments about who is or isn't entitled to claim what are the lifeblood of forums like this.

Ditto with definitions.

All The fighters on this forum, regale us with your tales.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 16, 2016)

anerlich said:


> ...
> 
> All The fighters on this forum, regale us with your tales.



...ideally, though not in a thread that was intended to be about the precise placement of pak sao in a specific drill...


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> Okay, that's fine. It's just the impression I you were new to training from your posts (e.g. you talked a lot about looking around for wing chun teachers, finding Alan Orr, and how you hope one day to be an MMA fighter).
> 
> Fighting is a necessary part of the VT training process, but needs to be started at the correct time



 I was at a school for a long time but left because it was average and half the stuff didn't work, so was looking around and experience some different ones and settled with Alan. 
Alans stuff works for me well. I

Might have my first fight in march, if i do I will try get a video of it.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 17, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> No one should claim to be "a fighter" unless they fight...not train...not do drills...fight.





ShortBridge said:


> ...ideally, though not in a thread that was intended to be about the precise placement of pak sao in a specific drill...



So, who was it tried to derail the thread with that "fighter" thing? Come on, bro, don't start sh*t you can't finish.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 17, 2016)

lansao said:


> Hey all, curious to learn pak sao placement from different lineages. Some questions below:
> 
> Where on your hand do you make contact?
> Where on your opponents arm (in fighting range) does your hand stop?
> ...



Hey Alan,

- For the intercepting part of the pak, we use both of the bottom pads of the hand to contact the arm initially
- This depends on if we're using occupy space strategy, loi lau hoi sung, or just a pak technique. In loi lau hoi sung, we try to connect closer to the elbow, run the bridge to the wrist, then settle in the mid bridge where the opponent can't elbow or grab (controlling both ends).
- Centerline Pak, 5 line pak, inside gate pak, Pak Kiu, Occupy space, Loi Lau Hoi Sung pak, Pak/Pak Jong and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting


----------



## lansao (Dec 17, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> Hey Alan,
> 
> - For the intercepting part of the pak, we use both of the bottom pads of the hand to contact the arm initially
> - This depends on if we're using occupy space strategy, loi lau hoi sung, or just a pak technique. In loi lau hoi sung, we try to connect closer to the elbow, run the bridge to the wrist, then settle in the mid bridge where the opponent can't elbow or grab (controlling both ends).
> - Centerline Pak, 5 line pak, inside gate pak, Pak Kiu, Occupy space, Loi Lau Hoi Sung pak, Pak/Pak Jong and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting



Thanks for your input Eric.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 17, 2016)

anerlich said:


> So, who was it tried to derail the thread with that "fighter" thing? Come on, bro, don't start sh*t you can't finish.



What exactly did I start, bro?


----------



## anerlich (Dec 17, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> What exactly did I start, bro?



You made the "No one should claim to be a fighter ..." statement in a thread about Pak Sao. Then, when myself and others pick up on that, you say, "Oh no, we shouldn't discuss that on a thread about Pak Sao.."

Do you claim to be a fighter? See someone on here you think made such a claim, but shouldn't? Why bring it up at all?

I personally don't mind if threads wander off track, as long as they don't end up in the usual "PB VT is the only one / no it isn't" stalemate that too many do.

Who here claims to be a fighter, and who do you (plural) feel claims to be but isn't?

At 62, I don't have any aspirations to be "a fighter", whatever that means. After being on and off Wing Chun forums since last century, I've been called every name and received every possible criticism that anyone here is likely to come up with. But, call me a non-fighter, theoretician, anything else you like. Go for it.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 17, 2016)

anerlich said:


> You made the "No one should claim to be a fighter ..." statement in a thread about Pak Sao. ...



Honestly, I think we're misunderstanding each other and rather than challenge each other from different continents, let me just offer an olive branch and a bit of explanation.

I did not, do not, and will not label myself "a fighter" here or anywhere else. If I did so in a martial arts forum, I would expect to be called out on it and frankly, I will ask publicly that if anyone catches me doing so, please call me out on it.

This thread took the predictable detour of any MT Wing Chun tread (though those comments seem to have been deleted now). As you pointed out, we had to hear a bit of the "PB is The One and the rest of you are living in the Wing Chun Matrix, but I can only free your mind if it wants to be freed". We're all tired of that and I'm just resorting to the ignore tool at this point, because I realize that when you're in a cult, you don't know that you're in a cult, you believe that you know "the truth" and that everyone else is blind and must be educated. Unfortunate, but not worth trying to resolve at this point. If they were at least offering PB wisdom on the topic (in this case, where pak sao should make contact) it might be tolerable, but it's always just "you're wrong, if you knew what I know you'd know that, but you don't." You and I seem to be in the same place on that point.

The 2nd predictable derail shaping up in this thread was the "MMA is better. Why don't you spar? What would and wouldn't work against a professional..." derail that sadly makes it difficult to discuss even a specific technical detail about a particular style anywhere on the internet. Sparring vs fighting came up, we didn't go all the way off of those rails, but it seemed to be heading there, so I gave an opinion. If someone would like to debate that, I kindly and humbly suggest that a fresh thread on that topic, maybe in the General or MMA fora might be more fruitful than one about where on the arm to make contact in a wing chun pak sao drill. But, I don't moderate this forum, I'm not the OP, and honestly I don't really care that much.

I am a bit sensitive about terms like "fighting" and "combat" and even "self defense", but people are free to use them however they want. It helps however, if others in the conversation understand what they mean. Boxers have been called "fighters" for decades but I do consider that a homonym. Cancer survivors are often called "fighters" too, but its meant differently. Context matters. I've talked with combat veterans about their experiences and I do get a little bit protective when people say things like "combat" when taking about their Tuesday night class or even a hard fought match of some kind. Again, I got into this thread because I know something about the drill in question and was offering my perspective. We've seen some diversity of opinion and I think we're all the better for it.

That's all. Nothing more and nothing personal intended on that second point. If you took it differently, I offer my sincere apology and hope that my explanation satisfies you.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 17, 2016)

That was an excellent and eloquent answer. Peace.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 18, 2016)

Treznor said:


> Nice little vid on the WSL Pak Sao drill by David Peterson...



The discussion is funny because the whole thing is not even _paak-sau _in WSLVT. _Paak-sau_ is not separated from the attack or meeting force head-on like that.

Some have taken a beginner coordination drill too far and turned it into a face-off application or sparring platform. It is riddled with problems created and reinforced by misusing it like that.


----------



## lansao (Dec 18, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> Honestly, I think we're misunderstanding each other and rather than challenge each other from different continents, let me just offer an olive branch and a bit of explanation.


Thanks for this ShortBridge, not sure if I should take any ownership of the thread as the original poster but to the degree I should, I would love for the thread to stay on pak sao.

~ Alan


----------



## wtxs (Dec 19, 2016)

LFJ said:


> The discussion is funny because the whole thing is not even _paak-sau _in WSLVT. _Paak-sau_ is not separated from the attack or meeting force head-on like that.



For the sake of discussion, can you elaborate?  How is DP and PB method different in comparison?  Since both is connected to WSL.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 20, 2016)

wtxs said:


> For the sake of discussion, can you elaborate?  How is DP and PB method different in comparison?  Since both is connected to WSL.



I'm not PB. WSLVT is the same for anyone who spent the time and learned fully.

_Paak-sau_ is an auxiliary action opening the line for a punch with a short shocking force for displacement. There's no head-on confrontation or separation from the attack.

If this drill is to be used at all, it is for beginners' very basic hand-eye coordination checking forward with _man-sau_, and using some basic entries to train coordination of the step with upper body and limbs moving in to capture space via correct angles.

Some, not knowing any better, take it too far and turn it into a free application/sparring face-off that they use well into their VT training. This is problematic for many reasons.

First, if you are taught this is _paak-sau _you are trained to stand there slapping chain punches with it. _Paak-sau_ is now not part of an attack, but is used to chase hands. Even once is bad.

Second, it is conditioning one to look for contact and then retract as that contact is also retracted. This is detrimental to LLHS,LSJC.

Third, it creates an arm's length distance and allows the attacker to face us square-on, then has us step in going straight for the arm with various techniques, which gives the opponent the advantage as they get to attack the person while we attack the arm.

Even when some teach for the _paak-sau_ to turn directly into a punch, they are timing when to cut in on an arm, and forgetting about breaking into the opponent's retractions. Too much focus on the hands and losing sight of the goal. Turning a beginner coordination drill into an elaborate application/sparring platform that detrains VT fighting behaviors.

The idea of VT is to find the most simple, direct, and efficient method of attack (_Cham-kiu_), not allowing a face-off and fighting force with force up the middle like a bull, and to remove obstacles with attacks and not blocks.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

LFJ said:


> ...WSLVT is the same for anyone who spent the time and learned fully...



And yet you will say that not only DP, but Gary Lam and any student of WSL that does things different than PB are doing it wrong.  Either it's the same or it's not.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> And yet you will say that not only DP, but Gary Lam and any student of WSL that does things different than PB are doing it wrong.  Either it's the same or it's not.



I will?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I will?


You have in the past actually so why should one believe you won't in the future.  More than once when someone posts a video, of DP especially, doing something that appears to contradict something that comes from PB or one of his students, you and Guy will challenge it.

Note I am, again, not saying anything bad about PB and WSL but  more than once the knowledge of Sifu's who teach the WSL method that isn't on the exact same page as PB get challenged.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> You have in the past actually so why should one believe you won't in the future.



"Gary Lam and any other student", you say? Quote or you're lying.



> More than once when someone posts a video, of DP especially, doing something that appears to contradict something that comes from PB or one of his students, you and Guy will challenge it.



WSLVT is the same for anyone who spent the time and learned fully. PB is not the only one to have done so.



> Note I am, again, not saying anything bad about PB and WSL but  more than once the knowledge of Sifu's who teach the WSL method that isn't on the exact same page as PB get challenged.



Not true.

Some have openly changed the system and no longer use the VT spelling or have even renamed their own system. No problem. They are not wrong, and I have never said they were.

I don't care who does what. We're talking actual substance. If you are not here for technical discussion and are just looking to sow discord again, please place me back on ignore. I'm not interested.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

LFJ said:


> "Gary Lam or any other student", you say? Quote or you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am not looking to sow discord.  My issue is if people wish to engage in informed debate, especially with the appearance of authority/in depth knowledge on a topic, logical consistency is important.  Even in this thread the issue rises.  The question you were responding made clear that wtxs saw you as being critical of DP.  In your answer you say



> ...WSLVT is the same for anyone who spent the time and learned fully.



which is consistent with other posts you made in the last which downplayed the time/influence/relationship DP has with WSL and WSLVT.  Now if you didn't mean to come across like you were taking shots this time around, no worries, but when you do take shots being called out on them isn't sowing discord it's responding to the seed already planted.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

In terms of quotes...



LFJ said:


> What "one-handed work" are you guys on about? Both _arms_ are used together. PB didn't lose a whole freaking arm!
> 
> Thing is, the VT method is not about the hands. It's the "way of the elbow". So to say PB couldn't learn the standard method shows you know nothing about how VT works.
> 
> ...





LFJ said:


> DP's understanding of VT is limited, as I've briefly detailed, so I don't think he can accurately describe much, but in this case I think "it" doesn't mean other WC that WSL "refined".
> 
> Rather "it" refers to fighting and fight training, and this is just the simple, no-nonsense VT approach to punching people directly in the face.
> 
> It wasn't WSL's invention and he didn't have to streamline anything himself. That's just VT.





LFJ said:


> YM was an excellent teacher, as was WSL.
> 
> Not every student learned fully from either of them, just like in any MA school.
> 
> ...



I could quote more but I have better things to do.

PB WSLVT is the only true WSLVT everything else is changed and that rabbit hole inevitably leads to the "incoherent" and "broken" tropes.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> which is consistent with other posts you made in the last which downplayed the time/influence/relationship DP has with WSL and WSLVT.  Now if you didn't mean to come across like you were taking shots this time around, no worries, but when you do take shots being called out on them isn't sowing discord it's responding to the seed already planted.



Stating facts is not shot-taking. Do you have any comment on my post about this drill being misunderstood/misused? If not, stop trolling.



Juany118 said:


> PB WSLVT is the only true WSLVT everything else is changed and that rabbit hole inevitably leads to the "incoherent" and "broken" tropes.



I said in the very quotes you provided that PB is not the only one to have learned the full system from WSL!

And I said those who have changed the system have done so _openly_, even changing the VT spelling or renaming their own system. There is nothing wrong with that!


----------



## LFJ (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The question you were responding made clear that wtxs saw you as being critical of DP.  In your answer you say
> 
> 
> > ...WSLVT is the same for anyone who spent the time and learned fully.



This is because he once again singled out PB for some reason to pit against DP. I was stating that WSLVT is the same for multiple people who learned it fully. It's not DP vs PB. It's just a matter WSLVT being fully understood or not. I don't care who you name. I'm not talking people. I'm talking technical analysis here. If you are not interested in this discussion, go away.


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 21, 2016)

It is well known in WSL VT that David Peterson is quite junior to Philipp Bayer and others in terms of time spent, proficiency with the system, and understanding. PB is not the only one in WSL VT to share the understanding that PB demonstrates. That the orthodox understanding is rarely shown is not any mark against it. It is still the orthodox understanding and a different type of investigation than forum questioning is required to understand this (i.e. direct experience)

Compare like with like and you will find a similar answer. Insist on comparing different things and you will find difference. Looks more like a problem of perception and limited experience than anything else.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Hazardi172 said:


> a different type of investigation than forum questioning is required to understand this (i.e. direct experience)



Seems some people are afraid of direct experience, and would rather get info from Google Search.

Every time the discussion comes down to technical analysis, Juany drops out. 

Then picks up the same line of guessing about history of people he's never met months later.


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Seems some people are afraid of direct experience, and would rather get info from Google Search.
> 
> Every time the discussion comes down to technical analysis, Juany drops out.
> 
> Then picks up the same line of guessing about history of people he's never met months later.



If there was PB around I would check them out but there is not.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> If there was PB around I would check them out but there is not.



Which is fine, since you aren't making ignorant assumptions and assertions about it and googling for "evidence" to support your guesses.


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 22, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Seems some people are afraid of direct experience, and would rather get info from Google Search.
> 
> Every time the discussion comes down to technical analysis, Juany drops out.
> 
> Then picks up the same line of guessing about history of people he's never met months later.



I suppose then the best option is just to keep repeating the facts


----------



## wingchun100 (Dec 29, 2016)

lansao said:


> Hey all, curious to learn pak sao placement from different lineages. Some questions below:
> 
> Where on your hand do you make contact?
> Where on your opponents arm (in fighting range) does your hand stop?
> ...



Ideally I try to land the center of my palm at their elbow. As for exercises, I practice on the wooden dummy. If I have a partner, I practice against a straight punch or a shove.


----------

