# Tan Sau?



## KPM (Dec 16, 2015)

Just another informal survey here.  Does anyone know which lineages other than Wong Shun Leung lineage teach the idea that Tan Sau is only a  shape for training the elbow and has no practical application on its own?  I have only seen that from WSL lineage people and would like to know who else teaches this.  Thanks!


----------



## Danny T (Dec 16, 2015)

I don't know of any but then I don't spend much time or effort in judging how or why others do what they do. For me it is interesting to look at things from different perspectives but not to judge right or wrong. I feel it is more important to understand 'why' it is done and then practice it. If after understanding why, playing with it, and pressure testing it I feel it is something that is applicable for me then I use it. If I feel it isn't applicable for me I put it aside and keep moving. 
Others do what they do for their reasons. What is most important is can the individual use it in a reasonable way that advances their skills in a multitude of situations. In the end there is no right or wrong, there is just the consequences.
It is interesting in how many different perspectives there are of the body, how it moves, and why it is used in so many different manners.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 16, 2015)

KPM said:


> Just another informal survey here.  Does anyone know which lineages other than Wong Shun Leung lineage teach the idea that Tan Sau is only a  shape for training the elbow and has no practical application on its own?  I have only seen that from WSL lineage people and would like to know who else teaches this.  Thanks!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A survey is a rather sloppy way to ascertain some forms of "truth". ...specially where a skill is involved.
I don't know the CONTEXT in which WSL supposedly said that.


----------



## geezer (Dec 16, 2015)

To follow up on Joy's remarks, I'd also like to know the context of that assertion. And do all WSL people hold to that? Philip Bayer? David Peterson? Others? ....It seems like I've seen pictures of WSL demonstrating tan-da applications.

Here's one useful application for tan-sau (along with a front kick):


----------



## Danny T (Dec 16, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know the CONTEXT in which WSL supposedly said that.


^^^^ this!!
How often have you (anyone) done a drill or practiced a move to a particular position or even combinations of moves knowing that the manner you are doing them at that moment is not how you would apply them? There are many drills used within SNT phase of training and practice that has absolutely nothing to do with actually applying the moves/positions. They are very important for the student to understand how structures can hold pressure, how the elbow is used and is supported by the hip structure but is not how it will be applied against a real attack. If a student is unaware and I believe that happen often, the student will not have a real understanding of the drill and what it is for. There are many drills we use that I must constantly remind students that it is a drill to develop a particular response. Take the basic pak sau drill used in several wc schools for example; first is the pak utilized in these non moving the base drills in relation to the body the same as pak shown in and practiced in SNT form? No it isn't. The drill isn't how one is going to fight but it teaches & uses many very important principles that are used in application. The context of which the drill is use opposed to how one applies the drill action may well be different in reality.




geezer said:


> To follow up on Joy's remarks, I'd also like to know the context of that assertion. And do all WSL people hold to that? Philip Bayer? David Peterson? Others? ....It seems like I've seen pictures of WSL demonstrating tan-da applications.
> 
> Here's one useful application for tan-sau (along with a front kick):


Funny.
LOL..., Wouldn't this be more of a Tok Sao application than a Tan being the pressure is on the palm of the hand and not on the thumb side of the forearm.


----------



## KPM (Dec 16, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A survey is a rather sloppy way to ascertain some forms of "truth". ...specially where a skill is involved.
> I don't know the CONTEXT in which WSL supposedly said that.


 
It's a simple survey.  Nothing "sloppy" about it.  Simply this....has anyone heard of other lineages other than WSL lineage say this?  I'm not asking if its valid.  I'm not asking if WSL truly said this.  I'm just wondering if others think this way or not.  So far the results of the survey seems to be 3 votes for "no, never heard this from any lineages other than WSL."


----------



## KPM (Dec 17, 2015)

guy b.?  wckf92?   Any input??


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 17, 2015)

KPM said:


> Does anyone know which lineages other than Wong Shun Leung lineage teach the idea that Tan Sau is only a  shape for training the elbow and has no practical application on its own?



Sorry, been busy with travel, and typing this from my phone. 

If I recall, this topic was quite a spirited debate over on a different forum! 

IMHO, yes one could say that the Tan elbow is central to the training. In that regard, I'd bet most lineages would / could say what WSL said (apparently). 
But, I'm at a loss as to why the shape has no practical application. If I had to venture a guess, it's probably because of / related to the other thread about the hands being based off pole etc.
I.E one arm fighting. Using the same hand to cancel and hit. 

Yet another possibility is that different types of punches or strikes have different elbow energies associated with them. So, a punch driven by a tan elbow is different than a punch driven by a jum, etc. 

Dunno, just my thoughts...


----------



## KPM (Dec 17, 2015)

^^^^^^So, just to be clear, you are saying you don't know of other lineages other than WSL that teach this?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> guy b.?  wckf92?   Any input??



I don't think that determining numbers of people believing has any bearing on truth.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 18, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> But, I'm at a loss as to why the shape has no practical application.



Because there are shapes which are much more effective to put on the end of a tan elbow than an upwards facing palm. You could use an upwards facing palm, but it wouldn't be very clever in 99% or possible situations. The tan hand shape is a training shape which helps to make it clear what to do with the elbow. The entire first form is about what to do with the elbow!


----------



## KPM (Dec 18, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I don't think that determining numbers of people believing has any bearing on truth.


 
It has some bearing on the truth of whether lineages other than WSL teach this.  Many of the people here have been around for awhile and know quite a bit.  If they've never heard of this from lineages other than WSL.......


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 18, 2015)

I don't know broad, cross-lineage truth either, but I'll share personally that tan sao was a hand that I learned and drilled, but thought to myself that I would never chose to use over other alternatives in the system...for years. Then one day I experienced it differently and it started me down a new path with it and I certainly feel like there is a place for it now in my bag of application tricks. 

It wasn't obvious or easy to come by for me, but I wouldn't want to be without it now.

Just my personal experience, for what it's worth.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 18, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Because there are shapes which are much more effective to put on the end of a tan elbow than an upwards facing palm. You could use an upwards facing palm, but it wouldn't be very clever in 99% or possible situations. The tan hand shape is a training shape which helps to make it clear what to do with the elbow. The entire first form is about what to do with the elbow!


I can agree with your opinion to a point. SNT is lot more than just what to do with the elbow. The complete movement into the tan structure is also a very important aspect especially when it come to defending vs edged weapons.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 18, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Because there are shapes which are much more effective to put on the end of a tan elbow than an upwards facing palm. You could use an upwards facing palm, but it wouldn't be very clever in 99% or possible situations. The tan hand shape is a training shape which helps to make it clear what to do with the elbow. The entire first form is about what to do with the elbow!



I concur


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 18, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Because there are shapes which are much more effective to put on the end of a tan elbow than an upwards facing palm.



Shapes more effective for striking? No doubt.
I think of the tan as the shape used for connecting to the opponent's bridge, if necessary (if not necessay you would just be driving a punch down the center line).
I have found that small changes in the position of the hand will effect the nature of the tension within the forearm. Making a fist, even lightly, will bunch up the forearm flexors to a degree. Drawing the thumb back and mentally projecting the fingertips forward is how I train my tan so that, from the elbow forward, my arm is alive and flexible. When the blows start flying fast and hard, this aliveness is the only way I can prevent myself from getting caught in that split second of fighting force with force. Instead the tan can divert the force to the outside, roll into bong if the force crosses my center or just blast up the middle if the opponent's center is open. At that point of disconnection is when the hand shape will change into a fist or open into some kind of appropriate palm strike.


----------



## KPM (Dec 18, 2015)

^^^^^ Yes that.  And then at a certain point you don't consciously think about drawing back the thumb or projecting the fingers forward at all, its just part of the "muscle memory".   And you don't have to put a lot of tension into that. If you believe that the Tan is all about training the elbow, and that the blocking surface when used defensively is the outer forearm, then the shape of the hand isn't as important when using it as a parry or deflection.  But think about it.  If you are deflecting outward with the forearm you will just naturally supinate and end up in a palm up position. You don't need any tension in the hand to point or "aim" the fingertips at all. It will just naturally end up "palm up."  So I ask Guy...what is a more natural shape to put on the end of the "tan elbow" when you are using it defensively than this?  What is more effective when used defensively than this?


----------



## paitingman (Dec 18, 2015)

Can anyone elaborate on what WSL lineages teaches about tan sau? I've never heard about that before and would like to hear more on their perspective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> you don't consciously think about drawing back the thumb or projecting the fingers forward at all, ... the shape of the hand isn't as important.


When you draw back the thumb, your "tiger mouth - space between thumb and 1st finger" is closed and your intention/ability to grab on your opponent's punching arm is gone. IMO, it's better to have that possibility open in case you may need it. A block can always followed by a grab and pull.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> .. at a certain point you don't consciously think about drawing back the thumb or projecting the fingers forward at all, its just part of the "muscle memory".



Of course...as with all good kung fu 



> You don't need any tension in the hand to point or "aim" the fingertips at all. It will just naturally end up "palm up."


Perhaps not, but the constant "engagement" of the hand helps program your forward intention to always be there, ready for the next change. I find that when my tan sao gets collapsed, stiffened or disconnected by a sudden change in force, it is often because I got lazy and let my hand go limp.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 18, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you draw back the thumb, your "tiger mouth - space between thumb and 1st finger" is closed and your intention/ability to grab on your opponent's punching arm is gone. IMO, it's better to have that possibility open in case you may need it. A block can always followed by a grab and pull.



Sorry, I find my ability to turn my tan into lap sau is not impeded by my thumb engagement any more then my ability to turn my tan into a strike.
Then again my lap uses more the grip between the middle fingers and the palm, than the index finger and the thumb.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 18, 2015)

Cephalopod said:


> Sorry, I find my ability to turn my tan into lap sau is not impeded by my thumb engagement any more then my ability to turn my tan into a strike.


Yeap.


Cephalopod said:


> Then again my lap uses more the grip between the middle fingers and the palm, than the index finger and the thumb.


When lopping we use little, 3rd, & then middle. The index and thumb are simply there.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I can agree with your opinion to a point. SNT is lot more than just what to do with the elbow. The complete movement into the tan structure is also a very important aspect especially when it come to defending vs edged weapons.



I agree that snt has more to it than just elbow, but I think elbow is the main lesson of that form


----------



## guy b. (Dec 19, 2015)

KPM said:


> So I ask Guy...what is a more natural shape to put on the end of the "tan elbow" when you are using it defensively than this?  What is more effective when used defensively than this?



Wing Chun doesn't use tan in a solely defensive way.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 19, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Wing Chun doesn't use tan in a solely defensive way.



Oh yeah!


----------



## KPM (Dec 19, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Wing Chun doesn't use tan in a solely defensive way.



And it doesn't use Tan in a solely offensive way either.  You didn't answer my question.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 19, 2015)

KPM said:


> And it doesn't use Tan in a solely offensive way either.  You didn't answer my question.



I did; you asked about tan used in a defensive way with the tan hand shape, I.e. As a block. It isn't used this way in wing Chun. 

If you are using it defensively and another way at the same time then tan shape hand would be completely inappropriate.


----------



## geezer (Dec 19, 2015)

_


guy b. said:



			I did; you asked about tan used in a defensive way with the tan hand shape, I.e. As a block. It isn't used this way in wing Chun. If you are using it defensively and another way at the same time then tan shape hand would be completely inappropriate.
		
Click to expand...

_
I've been sitting back and just reading along, but now I'm getting a little confused. Maybe because I don't always distinguish between defense and offense. Let me use a very common WC combination as an example:

When you perform outside gate _tan-da,_ against a straight punch, the tan not only deflects, it wedges forward and turns the opponent aside, creating an opening for the punch. Is that pure defense, or offense too?

Then, if you continue pressing forward, retracting and converting the punch in the _tan-da_ to an outdoor _pak-sau_ on the upper arm, the _pak_ will free the way for your _tan-sau _to slide up your opponent's arm and become a _chang-sau_ to the throat  ...effectively using the_ tan-sau_ position to strike _offensively_.

What am I missing here?


----------



## KPM (Dec 19, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I did; you asked about tan used in a defensive way with the tan hand shape, I.e. As a block. It isn't used this way in wing Chun.
> 
> If you are using it defensively and another way at the same time then tan shape hand would be completely inappropriate.



I said this on the other thread, and I'll say it again.  Did it ever occur to you that Wong Shun Leung developed his own unique understanding of Wing Chun, and that you are trying to inappropriately generalized it to ALL Wing Chun?  Because most Wing Chun systems do use Tan Sau defensively.  For you to presume to speak for all of Wing Chun and pronounce that the using the "Tan shape" defensively is inappropriate...is...well....to be nice....a load of crap.


----------



## KPM (Dec 19, 2015)

geezer said:


> I've been sitting back and just reading along, but now I'm getting a little confused. Maybe because I don't always distinguish between defense and offense. Let me use a very common WC combination as an example:
> 
> When you perform outside gate _tan-da,_ against a straight punch, the tan not only deflects, it wedges forward and turns the opponent aside, creating an opening for the punch. Is that pure defense, or offense too?
> 
> ...



Steve, my friend....you are missing nothing.  You are not the one that is confused.   Guy has talked non-sense repeatedly on more than one thread.


----------



## KPM (Dec 19, 2015)

And just to be clear, I asked:   "what is a more natural shape to put on the end of the "tan elbow" when you are using it defensively than this? What is more effective when used defensively than this?"....because Guy had said that there were better things to put on the end of the arm than the Tan shape.   But then saying:    "Wing Chun doesn't use tan in a solely defensive way"....does not answer my question.   And saying "soley defensive" means that it IS used defensively as well as offensively.  So to then turn around and say  "you asked about tan used in a defensive way with the tan hand shape, I.e. As a block. It isn't used this way in wing Chun"......is a contradiction.  So again...talking non-sense.  

I believe I am through trying to discuss anything with Guy, because he seems unable to support the statements he makes.  I also get the impression that he has likely misunderstood some things from WSL's teaching.  But I'm not WSL lineage so I can't be sure.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 19, 2015)

KPM said:


> For you to presume to speak for all of Wing Chun ......is inappropriate...is...well....to be nice....a load of crap.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 19, 2015)

KPM said:


> I also get the impression that he has likely misunderstood some things from WSL's teaching.  But I'm not WSL lineage so I can't be sure.


Misunderstanding happens a lot. Instructors use drills and mini drills to guide students to understand certain ideas or to develop one particular thing. Students often take those drills and attempt to use them just as in the drill in a fight situation. At least it happened with me and has happened with my students.
There have been many drills I've done that I'd be thinking, "this is crazy, I'd never try to use this in fight". Wasn't until later when doing something completely different I realized why Sifu has us doing the mini drill. Then there were the times I completely bought into a drill thinking I understood what it was about and later when working a different part of the system learned I totally misunderstood what he was conveying. I guess I'm a bit of a slow learner.
Anyway I figure if it happens with me and I've seen it happen with several others it probable happens with other lineages as well.


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

wckf92 said:


>



Ah!  wckf92!  How about you answer my question from the OP?  After all, you were the one that said originally that the idea was in more lineages than just WSL.  So let's hear it.  Which lineages other than WSL lineages teach the idea that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and has no practical application?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ah!  wckf92!  How about you answer my question from the OP?  After all, you were the one that said originally that the idea was in more lineages than just WSL.  So let's hear it.  Which lineages other than WSL lineages teach the idea that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and has no practical application?



Oh gawd...here we go again... KPM, look dude I don't have time to sift through all your posts but the rolling eyes was because you should look in the mirror. You sound like you are the wc police most of the time...throwing out all-encompassing umbrella statements. And here you are calling guy's statements a bunch of crap for sounding like he is presuming to speak for all WC. Sometimes you come across like HS and his rantings. The other thing, which I believe has been pointed out to you before, is that you are the type of person who seems to always need to have the last word. Speaking of words, you (again) twist what I said above.
You posted: "After all, you were the one that said originally that the idea was in more lineages than just WSL."
No, I didn't. I posted: "Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety. "
I said that, because of you do this: ( "For you to presume to speak for all of Wing Chun and pronounce that the using the "Tan shape" defensively is inappropriate...is...well....to be nice....a load of crap." ) a lot. 

Drink water...and enjoy your day


----------



## Danny T (Dec 20, 2015)

In the reality of physical fighting; is there right or wrong or is there but the consequence actions at that one moment.
There will always be the preferred and then there will be what actually happens in whatever manner it happens. We discuss the what happens but argue over the preferred.
Many witnessed a contest between two world class fighters just a week ago where one got knocked out by the other. Many were shocked at how easily and quickly it happen with great accolades to the winners skills. Yet when studying the fight you will see both fighters making beginner type of mistakes; they have their guards down and away from their heads, bodies are squared up and both get hit hard with the strikes coming less than a half second apart from each other. The first to get hit is knocked out the second received a cut on the corner of the right eye. One is a great winner the other lost.

My point is in a fight reality happens and what is theorized vs what really happens is different. Train, discuss, experiment, pressure test, find out your reality not the theories. Arguing over what someone else thinks or what someone's instructor stated or didn't means nothing. What is your reality? What is the consequence of your actions, your moves, your attacks and defenses at that one moment? Were they good and effective? Can they be better, if so how? You have to know it for yourself and not because some else said or did so.


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Oh gawd...here we go again... KPM, look dude I don't have time to sift through all your posts but the rolling eyes was because you should look in the mirror. You sound like you are the wc police most of the time...throwing out all-encompassing umbrella statements. And here you are calling guy's statements a bunch of crap for sounding like he is presuming to speak for all WC. Sometimes you come across like HS and his rantings. The other thing, which I believe has been pointed out to you before, is that you are the type of person who seems to always need to have the last word. Speaking of words, you (again) twist what I said above.
> You posted: "After all, you were the one that said originally that the idea was in more lineages than just WSL."
> No, I didn't. I posted: "Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety. "
> I said that, because of you do this: ( "For you to presume to speak for all of Wing Chun and pronounce that the using the "Tan shape" defensively is inappropriate...is...well....to be nice....a load of crap." ) a lot.
> ...



So I guess your answer is...."sorry, I don't know of any lineages beside WSL lineage either!"   Thanks!   Look, I'm not the "Wing Chun police", but I will call BS when I see it.  And I typically will say things are from my experience or my observation.  I will not say "Wing Chun does not use Tan Sau as a defense".....when the more  appropriate statement is...."Wong Shun Leung Wing Chun does not use Tan Sau as a defense." 

You did say:     "Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety. "
Which in the context of that particular discussion implied that you knew of other lineages that taught that idea.  I guess you were just "talking out of your ***."   ;-)

Also keep in mind that most of this arose when I commented that I thought Guy's ideas on Wing Chun were a bit "odd."  He said they weren't and then set out to say why they weren't.  But I'm still left with the conclusion that his ideas on Wing Chun ARE a bit odd.  Because so far no one has backed him up on the idea that others teach that Wing Chun empty-hand is based upon the Pole methods, or that any other lineages teach the idea that the Tan shape is only for training the elbow and not for practical application.  The idea that each empty-handed arm being the equivalent of a Pole is also a bit odd.   I'm willing to leave it at that.


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

Danny T said:


> My point is in a fight reality happens and what is theorized vs what really happens is different. Train, discuss, experiment, pressure test, find out your reality not the theories. Arguing over what someone else thinks or what someone's instructor stated or didn't means nothing. What is your reality? What is the consequence of your actions, your moves, your attacks and defenses at that one moment? Were they good and effective? Can they be better, if so how? You have to know it for yourself and not because some else said or did so.



Good points!  And I agree with you 100%!  But this is a discussion forum.  When someone is making statements that just don't add up I'm going to ask for clarification.  If what they are saying doesn't match my experience, I'm going to ask others if it matches theirs.  If no one else can back things up, then I'm going to call someone on BS.  Simple as that.   Call me the "Wing Chun Police" if you want to.   But I believe in getting to the truth.  Or at least as close as we can get based upon the available evidence.

Now here is the difference.   Someone might very well say...."our lineage approaches the empty-hand methods as if they were derived from the Pole methods and that gives us a different insight."  That's perfectly legit.  Someone might well say..."our lineage teaches that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow.  We don't see the need to use it defensively in the way we do things."   Also perfectly legit!!!   Because this opens things up for a discussion.  The other approach implies that everyone else is wrong who doesn't believe the same things.


----------



## Jake104 (Dec 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> guy b.?  wckf92?   Any input??





KPM said:


> And it doesn't use Tan in a solely offensive way either.  You didn't answer my question.





KPM said:


> Steve, my friend....you are missing nothing.  You are not the one that is confused.   Guy has talked non-sense repeatedly on more than one thread.





wckf92 said:


>





KPM said:


> Ah!  wckf92!  How about you answer my question from the OP?  After all, you were the one that said originally that the idea was in more lineages than just WSL.  So let's hear it.  Which lineages other than WSL lineages teach the idea that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and has no practical application?



My observation of this thread is, I think KPM wanted to lure Guy.b and wckf92 into a no win debate cause he dislikes them and despises there Kung Fu? At first I found it odd that he asked for there input and called them out by name. But then I could see he was really just setting a trap. I'm very observant it's part of my training. Plus I play the board game clue often. I find it helps with my awareness training.


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

Setting a trap?  No.  If they had the answer it was no trap.  I had asked these very questions within other threads and the avoided answering.  So I made the question very explicit and opened it up to others to chime in if they had the answer.  If I was wrong, I truly wanted to know and was seeking input.  A "no win debate"?  No.  I was just looking for an true answer. Both questions were pretty simple.....was anyone else taught that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole?...and do any other lineages teach the idea that the Tan is for training the elbow only?  No debate.  Just answers.  But it has become obvious that they had no answers.  So a trap?  No.  Calling them out.  Yeah.  ;-)


----------



## Jake104 (Dec 20, 2015)

There's no 'true answer' only opinion based answers to your opinion based question. So hence the 'no win debate'


----------



## Jake104 (Dec 20, 2015)

Yes trap, cause you disguise the trap as " just another informal survey"


----------



## Danny T (Dec 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> ...this is a discussion forum.


Key word is 'discussion'. Discussing is not arguing; in a discussion each side states their opinion or perspectives and there is conversation as to each others views, the positives, the negatives, etc. and that helps facilitate discussion and understanding of each sides. Arguing is a conversation to prove or to convince others your point or your view is correct.

And you are correct in that Martial Talk is a 'discussion' forum.


----------



## Jake104 (Dec 20, 2015)

Next time just call them out? No need for trickery.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> There's no 'true answer' only opinion based answers to your opinion based question. So hence the 'no win debate'


To be fair, the original questions were concerning matters of fact rather than opinion. The questions were "_was anyone else taught that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole?...and do any other lineages teach the idea that the Tan is for training the elbow only?"_ *not* _"do you think it is correct that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole and that the Tan is for training the elbow only?"
_
The second of these would be a call for opinions. The first would be a call for factual answers like "Yes. My instructor, Bruce Leroy of the xyz lineage always said that Wing Chun unarmed methods were derived from the Pole." or "No. I've trained under the abc lineage for 15 years and never heard either of those claims."


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Yes trap, cause you disguise the trap as " just another informal survey"



An informal survey that they were certainly invited to respond to.  That is not a trap.  Again.  They did not respond on other threads.  So I start a thread with the same question open to anyone with information to respond to.  How is that trap?


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Next time just call them out? No need for trickery.


 
 How was I tricking anyone Jake???  They were welcome to respond alongside anyone else with information.  Not responding suggested they didn't have the information.  That might be "calling someone out."  But that is no trap and no trickery.


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Key word is 'discussion'. Discussing is not arguing; in a discussion each side states their opinion or perspectives and there is conversation as to each others views, the positives, the negatives, etc. and that helps facilitate discussion and understanding of each sides. Arguing is a conversation to prove or to convince others your point or your view is correct.
> 
> And you are correct in that Martial Talk is a 'discussion' forum.



Yes, this is true Danny.  If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of not being very patient with people who dodge direct questions and don't back up points they have been stating as if they are gospel truth.  I am guilty of being a bit stubborn and hard-headed  sometimes.  I am guilty of being passionate about Wing Chun.  I am guilty of wanting to see things stated accurately and truthfully.  I am guilty of being a bit judgemental and intolerant of playing "fast and loose" with topics.  Probably worse of all, I am  guilty of not recognizing when it is better to just let something go rather than pushing it.  ;-) 

I'm also guilty of not liking it when people go trying to change and twist what little we actually know about the history of the art we all love.    So shoot me!


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> To be fair, the original questions were concerning matters of fact rather than opinion. The questions were "_was anyone else taught that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole?...and do any other lineages teach the idea that the Tan is for training the elbow only?"_ *not* _"do you think it is correct that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole and that the Tan is for training the elbow only?"
> _
> The second of these would be a call for opinions. The first would be a call for factual answers like "Yes. My instructor, Bruce Leroy of the xyz lineage always said that Wing Chun unarmed methods were derived from the Pole." or "No. I've trained under the abc lineage for 15 years and never heard either of those claims."


 
Exactly!  Like I already stated, I was simply trying to find out if I was missing something.  No traps and no trickery.  Thanks Tony!


----------



## Jake104 (Dec 20, 2015)

I'm just busting your chops a little and calling it how I see it. I might be wrong? But you did agree partially to my points? You did want to call out GuyB and Wck92 for some reason? You did lure them in under the guise of a "informal survey". You admitted they were your targets? Hey just own it. I'll be the first to admit I can't stand poeple on here either. So you're not a bad guy Keith.


----------



## Jake104 (Dec 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> Exactly!  Like I already stated, I was simply trying to find out if I was missing something.  No traps and no trickery.  Thanks Tony!


No Tony just pointed out my opinion statement may have been wrong? Ok I own it! But you did admit that they were your targets because you couldn't get them to respond on other threads? If it walks like a duck and.......


----------



## Danny T (Dec 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> I am guilty of being passionate about Wing Chun.  I am guilty of wanting to see things stated accurately and truthfully...


All good.
I like WC as well. I really like it. I do a lot of other arts but for me WC is #1. 
What others think about it or what they do or how they do it... is interesting..., but I don't really care other than if it can make my WC better. If it makes me better I want it, if not so what. If they enjoy what they are doing great. If they can make it work for them, great. They do what they do. 
The system is the system and system is excellent. Everyone will have different perspectives and that is the reality. 
There is no right or wrong only the consequences.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 21, 2015)

Danny T said:


> There is no right or wrong only the consequences.



This is the mentality I want all WC students and masters to share.

After all, only the things you know from use are true for you. Meaning they may not be the truth to others. Just a bit allergic when someone else states what must be true for me. Therefore my opinion is always that I see no facts supporting a statement and as such the statement is flawed. There are no facts in history, only stories.


----------



## KPM (Dec 21, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> No Tony just pointed out my opinion statement may have been wrong? Ok I own it! But you did admit that they were your targets because you couldn't get them to respond on other threads? If it walks like a duck and.......


 
Targets?  That makes it sound like I had some kind of nefarious plot.  Its simple.  I put the question out there for anyone to answer, because I was interested in the feedback.  They were welcome to answer as well and I was hoping that making it that explicit would encourage them to answer.  If they chose not to answer, that would indicate that they really didn't have the information as they implied on the other threads.  I don't see that as a trap or trickery.  But you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## KPM (Dec 21, 2015)

Phobius said:


> This is the mentality I want all WC students and masters to share.
> 
> After all, only the things you know from use are true for you. Meaning they may not be the truth to others. Just a bit allergic when someone else states what must be true for me. Therefore my opinion is always that I see no facts supporting a statement and as such the statement is flawed. There are no facts in history, only stories.


 
I agree!  Hence my objection to someone saying "XX is true for Wing Chun", when the proper statement should probably be "XX is true for Wong Shun Leung Wing Chun (or Leung Ting Wing Tsun, etc.)"    I also see a problem with there are no solid facts or evidence to support a statement that is being presented as if is the final word on how things should be.  But that comes across as argumentative when you start calling people on things like this.  I should be more like Danny and just let people go on believing whatever they want without pointing these things out to them.  ;-)


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 21, 2015)

KPM said:


> Just another informal survey here.  Does anyone know which lineages other than Wong Shun Leung lineage teach the idea that Tan Sau is only a  shape for training the elbow and has no practical application on its own?  I have only seen that from WSL lineage people and would like to know who else teaches this.  Thanks!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what a "survey " will prove. The elbow is terribly important in all wing chun hand structires. I  dont know the context of WSL's suppose statement. When I did chi sao with him he sure used the bong-tan-fok cycle,
Tan sau is not a noun but an active motion spreading the palm.
The devil again is in the details.


----------



## KPM (Dec 21, 2015)

Joy, I know guys like you, Steve (geezer), Danny and others have been around a long time and seen a lot.  If one of you told me that you know of other lineages that teach that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and has no practical application, I would believe you!  I would then know I had missed something and I was wrong in my comments to Guy and wckf92.   That was the only purpose of the "survey"....to see what the senior guys here knew.  Just between the 3 of you I have named, you represent what....over 100 years of combined Wing Chun experience in at least 3 different lineages of Ip Man WCK??  ;-)  That is not to be taken lightly!


----------



## KPM (Dec 21, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Speaking of words, you (again) twist what I said above.
> You posted: "After all, you were the one that said originally that the idea was in more lineages than just WSL."
> No, I didn't. I posted: "Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety.




I thought this didn't sound right, so I went back and checked.   Actually, in the post before the one you are referring to, there was this exchange:

I said:
"And that whole idea is *unique to WSL lineage*." 

And you replied:
"No, it is not..."

This certainly does imply that you know of lineages other than WSL that teach this.  So no, I didn't twist anything.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 21, 2015)

KPM said:


> Setting a trap?  No.  If they had the answer it was no trap.  I had asked these very questions within other threads and the avoided answering.  So I made the question very explicit and opened it up to others to chime in if they had the answer.  If I was wrong, I truly wanted to know and was seeking input.  A "no win debate"?  No.  I was just looking for an true answer. Both questions were pretty simple.....was anyone else taught that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole?...and do any other lineages teach the idea that the Tan is for training the elbow only?  No debate.  Just answers.  But it has become obvious that they had no answers.  So a trap?  No.  Calling them out.  Yeah.  ;-)



I'm afraid I have been away while you were having your great call out and self declared victory. What's going on now?


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I'm afraid I have been away while you were having your great call out and self declared victory. What's going on now?


 
You didn't miss much.  We are at the same point as before.  Like I said then, you have some interesting ideas on Wing Chun, but they are a bit "odd."  But a hearing a different perspective on something is a good thing!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> You didn't miss much.  We are at the same point as before.  Like I said then, you have some interesting ideas on Wing Chun, but they are a bit "odd."  But a hearing a different perspective on something is a good thing!



From my perspective some other interpretations of wing chun do or believe things that I do not agree with. I think this is normal in wing chun due to the diversity of opinion. I don't think that WSL VT is a different interpretation; I think it is more like a complete and coherent understanding of the system vs less complete or more incoherent understandings. If WSL did this himself then perhaps he went above and beyond what YM taught; who knows and is it really relevant? What WSL thinking does though is to make things work that do not otherwise work, im my experience. But then I have not experienced all wing chun and so cannot speak about the individual experience of others. I am sure that there is other workable wing chun in the world and it is quite possible that everyone here has a workable system that I have not experienced.


----------

