Paak-da chi-sau entry

[Vajramusti]

Video watching "interpretations"-missing part of the time.

 

[PiedmontChun]

A lot of the discussion since the OP is hard to follow, but my take on the video in OP is: The elbow seems much too high to initiate the punch from if done from full bong sau. Trying to punch straight without the elbow actually behind it seems weak and easily deflected and therefore not correct / optimal. I had to stop and think about how I or my sifu / si-hings do it, but I believe we initiate the pak as our fook sau rises, not from dead bottom, and the timing of the punch is as the bong is flipping back to tan, it is here that momentarily the arm / hand is perfectly aligned with the training partner's center without any extra movement. The pak simply releases your partner's arm so your punch can spring forward. Essentially it is all happening mid-roll. It is also less telegraphed this way. If movements in chi-sau arent subtle and efficient as possible, then I would imagine it robs you and your partner of gaining sensitivity.

 

[Vajramusti]

A lot of the discussion since the OP is hard to follow, but my take on the video in OP is: The elbow seems much too high to initiate the punch from if done from full bong sau. Trying to punch straight without the elbow actually behind it seems weak and easily deflected and therefore not correct / optimal. I had to stop and think about how I or my sifu / si-hings do it, but I believe we initiate the pak as our fook sau rises, not from dead bottom, and the timing of the punch is as the bong is flipping back to tan, it is here that momentarily the arm / hand is perfectly aligned with the training partner's center without any extra movement. The pak simply releases your partner's arm so your punch can spring forward. Essentially it is all happening mid-roll. It is also less telegraphed this way. If movements in chi-sau arent subtle and efficient as possible, then I would imagine it robs you and your partner of gaining sensitivity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you are referring to the Windy City video.I did not listen to the audio and I didn't watch the full video.
Opinion? I understood what he was trying to show. Pak da is fairly basic.
When practiced it's all one motion and timing. The bong can turn into an inside whipping punch with pak being part of the control.

 

[PiedmontChun]

To add to the above, I'm not saying punching from Bong Sau is wrong. I imagine if the partner's fook sau pressure was weak or their force vector wrong, your bong would likely creep forward from underneath, and then you can easily pak from bottom if you wish to transition it into a punch. The video appears to show a bong sau under legitimate pressure; if anything it seemed a bit collapsed already... even worse for trying to straight punch from.

 

[JPinAZ]

I agree on several of your points,but I think this video is not ment to show the why? but the how. It is geared more for the beginner not someone who has a lot of experience. I like the video even though I do it a bit different.

TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.

If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.

 

[Vajramusti]

TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.

If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.

------------------------------------------------------------
I always try to understand the key concepts. I don't pay much attention to videos or the you tube. But I am lucky- my good sifu and sihings have been accessible over the years.

 

[Callen]

------------------------------------------------------------
I always try to understand the key concepts. I don't pay much attention to videos or the you tube. But I am lucky- my good sifu and sihings have been accessible over the years.

That's the key, being lucky enough to have access to a knowledgable source. Many practitioners simply don't have that option.

TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.

If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.

These are some very good points. However, what if the Windy City video was simply illustrating a break-down of one technique, as opposed to an overarching approach to Chi Sau? Eventually, all reactions in Chi Sau stem from learned technique. If a student is starting to get a grasp on the "why" of things, and he has properly learned pak-da in drills, it stands to reason he may want to see it explained from the perspective of Chi Sau. Just a thought... There are so many ways to interpret a video like this.

 

[Vajramusti]

True- but listening is an art. Folks are often too fast in giving knee jerk reactions.

 

[JPinAZ]

These are some very good points.

Thanks, any in particular you would care to discuss further?

However, what if the Windy City video was simply illustrating a break-down of one technique, as opposed to an overarching approach to Chi Sau? Eventually, all reactions in Chi Sau stem from learned technique. If a student is starting to get a grasp on the "why" of things, and he has properly learned pak-da in drills, it stands to reason he may want to see it explained from the perspective of Chi Sau. Just a thought... There are so many ways to interpret a video like this.

I think it's better (and easier) to skip the what-ifs and just discuss the clip as it's is presented. I thought it was pretty clear. The very first words the presenter utters: "...the first attack.... in chi sau that I teach... simply, the pak punch....", which sounds like step one in his process. And then in the second clip as he goes on to step two saying "the basic block to the pak punch", which sounds like step two.
Sounds like this is how they approach teaching their chi sau and this is a nicely detailed explanation on the first few steps in that method - not just isolating a given technique in WC and showing it from a chi sau perspective.

On a side note, I disagree that all reactions in chi sau stem from learned technique. That could be one approach, but I argue it'sa misunderstanding of the end-goal of principle-focused WC. In the end, all actions/reactions in any 'good wing chun' (as Joy likes to often say) should stem from proper understanding of WC principle, space and timing along with position, leverage & contact points and pressure/energetics understanding. It all depends on the how you approach and understand WC

 

[Callen]

Thanks, any in particular you would care to discuss further?



I think it's better (and easier) to skip the what-ifs and just discuss the clip as it's is presented. I thought it was pretty clear. The very first words the presenter utters: "...the first attack.... in chi sau that I teach... simply, the pak punch....", which sounds like step one in his process. And then in the second clip as he goes on to step two saying "the basic block to the pak punch", which sounds like step two.
Sounds like this is how they approach teaching their chi sau and this is a nicely detailed explanation on the first few steps in that method - not just isolating a given technique in WC and showing it from a chi sau perspective.

On a side note, I disagree that all reactions in chi sau stem from learned technique. That could be one approach, but I argue it'sa misunderstanding of the end-goal of principle-focused WC. In the end, all actions/reactions in any 'good wing chun' (as Joy likes to often say) should stem from proper understanding of WC principle, space and timing along with position, leverage & contact points and pressure/energetics understanding. It all depends on the how you approach and understand WC

A well written response, thank you. I also agree with these points as well.

My apologies, my intention wasn't to exclude the concepts of structure, space, timing and physics involved in Chi Sau (or Wing Chun for that matter); it was really to simply offer an alternative to thinking that Ken (the guy in the Windy City video) has only a technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. You're right, the end-goal of principle-focused WC should not be ignored. Although, solid technique will always come to the surface. In 'good Wing Chun' there is a very fine boundary between technique and space, timing, position, leverage and physics. In fact some believe the best Wing Chun is the perfect blend of all those elements.

 

[Jake104]

I don't teach and don't make videos myself, but I think some of what I'm talking about can be seen in, for example, that gwo-sau video I posted on the other thread, reposted below for easy reference. You may have to use the play speed feature to slow it down and see exactly what's happening, but you will notice things I mentioned like cutting off attacks, turning them, disrupting their balance and facing, etc., all while striking.

Granted this is only a drill, and the partner always comes in with paak-da on the lead arm to start. But I think you can see what I refer to. These are skills and tactics that get carried over into free fighting, and maybe you can imagine how. You will notice no attempt to stick or feel– things there are no time for at speed– only interception and sudden displacement of limbs to clear the way for striking. That's good and usable VT in my opinion.

Another clear example of "cutting the way" to reduce their weapons, and prevent recovery and effective countering. It's a well-developed tactical striking system, not sticking, grappling, or energy riddle solving. You'll never see them standing around holding each other's arms and thinking about how to deal with each other's energy as in the Fong video. I don't think that has any value for fight training. At least, it's not my cup of tea.

Both videos show a compliant partner throwing slow punches with no intent. Both participants are agreeing to feed each other in a WC striking way. You'll never see anybody on the street throw punches like that. After each punch the attacker pauses to eat a sandwich. That's why it looks like it'll work.

NOBODY PUNCHES LIKE THAT in real life! Even in the PB video, in real life. Either a over hand or a cross is coming right as the first punch is launched. But his attacker throws a typical choreographed half baked punch like seen in most all WC demos.

Boxers or just the average pissed off novice striker who wants to take your head off. Will most likely blow throw that.

At each one of these moments a cross or overhand would be at PB face in real life.

 

[Jake104]

The last one the attacker drops his hands. That's not going to happen in real life. A cross would be connecting at that point.
Or maybe he's sticking/ sticky/ pressing him into that position?? I watched video in slow motion. After each punch there is a pause. Why? Why can't feeder just feed random punches with intent? Maybe he's demonstrating a skill and both parties agreed for the sake of the demonstration to do it this way? Kind of like what Sifu Fong and Ed are doing? Both agreed to play a game for the sake of learning or showcasing a particular skill set? Either way the videos you posted are not free fighting. At least not what I'd consider too be.

 

[Jake104]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you are referring to the Windy City video.I did not listen to the audio and I didn't watch the full video.
Opinion? I understood what he was trying to show. Pak da is fairly basic.
When practiced it's all one motion and timing. The bong can turn into an inside whipping punch with pak being part of the control.

So if elbow is too high you transition into something else? What a awesome concept. One of those things chi sao with energy teaches? Like In Sifu Fong's video?

 

[Jake104]

Trying to punch straight without the elbow actually behind it seems weak and easily deflected and therefore not correct / optimal.

Not true. Just takes different body mechanics then a WC elbow down punch. Hardest punch Ive ever experienced was a vertical fist boxers/ WC/ hook/ straight hybrid punch with elbow up kinda... I'm not sure what to really even call it. I've seen Alan Orr punch kind of like it.

It was through a focus mitt on my chest. I have been hit hard in my life and KO'd for a second from a sucker punch. But this "demonstration" punch at maybe 50% power knocked the fight/ life right out of me. It was a chest punch that rattled my whole body from head to toe. Happened just recently. It was freaking cool!

 

[LFJ]

Both videos show a compliant partner throwing slow punches with no intent. Both participants are agreeing to feed each other in a WC striking way. You'll never see anybody on the street throw punches like that.

I thought I'd made it clear it was a VT drill and the partner was only feeding pak+punch to initiate and then repeating. Not sure why you would expect to see boxing punches thrown in gwo-sau, or chi-sau drills. Wrong training stage for that kind of thing.

Either way the videos you posted are not free fighting.

Nor were they presented as such. They were used merely to illustrate things like attack lines. I see everything I said has been lost on you, even with video. I must not be writing clearly enough. Never mind then.

 

[LFJ]

Not true. Just takes different body mechanics then a WC elbow down punch. Hardest punch Ive ever experienced was a vertical fist boxers/ WC/ hook/ straight hybrid punch with elbow up kinda...

He didn't say "elbow up". Elbow up doesn't mean the elbow won't be "behind the punch". There is still alignment, just not Wing Chun alignment. Punching straight from bong-sau with a squared body, there is poor alignment and body mechanics. So, as P said, it's both weak and easily deflected.

 

[Jake104]

These are skills and tactics that get carried over into free fighting, and maybe you can imagine how. You will notice no attempt to stick or feel– things there are no time for at speed– only interception and sudden displacement of limbs to clear the way for striking. That's good and usable VT in my opinion.

There is no "chi-sau" range in free fighting; you're either in ideal striking range for the system, or you're not.

The VT system is a training progression. Forms > chi-sau > gwo-sau > gong-sau (free sparring and fighting).

Can you post some free fighting videos of you or your students please? I'm still learning and I'd like to see maybe what I might be missing? I'm very visual. So it's hard for me to understand what you mean without actually seeing it? Otherwise for me it's just words and I may interpret it in the wrong way. I think a video will help me see what you are explaining. I'd really appreciate it. Specifically free sparring starting from a realistic distance and not from crossing hands or rolling? Thank you.

 

[Jake104]

So let's see some free fighting gong sao? I guess i got my gwo sao and gong sao's mixed up? I'd like to see these tactics carried over into free fighting? I'd like to see some "good useable VT"

 

[Jake104]

He didn't say "elbow up". Elbow up doesn't mean the elbow won't be "behind the punch". There is still alignment, just not Wing Chun alignment. Punching straight from bong-sau with a squared body, there is poor alignment and body mechanics. So, as P said, it's both weak and easily deflected.

Punches should have full body behind not just not elbow.. What about a whipping punch? That's not VT? Body mechanics change but I think WC body mechanics are used? If I'm squared to my opponent and have a bong out. Why can't I change into a full body punch and adjust body? I think I've seen this in Sifu Fong's lineage. The bong sao corks into a punch? I have a whipping punch from my Original lineage that I call huen choi. Elbow isn't behind it but full body is though. Fighting needs to me fluid. Not static. You can't always drop your elbow to punch. Reality doesn't always allow this.

 

[futsaowingchun]

TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.

If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.

I like to see you hit someone with a principle/concept only..