Sup Gee Sao

[futsaowingchun]

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

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

 

[futsaowingchun]

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

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

 

[Jake104]

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

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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

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

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

 

[Jake104]

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

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

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

 

[Jake104]

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

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

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

 

[wckf92]

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

Perhaps. But what about the legs?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But what about the legs?

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

 

[Eric_H]

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

 

[Jake104]

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

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

 

[Jake104]

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

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

 

[Jake104]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

 

[Danny T]

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

 

[wckf92]

I just use: "get er done!"

 

[Vajramusti]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JPinAZ]

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

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

 

[geezer]

IMO- the slt motions are not simple techniques.

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

IMO sup gee sao has additional tasks early on....

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

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