Charles Pope - A revisit to the T.T. & A.S.S. archives.

If it's San Soo related, but you don't know where to put it...

Moderator: San Soo Sifu

Charles Pope - A revisit to the T.T. & A.S.S. archives.

Postby Captain America » Tue May 04, 2010 2:51 pm

Captain America wrote:South Bay San Soo later evolved into the infamous TMI. At TMI, Robert Resann and Sean Scott regularly taught 1st Force Recon and 1st Recon Bn. starting in late 1997 through 2000 on site at Camp Pendleton per their request, as well as 18 months of classes at the San Diego U.S. Border Patrol under contract with the Department of Justice. (Back then there was no Department of Homeland Security...)

The Most Influential folks on the mechanics and techniques developed by Robert and Sean to meet the job description and escalation of force policies of these units were of course Jimmy H. Woo and Frank Woolsey... as well as Jack Sera (Jimmy H. Woo direct lineage), Charlie Pope (Frank Woolsey direct lineage) along with general instruction in San Soo mechanics from Michael Rockwell (Jimmy and Jack lineage).

From: CharlesPope1 6/2/2001 7:58 pm
To: RonGatewood (18 of 92)
28.18 in reply to 28.3

Ron Gatewood, I have seen all kinds of San Soo done by Jimmy H. Woo's students. It looks something like what I do, but it is definitely different. Your discription of Ah Soo, is the discription of it being done completely wrong. I suppose that is how you were taught to do it by Jimmy H. Woo. So, I understand why you might think it is inferior to what is now practiced as "San Soo."

The super wide windmills being done by Frank Woolsey, and his early students in the demonstration films are not the correct, or true fighting forms either, telegraphed punching being the least of the problems. Perhaps you could show off some of your knowledge by pointing out something else? Even with all its draw backs, this type of San Soo is superior to the stuff I see coming from Jimmy H. Woo's students, which is born from a disdain for violence. I can spot one of the Jimmy H. Woo type San Soo'ers very easily. I have seen Jimmy H. Woo in action, his old students, their students, many films, and I have visited, and asked questions, and watched as an interested lay person.

They all look, and do, basically the same moves. So it is not a case of me not seeing the "right" guys yet. In a real fight, the so called "New San Soo would easily be defeated by the "Old San Soo." In a fight you do what you have practiced in the studio. The "masters" films come to mind. I am thankful that I did not spend countless hours on stuff like that, if that is how they fight. A plain old Boxer would crush that stuff; not to mention Real Kung Fu San Soo.

From: RonGatewood 6/2/2001 9:01 pm
To: CharlesPope1 (19 of 92)
28.19 in reply to 28.18

Charlie Pope, received an email notification; and since there was a lucid message, I thought I would respond. I do not believe Ah Soo are bad, or they will not work. They were all taught by Jimmy H. Woo. For a pure historical matter, I will say that some have been changed, some removed, and some added to by Frank Woolsey. Frank Woolsey and I learned them at the same time. If they were better, then I would say so. There is a whole lot of San Soo beyond them. The reason of why they were changed is unknown to me. Let me state first hand what I said, Jimmy H. Woo did not teach us how to disarm an Escrima fighter, or how to fight a current grappler, as they were not around back then.

From: CharlesPope1 6/9/2001 9:41 pm
To: RonGatewood (37 of 92)
28.37 in reply to 28.19

Ah Soo 45, or the Basic 45, are not my favorite moves at all, really. I guess when some people think of, or refer to, "Old San Soo," the Basic 45 comes to mind. They are a suitable starting point. The many strikes are useful to teach how to punch with power, and more importantly, they "burn in" target accuracy. Whether Ah Soo 45, or more advanced moves, it is always the same targets (with the exception of locks, leverages, and throws that are few in "Ah Soo"). Of course, I know you are quite familiar with these basic concepts. I mention them for the benefit of others who may be less experienced than we are. Nowadays, I start my new students on moves from Frank Woolsey's "Real Kung Fu" book. I am sure you have it, or are familiar with it (if not then let me know, and I will get you one for your collection). It is some what like the Basic 45; with more takedowns, throws, and better combinations all around.

From: CharlesPope1 4/25/2001 7:07 pm
To: Robert @TMI (rresann) (2 of 2)
220.2 in reply to 220.1

The block is the first in a cluster of strikes, triggered by subtle signals that betray your attacker's intentions. The so called "block" is, in fact, no different in power, or offensive effectiveness, than any other strike; if done correctly. From what I have seen, most San Soo stylists' blocks done these days are nothing more than wet noodles. So, I can see Robert Resann's point of why even bother?

From: GrandMaste1 (Charles Pope) 2/13/2001 9:32 pm
To: ALL (6 of 14)
172.6 in reply to 172.5

The difference between wide open windmill punching (long arm); and a tighter hooking, or whatever you want to call it, (short arm) is this, the body mechanics are the same, except that the arm is either bent (short arm) or extended (long arm). With the short arm type, you can cover (or guard) easier. A low stance is to be used with both. A good example of low stance, long arm is used by Dennis Kirby in those old films that Robert Resann has. Dennis Kirby was scary powerful; and I admired his style (and still do). A good Kung-Fu San Soo man uses both interchangeably; but for demonstrations, as I have said before, long arm is most impressive to behold.

From: GrandMaste1 (Charles Pope) 2/14/2001 6:16 pm
To: Robert @TMI (rresann) (7 of 14)
172.7 in reply to 172.3

Robert Resann, even long arm has covers. I tell you the truth, I use them both (as Frank Woolsey taught me); but there is a right way, and wrong way to do big circle, wide open (why do you think they call it wide open) long arm (correct term) punches. You must "hide them."

From: GrandMaste1 (Charles Pope) 2/16/2001 6:22 am
To: Robert @TMI (rresann) (9 of 14)
172.9 in reply to 172.3

Check out that picture book that was have reformatted by Bill Hulsey (Real Kung Fu by Frank Woolsey). Lessons # 4, 8, 29 are examples of hiding the next punch. Your opponent should not be able to see your hand / arm (the non-striking arm). Your body should obscure it from him; otherwise, you will give yourself away. This was not taught in class, outright. However, if you copied Frank Woolsey's technique well enough; you did it, whether you knew it or not. If you throw your arm back too far (the non-striking arm); past 180 degrees, then you are telegraphing (your opponent can see it). One thing is for sure, you just cannot hide a backhand! You can, and should, hide roundhouses, forward elbows, uppercuts, overhand fore-knuckles, down roundhouses, and palm strikes. Check out how he tucks his chin, and head, in lesson number 15 with that up cross block.

From: GrandMaste1 (Charles Pope) 2/15/2001 6:15 am
To: Hakoko (13 of 13)
81.13 in reply to 81.1

For one thing, "New San Soo" has too many moving parts, if you know what I mean. From what I have seen there is a dispassionate block; then a indifferent strike; then comes a somewhat complicated multi-stepped leveraged-type throw, which is not bad in itself; but the opponent is not "loosened up enough first." You have to beat them up, before you can throw them like that; because some people will not stand still for it! ... light=pope
Robert Resann wrote:Ron Gatewood's arch nemesis with respect to the ONE TRUE WAY of KUNG-FU SAN SOO, Jack Sera, taught a squat -- full horse type stance from which to execute many techniques. (Even the EVIL Charlie Pope did the same thing. But then Charlie Pope learned originally from Jimmy H. Woo's first Kung-Fu San Soo business partner, the even more EVIL Frank Woolsey.)

So, on the Memorial Tape when Jimmy H. Woo is doing forms, he primarily does them from that exact same stance that Jack Sera overtly taught.

Watch the Memorial Tape again, and see for yourself.

Whole thread about Pope viewtopic.php?t=255&highlight=pope

Captain America wrote:Make what you will of this version of history, but the Woolsey boys always maintained that the art was watered down in Jimmy H. Woo's school in the early 1970s.

So did Frank Woolsey, himself. When Charlie Pope visited TMI, he talked about the last time Frank Woolsey went to get a private lesson from Jimmy H. Woo. Frank Woolsey came back to the studio, and ripped down the pictures of Jimmy H. Woo, and cursed, as he was so upset that he had been taught what he considered a watered down lesson. And the check he had written to Jimmy H. Woo, he canceled it, and it bounced when Jimmy H. Woo tried to cash it. That was one of the final nails in the coffin of their previous relationship.

"Jim and Frankie" (their names for each other) had a chance meeting many years later (circa 1986); long after Frank Woolsey was out of Kung-Fu San Soo, and basically mended the past feud, but only a few folks had knowledge of that event. And it meant nothing to San Soo, anyway. The two men had a several year history together (close history together) and it was basically a smoothing over of past hurts. Jimmy H. Woo was like a second father to some of his students, and Jimmy "loved" them even when they were jerks. And Frank Woolsey could be a jerk. But Frank Woolsey always respected Jimmy H. Woo also; even when he was upset at Jimmy. Again, the father-son thing.

Robert Resann wrote:From: Robert @TMI (rresann) 3/28/2001 1:03 am
To: ALL (1 of 6)

Kung-Fu San Soo people call Charlie Pope a "street brawler," a "street thug."

These terms are used derisively to separate him from the "true martial artists" that most of you all, are thankful that populate the class of San Soo instructors.

Sean Scott and I -- and for that matter a bunch of you readers -- have noticed the following irony, even if you do not particularly want to admit it.

Don't you folks see the delicious irony here? Just what do you think Jimmy H. Woo's reputation was among the NON - San Soo community back during the Sixties and Seventies.

If you don't know, or cannot guess, the terms "street brawler" and "street thug" were used regularly by people who knew him, but did not know he was a Kung-Fu San Soo instructor; and by virtually ALL of the Martial Arts community who DID know he was a teacher. That was the rap on Kung-Fu San Soo -- "Just street brawling."

The Kung-Fu San Soo community was looked down upon as the low rent, peasant class of the martial arts community. At the same time, no one wanted to mess with Jimmy H. Woo or San Soo people in general, because what we did was "unfair dirty street fighting," but we were "peasants" to them just the same. They, on the other hand, were "artists."

My, how times have changed. Now Kung-Fu San Soo people say, "Me too, I'm an artist. Look at me, I'm an artist. I think people like Charlie Pope are behind the times. He is a street brawler, and I'm an artist."

Blah, blah, blah...

As Sean Scott asked in his post "Keeping it real," just why the heck did you take Kung-Fu San Soo in the first place? You took it for what attracted you about it:

Namely, it is right to the point, end it now, take no prisoners, and we don't cut to the chase, we cut to the crash approach to mortal combat.

Not to become an "artist!"

Now, in the Kung-Fu San Soo community, OF ALL PLACES, an accomplished Real Kung Fu practitioner, who has lost more fights than the vast majority of us have even been in, someone who trains 6 days per week, someone who has studied Kung-Fu San Soo for over 30 years, someone who fights like a street brawling young Jimmy H. Woo, is put down with terms of derision that once were proud proclamations on the Kung-Fu San Soo banner. Go figure

An extensive thread on Iconoclast vs. Sycophant here:

And the classic hilarious and original reference to the ?hula hoop? here:
User avatar
Captain America
Site Admin
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: near Bismarck, North Dakota

Return to Miscellaneous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest