People who look at moves and say "this looks like WC and that does not" are really just adjusted to seeing WC performed in a vacuum tube of an environment. The big name promoters of WC are really bent on fighting against themselves rather than seriously proving anything to outsiders.[/FONT][/COLOR]"

Most Martial Artists look for their techniques in sparring, competition, street fights etc etc etc. The whole "for ourselves" **** is what got all the drama started for kung fu regardless of style.
Too bad they don't realize old school CMA was all about proving itself to outsiders.

Lop Sao means grabbing hand. Purpose, direction, power, and end results are not implied.
Pak Sao means slapping hand. Purpose, direction, power, and end results are not implied.

Some WC people believe there is only one way to slap and grab and others think you vary the techniques based on desire and need. I come from the school of the latter where Wing Chun is an abstract art that must be learnt to fit the individual, not to become a non-thinking robot.

People who look at moves and say "this looks like WC and that does not" are really just adjusted to seeing WC performed in a vacuum tube of an environment. The big name promoters of WC are really bent on fighting against themselves rather than seriously proving anything to outsiders.

Wing chun is like xingyi but it contains 3 fists. boang tan and fook. If it uses one of the 3 lines of force then it is wing chun. otherwise it is not wing chun or you have reached the non classical stage of training where you are training a more personal system.

I want to remind y'all that this is in the style forums, which is moderated on on topic posts. This is not a trolling thread.



I don't think you can make that distinction from the picture.

Pak Sau (slapping hand) - Can be administered straight forward to force back, or force the opponent's centreline away from yours. Or to block punches (though Wing Chun I've seen teaches using pak sau to block the wrong way in my opinion. ie From orthodox stance

Lop Sau (compressing or lowering hand) - Is more the idea of sticking to something, pushing into, down, or diagonally down to gain the centreline.

I think it's a lop sau where mixed martial arts superstar Jake Shields pushes down on Jason "Mayhem" Miller's arm to clear the way for his right hand.

http://i28.tinypic.com/kcdwg9.jpg



Easy way to remember is lop sau sets up the da (hit) with the rear hand, pak sau traps with the rear and strike with the lead. I use pak sau on guys who cover up on the jab, and lop sau on guys who leave their lead hand too far away from their face. Overhand right is a good strike from there, personally I'm partial to the backfist/back elbow from there.

Wing chun is like xingyi but it contains 3 fists. boang tan and fook. If it uses one of the 3 lines of force then it is wing chun. otherwise it is not wing chun or you have reached the non classical stage of training where you are training a more personal system.

I don't understand your post but I think its one that puts Wing Chun in a small box. A really small one. This thread is discussing pak or lop and you mentioned 3 hands of which two are not used in application two much by the average student, not well anyways. Pak and lop are easy to learn compared to bong yet people still don't know why to choose them (evidence on this thread). From your brief post one may think tan, bong, and fook are the only three hands and the others are not wc enough. I have heard of sifus being dismissive of parry type moves in favor of bridging hands. To me it just shows how little they know of how our hands work. Its very short sighted to think you can fight everyone using a method few subscribe to.



Easy way to remember is lop sau sets up the da (hit) with the rear hand, pak sau traps with the rear and strike with the lead. I use pak sau on guys who cover up on the jab, and lop sau on guys who leave their lead hand too far away from their face. Overhand right is a good strike from there, personally I'm partial to the backfist/back elbow from there.

Not true at all. You can lop from just about any position where there is something to grab.

WC is such a disputed style about nothing can be agreed on.

OP , just from the picture alone a room full of chunners could not agree on what is going on. Without video we can't see intent and I am pretty sure the guy is not thing WC even if it were to look remotely familiar.

I



Not true at all. You can lop from just about any position where there is something to grab.

WC is such a disputed style about nothing can be agreed on.

OP , just from the picture alone a room full of chunners could not agree on what is going on. Without video we can't see intent and I am pretty sure the guy is not thing WC even if it were to look remotely familiar.


Well I'll defer to the expert, my WC training really comes from JKD, so maybe my trapping curriculum is more limited.

Wing chun is like xingyi but it contains 3 fists.Wing Chun was like many striking arts until it got watered down.


If it uses one of the 3 lines of force then it is wing chun. otherwise it is not wing chun or you have reached the non classical stage of training where you are training a more personal system.This is exactly why it is considered **** now.

This is not LopSao.

This is not PakSao.

If you don't study the style, then your technique did not come from it. And, if validation or proof of a technique comes mostly from examples which have nothing to do with the style, then this is just pathetic.

Take your lumps, chunners. ... literally. Only then will there be pictures to debate which technique is portrayed within.

It's really comforting to know that, through it all, pizdoff simply does not fundamentally change. Back in the mcdojo.com days he was making threads about using pro wrestling slams as guard passes. Today he's asking about realistic wing chun.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

This is not LopSao.

This is not PakSao.

If you don't study the style, then your technique did not come from it. And, if validation or proof of a technique comes mostly from examples which have nothing to do with the style, then this is just pathetic.

Take your lumps, chunners. ... literally. Only then will there be pictures to debate which technique is portrayed within.

Tom is like the Yoda of Wing Chun.

It is awesome.

Tom is like the Yoda of Wing Chun.

It is awesome.

It was my second answer.

My first answer was to agree with your assessment.