# Wong Shun Leung & Tan Sau



## KPM

Guy and LFJ have been saying across several threads recently that Wong Shun Leung taught that the Tan Sau motion was only for training the elbow for the punch and is not to be used as a defensive technique.  Now I'm starting to wonder if WSL really taught that!  They say "a picture is worth 1000 words."   A quick google image search turned up these:

http://practical-wingchun.com.au/media/422085_447610705332391_2014558204_n1-256x300.jpg

http://ewingchun.com/sites/default/...le-images/attilio-reale-wong-shun-leung-4.jpg

https://cranesproduction.net/images/WSL web.jpg


----------



## Danny T

And...?
They have stated their opinion... you have stated yours. 
Why can you not allow them to have their opinion? Why must you prove out or disprove their opinion?
Does their opinion change anything about how you view the tan sao? Do you think you are going to change their opinion?
I'm betting no. 
Keep training your wing chun and they will continue to train theirs.


----------



## KPM

Very true Danny.  But since they keep so adamantly repeating the same thing, I feel like someone ought to speak up and call them on it.  It bothers me that they can so easily belittle other Wing Chun lineages.  Doesn't it you?  But you are right.  I think I've said all I can say.  I'm sure others here that have cared to follow along have formed their own opinions about what LFJ and Guy have been saying.  I'm ready to let it drop.  But I'm sure there will be some fall out from this post.  It will be interesting to see what they will say to deny those photos of WSL and what they imply.  I think the photos speak for themselves.  I'm done arguing with them.


----------



## guy b.

I'm not belittling anyone's lineage and I have mentioned no names. If you take offence at my having an opinion then I would say you are over sensitive.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> I'm done arguing with them.



Ha, I doubt that. 

And as for those pictures. They can't be what WSL really taught. Doubtless they were just posed for the public, or beginners, or those outside the inner circle who weren't privy to WSL's _abstract_ thinking. ....Or would that imply that WSL taught different things to different people? No, I think that was Yip Man who....  Oh heck. It's all too confusing.   I'm done with this. 

Let's talk about something else!


----------



## paitingman

I was initially curious about all of this as well. Someone here kindly gave me some WSL background on the tan elbow training and concept. I was still a bit confused especially since I had seen some of these photos and other videos of WSL doing tan da and things like that.
Still that led me to the whole public vs private teaching explanation and I realized this was too deep of a rabbit hole for me, with this topic, on this forum.
I'll just have to keep doing what I do or actually pursue WSL method with someone to try to fully understand all this abstract-elbow-secret teaching-fake teachings stuff


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> They say "a picture is worth 1000 words."



Not worth 1000 hours of proper training!

If you prefer to learn from photos, that's up to you.



> http://practical-wingchun.com.au/media/422085_447610705332391_2014558204_n1-256x300.jpg



WSL laughed at the idea that _biu-sau_ should be a finger jab too. This picture was for a magazine cover and looks like he's taking the piss out of mainstream Wing Chun, lol. His legit students would know.

You know he filmed an instructional video and intentionally filled it with many mistakes? It's common practice in TCMAs. Called "marking" for public consumption.



> http://ewingchun.com/sites/default/...le-images/attilio-reale-wong-shun-leung-4.jpg



Not even _taan-sau_.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> It bothers me that they can so easily belittle other Wing Chun lineages.



Calling it belittling means I'm just being nasty. All I've done is give my opinion with ample reason for what I believe. You find it upsetting but ignore the points I've made. I can't be blamed or held responsible for your emotions, bub. Either respond to my points or just get over it.


----------



## KPM

Just an additional note.  I checked David Peterson's book "Look Beyond the Pointing Finger."  There are several pictures through-out of David using Tan Da.  But someone could argue that Peterson just never learned the "correct" understanding of the Tan Sau because he was "just" a seminar student.  But on page 46 of the "expanded" edition are some photos of Wong Shun Leung himself using Tan Da.  A photo taken during a seminar, with many people in attendance looking on.  Not a magazine cover.  So unless one is willing to propose that Wong Shun Leung cheated seminar attendees by willfully teaching them the wrong thing..........


----------



## LFJ

You still insist on learning from photos after you've shown with this thread that you don't even know what you're looking at... Why not go to a good WSLVT school and find out about it yourself?

Yes, WSL taught more common, mainstream ideas in some public seminars because there were attendees from all kinds of lineage backgrounds and time was limited with them. He also didn't want to embarrass other famous sifus who invited him out by showing them all that their ideas were wrong.

Yet, at one such seminar in Europe, one of his close students said to him privately; "_Uh, this isn't what you've been teaching me._" WSL didn't want to be the one to show the way, embarrassing the other sifu, and so he came back and told the student he could show them instead.

That student went on to reveal the method and attendees were immediately struck with grief at the realization that after many years, they didn't understand VT at all. A large migration from other lineages (which continues today) then began and quality VT took root in Europe where it now thrives... And _taan_ isn't a block.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ....Yet, at one such seminar in Europe, one of his close students said to him privately; "_Uh, this isn't what you've been teaching me._" WSL didn't want to be the one to show the way, embarrassing the other sifu, and so he came back and told the student he could show them instead.
> 
> That student went on to reveal the method and attendees were immediately struck with grief at the realization that after many years, they didn't understand VT at all. A large migration from other lineages (which continues today) then began and quality VT took root in Europe where it now thrives...



As long as we're talking about _pictures, _I have a picture of the very event you describe. May the veils be lifted from our eyes!

http://vocations-syracuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/st-paul-conversion.jpg


OK, actually that's the conversion of St. Paul on the road to Damascus, but it sounds like pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Danny T

In my understanding of WC (whether others are the same or not) is that there are no blocks yet many of the structures can be used as a block, there are no specific usages only specific movements and structures. Apply based upon your spatial relationship with whatever you come in contact with. Strike the opponent; with something. How you do that may well be completely different from how I do so... And when may well be different from me. I am dedicated to striking the opponent but I am not dedicated to any specific strike. Tan is for dispersing/redirecting but the tan structure can be for trapping along the way as I strike as well as being the strike. The strike can be a finger, fist, wrist, forearm, elbow, upper arm, shoulder, head, upper torso, hip, thigh, knee, lower leg, foot. It can be a push, a pull, penetrating, light, hard, heavy, it can go forward, upward, downward, rearward, and in any possible angle within a sphere. Everyone has a different perspective. Learn the movements, learn the structures, test them. Use them. Be open to the possibility that something else can be better or not. Keep testing, keep testing, keep testing. If it works for you Great. But be aware how You apply what you know and understand may well be different from how I apply it.


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> As long as we're talking about _pictures, _I have a picture of the very event you describe. May the veils be lifted from our eyes!
> 
> http://vocations-syracuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/st-paul-conversion.jpg
> 
> 
> OK, actually that's the conversion of St. Paul on the road to Damascus, but it sounds like pretty much the same thing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup and background music by Hank Williams Sr-I saw the light.


----------



## Vajramusti

Danny T said:


> In my understanding of WC (whether others are the same or not) is that there are no blocks yet many of the structures can be used as a block, there are no specific usages only specific movements and structures. Apply based upon your spatial relationship with whatever you come in contact with. Strike the opponent; with something. How you do that may well be completely different from how I do so... And when may well be different from me. I am dedicated to striking the opponent but I am not dedicated to any specific strike. Tan is for dispersing/redirecting but the tan structure can be for trapping along the way as I strike as well as being the strike. The strike can be a finger, fist, wrist, forearm, elbow, upper arm, shoulder, head, upper torso, hip, thigh, knee, lower leg, foot. It can be a push, a pull, penetrating, light, hard, heavy, it can go forward, upward, downward, rearward, and in any possible angle within a sphere. Everyone has a different perspective. Learn the movements, learn the structures, test them. Use them. Be open to the possibility that something else can be better or not. Keep testing, keep testing, keep testing. If it works for you Great. But be aware how You apply what you know and understand may well be different from how I apply it.





-------------------
a good statement


----------



## geezer

Danny T said:


> In my understanding of WC (whether others are the same or not) is that there are no blocks yet many of the structures can be used as a block, there are no specific usages only specific movements and structures.



For beginners, and perhaps in books directed at those with no personal experience in WC, it may be useful to name arm positions like tan or bong and give specific applications only for the sake of illustration. But in my understanding of WC there really is no tan, no bong, ...just your arm springing forward to strike. If the strike is obstructed and pressed back, the arm will bend, absorb, redirect and deflect the oncoming force. In the process, it bows like a bending spring becoming tan, jum, bong, tok, sideward palm...whatever, depending on the force it receives. Then, upon releasing the force, it springs back and strikes.

For this to work, there must be constant forward intent combined with relaxed and flexible joints. The body, stance and steps function the same way as the arms, pressing forward until obstructed or confronted with greater force, then compressing, turning, releasing, and then springing forward again. All of our training, the forms, drills, chi sau, sparring, and so on, are intended to develop this springy energy and enable us to apply it spontaneously. Ultimately there is no tan sau. No bong sau. Only a simple, direct way of applying energy and movement that is Wing Chun.

Sorry if that is a bit _abstract_ for some, but it is the YM lineage WC I was exposed to.


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> ... but it is the YP lineage WC I was exposed to.


 
"YP" lineage?


----------



## geezer

wckf92 said:


> "YP" lineage?



Sure. You never heard of Yi Pman?

OK --truth is that the plumber is busting through the concrete floor slab on the other side of the wall to fix the drain as I am trying to type. Guess I'm losing my concentration. 

Dang... the vibration from the jackhammer keeps knocking junk off the bookshelves too. I just about got hit on the head with an old picture of my kids!

Anyway, I went back and edited that to "YM lineage". Actually it would be YM-LT-me. But I don't know how much it matters. 90% or more of what I understand is in agreement with a lot of other folks on this site. I don't sweat the trivia.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> But in my understanding of WC there really is no tan, no bong, ...just your arm springing forward to strike. If the strike is obstructed and pressed back, the arm will bend, absorb, redirect and deflect the oncoming force. In the process, it bows like a bending spring becoming tan, jum, bong, tok, sideward palm...whatever, depending on the force it receives. Then, upon releasing the force, it springs back and strikes.



Sounds like a theory devised by someone playing around in _chi-sau._ 

Ever had it work like that in a real fight?


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> You still insist on learning from photos after you've shown with this thread that you don't even know what you're looking at... Why not go to a good WSLVT school and find out about it yourself?
> 
> Yes, WSL taught more common, mainstream ideas in some public seminars because there were attendees from all kinds of lineage backgrounds and time was limited with them. He also didn't want to embarrass other famous sifus who invited him out by showing them all that their ideas were wrong.
> 
> Yet, at one such seminar in Europe, one of his close students said to him privately; "_Uh, this isn't what you've been teaching me._" WSL didn't want to be the one to show the way, embarrassing the other sifu, and so he came back and told the student he could show them instead.
> 
> That student went on to reveal the method and attendees were immediately struck with grief at the realization that after many years, they didn't understand VT at all. A large migration from other lineages (which continues today) then began and quality VT took root in Europe where it now thrives... And _taan_ isn't a block.



There are quite a few teachers still around who learned this seminar VT. Some in UK where I am based. It is hard work to move on from there. 

Personally I was very happy when I discovered a method that actually works. Sadness and anger are common reactions though, as is denial.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Sounds like a theory devised by someone playing around in _chi-sau._
> 
> Ever had it work like that in a real fight?



Yep. For the other guy! 


OK, I admit that I just said that to make you happy. Did it work?


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> Sadness and anger are common reactions though, as is denial.


That's how I view life in general. Everything you learn, build, or love will come to nothing. You will grow old, sick, useless and die. All is vanity. 

Denial is your friend!


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> That's how I view life in general. Everything you learn, build, or love will come to nothing. You will grow old, sick, useless and die. All is vanity.
> 
> Denial is your friend!



I disagree, you should make the best use of the time you have available. Time is short. There is not time for deceiving yourself to be worthwhile.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> I disagree, you should make the best use of the time you have available. Time is short...



That's what my grandad always said. He's dead.


....Seriously though, If that's what you believe, why are you wasting time on this forum talking to the likes of me?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Yep. For the other guy!
> 
> 
> OK, I admit that I just said that to make you happy. Did it work?



Not really, but I'm already a happy guy. Not to worry. I was just wondering if there's anyone subscribing to this theory that can honestly say their arms have bent like bows and sprung like springs all of their own like that in a real fight. Sounds like it was made up during _chi-sau_.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Not really, but I'm already a happy guy. Not to worry. I was just wondering if there's anyone subscribing to this theory that can honestly say their arms have bent like bows and sprung like springs all of their own like that in a real fight. Sounds like it was made up during _chi-sau_.



Sounds like, but would like to hear someone that has made it work. There is a solid reluctance to discus each others wing chun here


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> That's what my grandad always said. He's dead.
> 
> 
> ....Seriously though, If that's what you believe, why are you wasting time on this forum talking to the likes of me?



Entertainment is important, and I might learn something. I think this is why KPM's posting style is frustrating; there is never any intention to convey information. At least someone like Joy signals their lack of desire to convey information by not saying much.


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> Sounds like, but would like to hear someone that has made it work. There is a solid reluctance to discus each others wing chun here



I think the reluctance may come from the limited view folks get through text-based discussions...and also that we all seem to view certain aspects of WC drills in a completely different context. Not to mention strategy. 

Personally, I've learned quite a bit from reading forums like these. It has helped me let go of "kool aid drinking" and to realize that the WC versions and interpretations are a vast ocean. Take for example you and LFJ's view on WSLVT. I now think I understand it much better and, in lieu of crossing hands with someone from your lineage, can appreciate your comments; whether I agree or disagree. I'd still like to cross hands with someone from WSLVT someday but for now I'm limited to forums.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Not really, but I'm already a happy guy. Not to worry. I was just wondering if there's anyone subscribing to this theory that can honestly say their arms have bent like bows and sprung like springs all of their own like that in a real fight. Sounds like it was made up during _chi-sau_.



Not made up in chi-sau, but definitely trained in chi-sau. Actually, I think it works more often than you think, Muscles are kind of rubbery and springy by nature, and more so if you don't tense up excessively. If you maintain forward pressure, _you _probably use some of this spring-back effect even if you don't identify it as such.

BTW... I thought a little more about what you said in this post, and I believe you have a really legit question. I have asked it myself, many times. Namely, "Is this just some trick that works in the 'chi-sau game' or can we really use it under pressure?" So far, my answer is that I, personally, cannot depend on springy energy 100%. Fortunately, WC basics will often carry me through when I can't "spring" like a master. But if I can get this springy effect to manifest just 5 or 10% of the time, I feel I'm better off for it.

Now, LFJ, if you want a better answer, look up some guys coming out of the LT lineage that actually have above average ability and have spent some serious time testing their stuff. Truth be told, I'm a hobbyist and my skills are "ho-hum" by comparison. --Steve


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> Personally, I've learned quite a bit from reading forums like these. It has helped me let go of "kool aid drinking" and to realize that the WC versions and interpretations are a vast ocean. Take for example you and LFJ's view on WSLVT. I now think I understand it much better and, in lieu of crossing hands with someone from your lineage, can appreciate your comments; whether I agree or disagree. I'd still like to cross hands with someone from WSLVT someday but for now I'm limited to forums.



Really glad to have helped in some way. If you are ever in UK please let me know. Conveying information about the WSL method and learning about other methods is all I hope to do here, even though there are many who know a lot more about it than I do.


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> Really glad to have helped in some way. If you are ever in UK please let me know. Conveying information about the WSL method and learning about other methods is all I hope to do here, even though there are many who know a lot more about it than I do.



Count on it! Would be interesting to compare and contrast, q&a in person, etc. I think the nearest WSL guy to me is Kevin gledhill in NY. I wonder if any high quality WSL folks give seminars in the US? Or is it primarily UK and Europe?


----------



## Danny T

guy b. said:


> Sounds like, but would like to hear someone that has made it work. There is a solid reluctance to discus each others wing chun here


Not really; but there is a solid reluctance by most to argue about each others wing chun; save for a few. Express your opinion and accept others may well have a different opinion. Ask questions for this is a discussion forum. I don't come here to argue but to discuss and get different perspectives. I will then take them, practice and test them. I will prove to myself if they have merit for me. What I will not do is get into an argument attempting to sway you to my perspective. I will give it and it is up to you to find out if it is of benefit to you. I really don't care about 'style' or lineage but about what I use to make me a better martial artist, a better instructor. 
As to what someone else can do; that is great for them but does nothing for me. It is what I can do, it is what works for me. So whether you agree with something or not give it a try, get a partner and train it; practice it, then test it. If it doesn't work move on. Maybe you will gain a new perspective or you will now know for yourself if doesn't work for you. 
Arguing about it helps no one.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> That's how I view life in general. Everything you learn, build, or love will come to nothing. You will grow old, sick, useless and die. All is vanity.
> 
> Denial is your friend!



You really should consider being a motivational speaker. I think you have a knack for it


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Entertainment is important, and I might learn something. I think this is why KPM's posting style is frustrating; there is never any intention to convey information. At least someone like Joy signals their lack of desire to convey information by not saying much.



That is pretty funny!   Anyone else here think I never share any real information???    Seems I remember someone being pretty interested in what I was sharing about the Tang Yik pole.


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> Just an additional note.  I checked David Peterson's book "Look Beyond the Pointing Finger."  There are several pictures through-out of David using Tan Da.  But someone could argue that Peterson just never learned the "correct" understanding of the Tan Sau because he was "just" a seminar student.  But on page 46 of the "expanded" edition are some photos of Wong Shun Leung himself using Tan Da.  A photo taken during a seminar, with many people in attendance looking on.  Not a magazine cover.  So unless one is willing to propose that Wong Shun Leung cheated seminar attendees by willfully teaching them the wrong thing..........





LFJ said:


> You still insist on learning from photos after you've shown with this thread that you don't even know what you're looking at... Why not go to a good WSLVT school and find out about it yourself?


 
I'm really confused, Peterson is one of WSL's top students, was he taught wrong?  So am I to assume  he runs an sh**ty school?


----------



## KPM

^^^^Now that's the $1000 question wtxs!!!!    I'm sure it depends upon who you ask!  But I've got a pretty good idea what our resident WSLVT "experts" would tell you.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> That is pretty funny!   Anyone else here think I never share any real information???    Seems I remember someone being pretty interested in what I was sharing about the Tang Yik pole.



My experience is that you are interested in taking a strong stance about things you don't know much about, and getting angry, evasive and emotional over not much. Apart from that I don't know anything about you. You might be a great person in reality. 

Sure I would be interested to talk about Tang Yik pole if you are. I think it looks really good.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> ^^^^Now that's the $1000 question wtxs!!!!    I'm sure it depends upon who you ask!  But I've got a pretty good idea what our resident WSLVT "experts" would tell you.



Do share


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> ^^^^Now that's the $1000 question wtxs!!!!    I'm sure it depends upon who you ask!  But I've got a pretty good idea what our resident WSLVT "experts" would tell you.



Well in that case, I better go stock up on more popcorn and beer.


----------



## Vajramusti

wtxs said:


> Well in that case, I better go stock up on more popcorn and beer.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsing tao, Singha or other- no Budweiser please


----------



## wtxs

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tsing tao, Singha or other- no Budweiser please



You got some selective taste bubs bro.


----------



## Bonesetter

Gents, I've been reading the thread with interest however didn't find much information regarding WSLs tan sau approach.

I've studied the WSL method for a few years now from a couple of first generation students and am a member of the WSL students association (not that any of this matters).

I think a lot of people have over analysed WSL on his elbow theories.

My understanding from day one has always been that the tan sau disperses force outwards of your centre.

When practicing the tan sau i think about the elbow and push forward from there which helps with springing forward to hit your target should the opponents arm move.

Just like when withdrawing your Wu sau in SLT you pull your elbow back but keep the forward pressure of your Wu (I imagine my wrist pushing forward as I pull the elbow back).

The tan sau should have pressure but be relaxed at the wrist should you need to change the shape of your hand quickly.

There is no secret tan sau.. Just a lot of practice to make it work effectively.

You can use a tan da to defend against a hook to the body but it will fail miserable against a hook to the head..

It's all swings and round abouts... Time for more practice.

Cheers


----------



## LFJ

Bonesetter said:


> Gents, I've been reading the thread with interest however didn't find much information regarding WSLs tan sau approach.



Because KPM started this thread out of other ones where it was being discussed. 
"Wing Chun vs MMA" thread, "Ho Kam Ming wing chun" thread.



> I've studied the WSL method for a few years now from a couple of first generation students and am a member of the WSL students association (not that any of this matters).



Yeah, it really doesn't matter. What matters is who you learned from and their experience, because not all first gen. students have the same understanding of the system. 

Little history, WSLSA didn't start off well because many first gen. students weren't on the same page with the whole idea and who was running it. They were also going to be charged fees to join plus renewal fees every few years. Once the founders realized they lacked support from their seniors, they gave honorary lifetime memberships to the other first gens. and now it appears everyone supports them.

Sorry about this, but it sounds like your forms are all application-based. That's common among certain first gens. who have marketed themselves as "gatekeepers" to the system.


----------



## Bonesetter

I don't think the gatekeeper message is true.  I have also studied a couple of other lineages and the tan sau idea was always the same. Each to their own.


----------



## LFJ

Bonesetter said:


> I have also studied a couple of other lineages and the tan sau idea was always the same.



Yup, we discussed in detail YM's teaching style and lack of attentiveness toward students he felt not worth it (particularly non-fighters) on the "Wing Chun vs MMA" thread.

Show _taan-sau_ to any layman and say "this is called spreading hand, what do you think it's for", and they're gonna tell you the exact same application idea. Easy gap-fill answer.



> When practicing the tan sau i think about the elbow and push forward from there which helps with springing forward to hit your target should the opponents arm move.



So, in fighting you think there's gonna be prolonged arm contact, and when it releases your arm is gonna spring forward like that and turn into a punch on its own, huh? Can you honestly say that's ever happened for you outside of _chi-sau_, in free fighting? (Legit question) If you don't want to answer, at least think about it...


----------



## guy b.

Bonesetter said:


> I don't think the gatekeeper message is true.  I have also studied a couple of other lineages and the tan sau idea was always the same. Each to their own.



Who do you learn from? Please PM if you don't want to say in public


----------



## KPM

Bonesetter said:


> I don't think the gatekeeper message is true.  I have also studied a couple of other lineages and the tan sau idea was always the same. Each to their own.


 
Thanks for speaking up Bonesetter.  Glad to hear someone from the WSL line actually making sense.   Guy and LFJ have pushed the theme that WSL did not teach Tan Sau as a defensive movement, but only as a way to train the elbow for the punch.  They also conclude that since other students of Ip Man actually do use the Tan Sau defensively, that these other Ip Man students did not understand what Ip Man was really teaching and did not learn properly.  I believe that is the gist of anything you may have missed on the other threads.


----------



## guy b.

Yes thanks bonesetter. You spoke up and set the record straight about WSL VT at just the right time. Sometimes fiction is stranger than reality, or is that the other way around? I wish you the best of luck in providing more startling insight from inside WSL VT that confirms the suspicions of the majority of right thinking people here on the forum.


----------



## Phobius

You mean to tell me the world is not flat?


----------



## geezer

Bonesetter said:


> I don't think the gatekeeper message is true.  I have also studied a couple of other lineages and the tan sau idea was always the same. Each to their own.



Yes, "each to their own". But it's nice to get another point of view. Welcome to MartialTalk. I hope you continue posting. And, don't let the verbal sparring dissuade you. After all WC/VT is "the science of infighting".


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> ... I wish you the best of luck in providing more startling insight from inside WSL VT that confirms the suspicions of the majority of right thinking people here on the forum.



Hey, am I in that majority? Me? "Right thinking" ...I need time to think about that, rightly! And even if I'm wrong, heck, for once I've got company. I tell ya, I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy! 

BTW, my thinking on Tan-sau is actually a bit different than just saying, "it's a defense". I actually feel it is all about  forearm angle, elbow position, and forward intent. You should be able to accomplish what tan-sau does _without_ "spreading your palm". You can use this forearm and elbow position to deflect, to wedge and control, and to create an opening for a punch. And you can do it all with your hand rolled into a fist inside a glove. I also view the classic demonstration versions lf tan-da as a simplified "example" for demos. You could easily spar using plenty of_ tan_ energy and never pose with a classical tan sau.


----------



## LFJ

Video link below, not-to-be-missed... 

I know there must be other people reading along, like Bonesetter who just joined in. So, to those people and others who might share similar ideas about how to use _taan-sau _defensively, try to be deeply honest with yourselves and your free fighting experience, and question why you believe things you are taught. Here's something to think about:

People have suggested ideas of a _taan-sau_ that springs off when contact is loss. Sounds like a neat idea, right? And in _chi-sau_ training where we are in prolonged arm contact, sometimes that effect can happen.

But how about in reality where there will be no prolonged arm contact while fists are flying in your face at high speeds? Has it ever worked for you like that?

In _chi-sau _drills, reflexively striking at loss of contact, should indicate forward pressure and intent from the whole body, ground up, and should not just be a springing arm trick that can work in free fighting. Again, has it ever?

Some say they will extend a _taan-sau_ and if it meets an obstruction it may bend to _bong-sau_, depending on the energy it meets, and then spring back off into a strike all of its own. Neat idea. Has it ever worked for you like that in free fighting?

They say if it doesn't meet an obstruction it will continue and be turned into a strike. That means it will have to be extended part way before it's changed to a punch, both in matter and in mind. This will lack speed, power, and accuracy because it didn't have the intent to punch from the beginning.

Do you think there will be time to change hand position and intent midway without a hiccup or thinking involved? Has it ever worked for you like that?

Whatever your idea of _taan-sau_ used defensively is, be honest with yourself and ask, has it ever worked like that in free fighting?

Do you honestly think you will extend a _taan-sau_ to deflect the first punch, then your arm will bend and/or automatically spring off into a strike when contact is lost and before the next one breaks your face?

Has it ever worked for you like that in free fighting?

If not, is it really because you need to train it more (still, after years, with one of the first things you're taught in SNT), or because the idea is unrealistic and made up while playing _chi-sau_ or just a misunderstanding of abstract _chi-sau_ drills?

Take a look at this video and honestly ask yourself:

Tommy Carruthers Lesson -  Unrealistic Defence Against Punch—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看

Precisely for this reason, we don't have such _taan-sau_ ideas in WSLVT. There is simply NO TIME, and no prolonged arm contact in a fight. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll find it hasn't worked because it doesn't work.

So our method of _taan_ is to punch back in a way that uses the elbow to defend our space while the fist goes to the target. Simple, Direct, Effective. This is what works in free fighting. No sticking or springing is going to happen.

Once upon a time, I was taken in by the neat ideas too. But I was not honest with myself about what works and what doesn't, until I was introduced to more realistic ideas and understood what that part of SNT is really all about.

So, I can only suggest you get out and experience other lines of WSLVT if you're still being told your arms are gonna work like glue and springs in real fighting, and in the meantime, remember what Bertrand Russell said:


----------



## Bonesetter

LFJ said:


> So, in fighting you think there's gonna be prolonged arm contact, and when it releases your arm is gonna spring forward like that and turn into a punch on its own, huh? Can you honestly say that's ever happened for you outside of _chi-sau_, in free fighting? (Legit question) If you don't want to answer, at least think about it...



You certainly offer a warm welcome LFJ. I've been in plenty of fights unfortunately due to my profession and as Wing Chun is the only art I know I can say my training and how it's been taught to me works.

I train my Wing Chun as I believe it was intended at close range.. By practising with pressure and intent at this range you can develop elbow force and relaxed hands which can change shape quickly.

Most fights I've been in have ended up either in a clinch type situation or on the ground. Wing Chun gives you ideas and ways to deal with both scenarios.

Wether or not my hand has sprung forward when the pressure was no more is debatable as there is lots going on in a fight. I still think it's better to practice this way then not to focus on elbow pressure/power.

A lot of people practice Wing Chun as if it's a combat sport. Darting in and out in straight lines, Chin sticking out, guard hands not protecting anything above the shoulders..


----------



## Bonesetter

The idea we discussed about springing forward when contact is lost with the tan sau works for many strikes in Wing Chun.. As the old saying goes.. "Rush upon loss of contact" It's not just about WSLVT and tan sau


----------



## LFJ

Bonesetter said:


> I train my Wing Chun as I believe it was intended at close range..



I see many people do this at the expense of not knowing how to handle other ranges. We've seen videos of certain lines in WSLVT walking straight into round punches that are thrown from out of range. Is this what you've been taught too? 

They do this because they lack mobility, tactical footwork for dealing with outside ranges and closing the gap intelligently, with the right timing and angles. They just believe in moving forward and "occupying center". Walking straight up the middle on a boxer is a losing strategy. 



> I still think it's better to practice this way then not to focus on elbow pressure/power.



It's not so much about elbow pressure/power as it is overall fighting strategy. _Taan_ and _jam_ elbows contain information about the VT strategy and tactics, missing in lots of VT, including other lines of WSLVT.

For example, what have you been taught the final three actions in SNT are about? How about the final three actions in CK? 

I know some lines in WSLVT are almost entirely application-based. They are totally missing the abstract information about VT fighting strategy in the forms.



> A lot of people practice Wing Chun as if it's a combat sport. Darting in and out in straight lines, Chin sticking out, guard hands not protecting anything above the shoulders..



Yet, that's exactly what they do when they go walking into round punches. In fact, WSLVT is highly mobile with more tactical footwork than charging in or half steps back on an angle, yet that's all many teach.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I see many people do this at the expense of not knowing how to handle other ranges. We've seen videos of certain lines in WSLVT walking straight into round punches that are thrown from out of range. Is this what you've been taught too?



Being taught a close quarter martial art does not mean you have to be stupid. A closed quarter art needs high mobility to move in and out of range. Just see grapplers, just because they do grappling does not mean they are easily taken down by a boxer while going into proper range.



LFJ said:


> In fact, WSLVT is highly mobile with more tactical footwork than charging in or half steps back on an angle, yet that's all many teach.



Being highly mobile is true for all WC. Sadly mobility is not part of first forms and as such I think many teachers simply come to conclusion incorrectly that WC should be fairly static.

That or aged teachers being so good now that mobility is not necessary for them. Something however they still need to teach their students.


----------



## KPM

Video link below, not-to-be-missed... 

---I can't ever seem to get these youku.tube videos to play here in the US.  Am I missing a click somewhere?


Whatever your idea of _taan-sau_ used defensively is, be honest with yourself and ask, has it ever worked like that in free fighting?

---We see numerous videos of Phillip Bayer demonstrating continuous Bong/Lop cycles, trapping, and pushing his opponent.  Below is just the first example of many that popped up when I searched for him on youtube.   But I don't believe I've ever seen a video of him doing that in free-fighting.  Do you have a video of PB, or anyone, doing what he shows in this video in free-fighting and it working well?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Being taught a close quarter martial art does not mean you have to be stupid. A closed quarter art needs high mobility to move in and out of range. Just see grapplers, just because they do grappling does not mean they are easily taken down by a boxer while going into proper range.



Agreed. Grapplers are good at this because they train it. 

Unfortunately, many Wing Chun people spend all their time already in contact in _chi-sau_, and don't train moving through ranges realistically if at all. Here, I'm thinking specifically about certain lines within WSLVT, but also others.



> Being highly mobile is true for all WC.



Lack of mobility is often the number one ingredient I see missing a lot.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---I can't ever seem to get these youku.tube videos to play here in the US.  Am I missing a click somewhere?



Shouldn't take more than clicking on the link. Are you getting any sort error message? Not available in your area?



> But I don't believe I've ever seen a video of him doing that in free-fighting.  Do you have a video of PB, or anyone, doing what he shows in this video in free-fighting and it working well?



PB shows the free fighting aspect to his students and fights with them so they see how things are supposed to work. But not everything is put online. Those who have gone to visit have not been disappointed though.

This video shows a bit of light sparring:


----------



## geezer

@LFJ: You raised some important questions. I'll attempt to clarify a few misunderstandings for the sake of anybody who might be interested.



LFJ said:


> People have suggested ideas of a _taan-sau_ that springs off when contact is loss. Sounds like a neat idea, right? And in _chi-sau_ training where we are in prolonged arm contact, sometimes that effect can happen.
> 
> But how about in reality where there will be no prolonged arm contact while fists are flying in your face at high speeds? Has it ever worked for you like that?



Fighting at the boxing range is very different from the clinch range. But as we close, often arms clash and being able to slip and spring through is definitely useful, and being relaxed and "springy" assists in this.



LFJ said:


> In _chi-sau _drills, reflexively striking at loss of contact, should indicate *forward pressure and intent from the whole body, ground up,* and should not just be a springing arm trick that can work in free fighting. Again, has it ever?



Agreed. We seek to apply _springy_ forward pressure with the _whole body_ from the ground up. The arms are just the last links in this chain. I hope I did not suggest otherwise.



LFJ said:


> Some say they will *extend a taan-sau* and if it meets an obstruction it may bend to _bong-sau_, depending on the energy it meets, and then spring back off into a strike all of its own. Neat idea. Has it ever worked for you like that in free fighting?



Why would you _extend a tan sau?_ You extend a strike. If you encounter an obstacle, you use angling and elbow to slip around or wedge through to hit. Only if your arm is _jammed back_ does it function as a tan. Note I said _function_. The hand may stay in a fist the whole time if the arm, elbow, and structure are functioning correctly. And _yes_, this works in sparring. I don't know about fights since frankly I don't get into fights and haven't since my school days.


----------



## geezer

@LFJ: You raised some important questions. I'll attempt to clarify a few misunderstandings for the sake of anybody who might be interested.



LFJ said:


> People have suggested ideas of a _taan-sau_ that springs off when contact is loss. Sounds like a neat idea, right? And in _chi-sau_ training where we are in prolonged arm contact, sometimes that effect can happen.
> 
> But how about in reality where there will be no prolonged arm contact while fists are flying in your face at high speeds? Has it ever worked for you like that?



Fighting at the boxing range is very different from the clinch range. But as we close, often arms clash and being able to slip and spring through is definitely useful, and being relaxed and "springy" assists in this.



LFJ said:


> In _chi-sau _drills, reflexively striking at loss of contact, should indicate *forward pressure and intent from the whole body, ground up,* and should not just be a springing arm trick that can work in free fighting. Again, has it ever?



Agreed. We seek to apply _springy_ forward pressure with the _whole body_ from the ground up. The arms are just the last links in this chain. I hope I did not suggest otherwise.



LFJ said:


> Some say they will *extend a taan-sau* and if it meets an obstruction it may bend to _bong-sau_, depending on the energy it meets, and then spring back off into a strike all of its own. Neat idea. Has it ever worked for you like that in free fighting?



Why would you _extend a tan sau?_ You extend a strike. If you encounter an obstacle, you use angling and elbow to slip around or wedge through to hit. Only if your arm is _jammed back_ does it function as a tan. Note I said _function_. The hand may stay in a fist the whole time if the arm, elbow, and structure are functioning correctly. And _yes_, this works in sparring. I don't know about fights since frankly I don't get into fights and haven't since my school days.


----------



## guy b.

Bonesetter said:


> You certainly offer a warm welcome LFJ. I've been in plenty of fights unfortunately due to my profession and as Wing Chun is the only art I know I can say my training and how it's been taught to me works.



Please describe how sticking arm techniques work for you



> Most fights I've been in have ended up either in a clinch type situation or on the ground. Wing Chun gives you ideas and ways to deal with both scenarios



In a clinch with someone that knows what they are doing you have fractions of a second with wing chun. On the ground you are f*cked if opponent has a clue and you try to utilise wing chun. It is designed for standing and hitting, not for ground. 



> Wether or not my hand has sprung forward when the pressure was no more is debatable as there is lots going on in a fight. I still think it's better to practice this way then not to focus on elbow pressure/power.



What pressure? Please describe ho your wing chun functions in a fight.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> We see numerous videos of Phillip Bayer demonstrating continuous Bong/Lop cycles, trapping, and pushing his opponent.  Below is just the first example of many that popped up when I searched for him on youtube.   But I don't believe I've ever seen a video of him doing that in free-fighting.  Do you have a video of PB, or anyone, doing what he shows in this video in free-fighting and it working well?



What do you think Philipp Bayer is training in these clips?


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Video link below, not-to-be-missed...
> 
> I know there must be other people reading along, like Bonesetter who just joined in. So, to those people and others who might share similar ideas about how to use _taan-sau _defensively, try to be deeply honest with yourselves and your free fighting experience, and question why you believe things you are taught. Here's something to think about:
> 
> People have suggested ideas of a _taan-sau_ that springs off when contact is loss. Sounds like a neat idea, right? And in _chi-sau_ training where we are in prolonged arm contact, sometimes that effect can happen.
> 
> But how about in reality where there will be no prolonged arm contact while fists are flying in your face at high speeds? Has it ever worked for you like that?
> 
> In _chi-sau _drills, reflexively striking at loss of contact, should indicate forward pressure and intent from the whole body, ground up, and should not just be a springing arm trick that can work in free fighting. Again, has it ever?
> 
> Some say they will extend a _taan-sau_ and if it meets an obstruction it may bend to _bong-sau_, depending on the energy it meets, and then spring back off into a strike all of its own. Neat idea. Has it ever worked for you like that in free fighting?
> 
> They say if it doesn't meet an obstruction it will continue and be turned into a strike. That means it will have to be extended part way before it's changed to a punch, both in matter and in mind. This will lack speed, power, and accuracy because it didn't have the intent to punch from the beginning.
> 
> Do you think there will be time to change hand position and intent midway without a hiccup or thinking involved? Has it ever worked for you like that?
> 
> Whatever your idea of _taan-sau_ used defensively is, be honest with yourself and ask, has it ever worked like that in free fighting?
> 
> Do you honestly think you will extend a _taan-sau_ to deflect the first punch, then your arm will bend and/or automatically spring off into a strike when contact is lost and before the next one breaks your face?
> 
> Has it ever worked for you like that in free fighting?
> 
> If not, is it really because you need to train it more (still, after years, with one of the first things you're taught in SNT), or because the idea is unrealistic and made up while playing _chi-sau_ or just a misunderstanding of abstract _chi-sau_ drills?
> 
> Take a look at this video and honestly ask yourself:
> 
> Tommy Carruthers Lesson -  Unrealistic Defence Against Punch—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看
> 
> Precisely for this reason, we don't have such _taan-sau_ ideas in WSLVT. There is simply NO TIME, and no prolonged arm contact in a fight. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll find it hasn't worked because it doesn't work.
> 
> So our method of _taan_ is to punch back in a way that uses the elbow to defend our space while the fist goes to the target. Simple, Direct, Effective. This is what works in free fighting. No sticking or springing is going to happen.
> 
> Once upon a time, I was taken in by the neat ideas too. But I was not honest with myself about what works and what doesn't, until I was introduced to more realistic ideas and understood what that part of SNT is really all about.
> 
> So, I can only suggest you get out and experience other lines of WSLVT if you're still being told your arms are gonna work like glue and springs in real fighting, and in the meantime, remember what Bertrand Russell said:



Good post, good clip


----------



## guy b.

Bonesetter?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> What do you think Philipp Bayer is training in these clips?


 
Not the "free fighting" that LFJ referred to.


----------



## wtxs

guy b. said:


> What do you think Philipp Bayer is training in these clips?



Is that an whipping/spring Tan Sau @ :36?  That would be and defensive move, right? Did he learn that from WSL?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Not the "free fighting" that LFJ referred to.



Then what is being trained?


----------



## guy b.

wtxs said:


> Is that an whipping/spring Tan Sau @ :36?  That would be and defensive move, right? Did he learn that from WSL?



At 1.36?


----------



## JPinAZ

LFJ said:


> So our method of _taan_ is to punch back in a way that uses the elbow to defend our space while the fist goes to the target. Simple, Direct, Effective. This is what works in free fighting. No sticking or springing is going to happen.



While this can work fine, what is described above is really just basic WC punching mechanics _any_ good WC lineage can employ. But from a WC strategy or energetic perspective, the method above is more of a lut sau jik chung action and seems to ignore LLHS (Loi Lau Hoi Sung) bridging principles for which taan sau is mainly applicable. What you're describing is more in-line with chung/crashing energy only, and again is separate from/ has little to do with the nature of Taan Sau as it relates to WC's Loi Lau bridging energetics. 

So to call a punch a tan sau or visa versa doesn't make much sense from WC's bridging and LLHS/LSJC perespectives since they are for distinctly different timeframes (except maybe for the WCL line of course!)



LFJ said:


> Once upon a time, I was taken in by the neat ideas too. But I was not honest with myself about what works and what doesn't, until I was introduced to more realistic ideas and understood what that part of SNT is really all about.



Can you explain what parts of your previous training 'neat ideas' you found not to work and why?


----------



## wtxs

guy b. said:


> At 1.36?



No, @ 0:36 ... just after student's kick and before his counter kick.


----------



## LFJ

wtxs said:


> No, @ 0:36 ... just after student's kick and before his counter kick.



That's not _taan-sau_ at all, much less a whipping or springing one.


----------



## LFJ

JPinAZ said:


> But from a WC strategy or energetic perspective, the method above is more of a lut sau jik chung action and seems to ignore LLHS (Loi Lau Hoi Sung) bridging principles for which taan sau is mainly applicable. What you're describing is more in-line with chung/crashing energy only, and again is separate from/ has little to do with the nature of Taan Sau as it relates to WC's Loi Lau bridging energetics.



Depends on your definition of those principles. The opposite is true for us. There is no such thing as "bridging principles". LLHS has to do with interception and chasing center, not building arm bridges.



> Can you explain what parts of your previous training 'neat ideas' you found not to work and why?



Sticking and automatically springing off contact into a strike. There is simply no time for such things when a barrage of punches are coming at you with real speed and intent, like in this video. 

Also walking into round punches with _taan-sau_ or "CK _fuk-sau_" just doesn't work against real punches and standing "in the pocket" trying to block left and right is simply a losing strategy.

Tommy Carruthers Lesson -  Unrealistic Defence Against Punch—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Not the "free fighting" that LFJ referred to.



I told you not everything is put online. He doesn't like feeding parasites. I've maybe even explained too much on here, but he respects freedom of speech. 

If you're interested, go visit and experience it for yourself.

You asked to see _laap-sau_ cycles and _chi-sau_ drills in free fighting. I think you've learned nothing from your online mentorship with Alan Orr.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Fighting at the boxing range is very different from the clinch range. But as we close, often arms clash and being able to slip and spring through is definitely useful, and being relaxed and "springy" assists in this.



Slip through, okay. Spring through? As a result of absorbing pressure and having it released? 

Again, has it ever worked for you like that?



> Agreed. We seek to apply _springy_ forward pressure with the _whole body_ from the ground up. The arms are just the last links in this chain. I hope I did not suggest otherwise.



Nope, but some in WSLVT teach that it's an effect from the triceps being engaged when contact is loss, causing the arm to spring forward. It's totally a springy arm thing. 



> Why would you _extend a tan sau?_




I wouldn't, but some do, including some in WSLVT, particularly to block round punches or to redirect arms coming in at you off line, then spring forward when contact is broken. Doesn't sound like an idea that has been fight tested and proven. It's a _chi-sau_ theory. 

I've seen an idea from LTWT guys of extending _man/wu _to "wedge" with their triangle as you say, then morph into _bong_ or _taan _depending on what is met. It may have just been to illustrate the idea, but it wasn't a strike. 

Even if it is first a strike, do you think you'll have time to effectively redirect or bend and spring back before another punch comes? Would that happen against a barrage of punches like this? Has it ever?

Tommy Carruthers Lesson -  Unrealistic Defence Against Punch—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I told you not everything is put online. He doesn't like feeding parasites. I've maybe even explained too much on here, but he respects freedom of speech.
> 
> If you're interested, go visit and experience it for yourself.
> 
> You asked to see _laap-sau_ cycles and _chi-sau_ drills in free fighting. I think you've learned nothing from your online mentorship with Alan Orr.


 
Well, since PB's followers have been talking such a big game for so long now, and PB has been putting out so many videos showing essentially the same thing over and over .....you'd think it would be time for him to put up a video that would make the skeptics and naysayers shut up!  That's not "feeding parasites", that's showing effectiveness.  Others put up hard sparring or "free fighting" clips.  Why can't the PB people do the same?  Why show the same thing over and over?  Going by what PB does put up, repeatedly, his entire system must consist of Lop Sau cycles and Chi Sau drills.  So I don't think it is unfair to ask if there are any video clips showing these things...or at least techniques derived  from and trained by these things....in "free fighting."  Why should anyone have anything to hide nowadays?  If you are going to tell everyone you have the VERY BEST Wing Chun in the ENTIRE WORLD....why not show it on videos?  PB and his people are certainly not shy about posting videos!     So I think it was fair question.

And I will point out once again....you know absolutely nothing about Alan Orr and his on-line mentorship program.  So you can stop name-dropping for effect.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> PB has been putting out so many videos



I think he has only personally posted a couple.



> you'd think it would be time for him to put up a video that would make the skeptics and naysayers shut up!  That's not "feeding parasites", that's showing effectiveness.  Others put up hard sparring or "free fighting" clips.  Why can't the PB people do the same?



In his own words, he'd like to keep stupid people away from the system. Those who are serious enough will seek it out and see for themselves. 



> Going by what PB does put up, repeatedly, his entire system must consist of Lop Sau cycles and Chi Sau drills.



Again, not everything is put online.



> If you are going to tell everyone you have the VERY BEST Wing Chun in the ENTIRE WORLD....why not show it on videos?



Who has said that?



> And I will point out once again....you know absolutely nothing about Alan Orr and his on-line mentorship program.  So you can stop name-dropping for effect.



Because I don't believe in kung-fu-online. "For effect", lol. You wish that's what it was for. I mention him because it's an example of one line of Wing Chun that you were very adamantly saying was not Wing Chun because it "didn't look like Wing Chun" between its drilling and free fighting aspects. 

Only after learning about it in more depth did you apparently change your mind. Yet you still want to see _laap-sau_ cycles and _chi-sau_ drills or techniques from them in free fighting? You're hopeless...


----------



## JPinAZ

LFJ said:


> Depends on your definition of those principles. The opposite is true for us. There is no such thing as "bridging principles". LLHS has to do with interception and chasing center, not building arm bridges.



Do you just argue and disagree for the sake of arguing and disagreeing? LLHS as it pertains to 'interception' IS about bridging - you can't 'intercept' without a bridge being formed in some way. Even in your example of a tan punch cutting in to target sure sounds like you are surely bridging, you just aren't using LLHS to do it. I'm familiar with some WSL methods and what you are describing is LSJC. Are you saying to don't receive and or deal with incoming forces at all (which is what LLHS is about) and just crash/slice in towards center with your tan punch without regard to what input your opponent is giving you?


----------



## LFJ

JPinAZ said:


> Do you just argue and disagree for the sake of arguing and disagreeing? LLHS as it pertains to 'interception' IS about bridging - you can't 'intercept' without a bridge being formed in some way. Even in your example of a tan punch cutting in to target sure sounds like you are surely bridging, you just aren't using LLHS to do it.



No, I genuinely disagree because we have different interpretations of those maxims.

A _taan_ punch doesn't require arm contact.



> Are you saying to don't receive and or deal with incoming forces at all (which is what LLHS is about) and just crash/slice in towards center with your tan punch without regard to what input your opponent is giving you?



LLHS is not about receiving and dealing with incoming forces in WSLVT.

Again, a _taan_ punch doesn't require arm contact.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> LLHS is not about receiving and dealing with incoming forces in WSLVT.



So you don't "Greet what comes" in PB WSL VT? That _*is*_ different.



LFJ said:


> Again, a _taan_ punch doesn't require arm contact.



In previous posts you asked about how we applied tan, etc. when fighting against fast, realistic punches as in that video clip. When it comes down to that you might find that a lot of the _differences diminish_ between what you do and the more fighting oriented groups emerging from the "WT" branch. Years back I worked briefly with _Emin_. He changed all our drills to working with aggressive punching (all hand techniques using a _fist _) with strong forward intent and using good elbow position to wedge, cut in, etc. Some punches functioned as tan, jum, etc, but _all_ were attacks.

So you might find that we have some common ground here, unless you are opposed to that idea on a philosophical basis.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> So you don't "Greet what comes" in PB WSL VT? That _*is*_ different.



I'm not representing PB here, but I agree he is one who knows quality WSLVT.

"Greet what comes" is a terrible mistranslation in any case. There are only two characters; to come (_loi_) and to remain (_lau_). Leaves a lot of room for free interpretation, doesn't it? Particularly if it's passed on without clear instruction.



> So you might find that we have some common ground here, unless you are opposed to that idea on a philosophical basis.



Haha, no. Any Wing Chun becoming more realistic is a good thing. Who might I be looking at if I wanted to see what you described?


----------



## JPinAZ

"Again, a _taan_ punch doesn't require arm contact."

- LOL, if anything, you sure do make some interesting conclusions!!

Since you are translating and trying to define definitions for WC Chinese characters (horribly at that), maybe you should find someone to translate and interpret the one for 'taan' since you have clearly missed it's meaning. Besides the silliness of confusing two entirely different actions together to make s 'taan punch', and really missing the boat on what LLHS/LSJC means, thinking a  'taan' can exist without contact is like saying you can can walk without gravity or float without water.


----------



## LFJ

JPinAZ said:


> "Again, a _taan_ punch doesn't require arm contact."
> 
> - LOL, if anything, you sure do make some interesting conclusions!!
> 
> Since you are translating and trying to define definitions for WC Chinese characters (horribly at that), maybe you should find someone to translate and interpret the one for 'taan' since you have clearly missed it's meaning. Besides the silliness of confusing two entirely different actions together to make s 'taan punch', and really missing the boat on what LLHS/LSJC means, thinking a  'taan' can exist without contact is like saying you can can walk without gravity or float without water.



We train two very different systems. Your interpretations do not apply. Fine for you maybe.

How was my translation horrible? Please let me know because those are two very simple characters, and I work in China for one of the top translation agencies. I want to fix things before they figure it out and fire me! Thanks!


----------



## JPinAZ

While I am always happy to share my understanding and give my view based on my personal experience, I'm not really interesting in helping you with your misunderstanding of what are viewed by many as pretty basic WC concepts. You come off as being very set in your often better-than-thou ways for it to make any difference anyway.
Happy taan-punching!


----------



## KPM

JPinAZ said:


> Do you just argue and disagree for the sake of arguing and disagreeing?


 
Absolutely he does!  You see the pattern as well?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Haha, no. Any Wing Chun becoming more realistic is a good thing. Who might I be looking at if I wanted to see what you described?



Not sure who to suggest. I know that Emin and some of his EBMAS guys had a pretty darn good idea of how to simplify and apply WT to fighting, but like so many others, they must have found that the paired down and realistic stuff wasn't a big money earner. Gotta have some magic in there too, ya know. And some hero worship. Everybody does that. Even PB it seems. But I digress. I also like some of Alan Orr's stuff. But I really don't know much about it. So, outside of PB WSL VT, who would _you _suggest?

Wait don't even answer that here. Let's start a _new thread_ on the subject.


----------



## KPM

JPinAZ said:


> "Again, a _taan_ punch doesn't require arm contact."
> 
> - LOL, if anything, you sure do make some interesting conclusions!!
> 
> , thinking a  'taan' can exist without contact is like saying you can can walk without gravity or float without water.



I agree Jonathan.  To me, if you are going to call something a "Tan punch" that implies that the motion started out as a defensive wedging or deflection with the forearm than naturally proceeded forward as a punch. All Wing Chun does this.  If you are just punching with no contact prior to impact of the fist....that's just a straight punch.  Why invoke the name "Tan" at all?


----------



## JPinAZ

KPM said:


> I agree Jonathan.  To me, if you are going to call something a "Tan punch" that implies that the motion started out as a defensive wedging or deflection with the forearm than naturally proceeded forward as a punch. All Wing Chun does this.  If you are just punching with no contact prior to impact of the fist....that's just a straight punch.  Why invoke the name "Tan" at all?



I have no idea. If someone is arguing that something as basic and core to WC as a taan sau has nothing to do with bridging and doesn't even need arm contact, or that_ "LLHS is not about receiving and dealing with incoming forces"_, there really is no common ground to even discuss WC since this POV really has little to do with WC at this point.


----------



## LFJ

We train very different systems, guys. That's fine. But it's silly to apply your interpretations to another system you don't understand at all.



KPM said:


> If you are just punching with no contact prior to impact of the fist....that's just a straight punch.  Why invoke the name "Tan" at all?



Exactly. It's just a straight punch. Simples. But there are different ways to punch.

Without feeding you too many details, _taan_ means to spread out. In WSLVT, it refers to the action of the elbow while the fist goes directly to the target.

It's a single action with dual function. Protection with the elbow and attacking with the fist. Ever hear "_da sau jik siu sau_"? The attacking arm is also the defending arm. That's "_lin siu daai da_" with a single arm.

Yes. It's just a punch, done exactly the same way whether or not it contacts anything along the way. Hence, "does not require arm contact".

This method also requires no thought that causes hesitation as you decide which hand to defend with and which to attack with.

It you take _taan-sau_ literally and apply the hand shape from the forms, you will not be using "_da sau jik siu sau_". You will be defending with one hand and attacking with the other. Never mind requiring thought and chasing hands, that's two arms against one.

Inefficient. Not VT strategy.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> We train very different systems, guys. That's fine. But it's silly to apply your interpretations to another system you don't understand at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's just a straight punch. Simples. But there are different ways to punch.
> 
> Without feeding you too many details, _taan_ means to spread out. In WSLVT, it refers to the action of the elbow while the fist goes directly to the target.
> It's a single action with dual function. Protection with the elbow and attacking with the fist. Ever hear "_da sau jik siu sau_"? The attacking arm is also the defending arm. That's "_lin siu daai da_" with a single arm.



This is standard WC: "attacking hand is defending hand" ...nothing unique to your branch.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> This is standard WC: "attacking hand is defending hand" ...nothing unique to your branch.



Interesting. Why do the two guys above not seem to understand it?

I would not say "hand", btw. The elbow is important.

I think people interpret "_da sau jik siu sau_" as the same hand being able to attack or defend, but make them mutually exclusive functions. As the two guys above say, _taan_ is a defense, and then punch is a separate attack.

They apply "_lin siu daai da_" with two arms because they don't understand how DSJSS and LSDD are to be combined.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I think people interpret "_da sau jik siu sau_" as the same hand being able to attack or defend, but make them mutually exclusive functions. As the two guys above say, _taan_ is a defense, and then punch is a separate attack.
> 
> They apply "_lin siu daai da_" with two arms because they don't understand how DSJSS and LSDD are to be combined.



To me _da sau jik si siu sau_ or "attacking hand is defending hand" means that in one motion the striking arm defends by deflecting the opponent's strike. I've always assumed that this is how most WCers understand this. Perhaps its _your insistence_ that this is the _only _ way to go and that a two-handed simultaneous attack and defense or_ lin siu di dar_ isn't also an important part of WC's repertoire that they are objecting to?

If you are anticipate that others are ignorant and don't understand, you may be more likely to read that into what they say, especially in a format like this where people are typing out hasty and imperfect descriptions of what they are trying to convey. Just sayin'.


----------



## LFJ

From JPinAZ:

"_the silliness of confusing two entirely different actions together to make s 'taan punch_'"

Was I reading into this, @geezer , or does this not clearly state that they are mutually exclusive to him?


----------



## KPM

We train very different systems, guys. That's fine. But it's silly to apply your interpretations to another system you don't understand at all.

---Oh the irony!  


It's a single action with dual function. Protection with the elbow and attacking with the fist. Ever hear "_da sau jik siu sau_"? The attacking arm is also the defending arm. That's "_lin siu daai da_" with a single arm.

---Ever heard of an "excluding" punch?  All Wing Chun does this.  Nothing special.  Most lineages just don't bother to give it an extra name.  They see no need to invoke the name "Tan", since it refers to something more specific. 


It you take _taan-sau_ literally and apply the hand shape from the forms, you will not be using "_da sau jik siu sau_". You will be defending with one hand and attacking with the other. Never mind requiring thought and chasing hands, that's two arms against one.

----Nope. Not true at all.  As you noted above, its silly to apply your interpretations to another system you don't understand.  And you show time and again that you don't understand other people's Wing Chun as well as you think you do.


----------



## KPM

Why do the two guys above not seem to understand it?

---   We understand perfectly what you are saying.   We were just pointing out the unnecessary use of the "Tan" modifier for a punch that everyone uses.  That's just confusing, and implies you have something others don't have.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Ever heard of an "excluding" punch?  All Wing Chun does this.  Nothing special.  Most lineages just don't bother to give it an extra name.  They see no need to invoke the name "Tan", since it refers to something more specific.



Yes, that wouldn't be called _taan_ because that's the opposite of _taan_ function.



> We understand perfectly what you are saying. We were just pointing out the unnecessary use of the "Tan" modifier for a punch that everyone uses. That's just confusing, and implies you have something others don't have.



Still doesn't sound like you're familiar with the concept I describe at all.



> ----Nope. Not true at all.  As you noted above, its silly to apply your interpretations to another system you don't understand.  And you show time and again that you don't understand other people's Wing Chun as well as you think you do.



Not true at all? Explain what a _taan-da_ is then. Looks like a defense with one arm and attack with the other. I didn't make this idea up.


----------



## KPM

Yes, that wouldn't be called _taan_ because that's the opposite of _taan_ function.

---Why do you say that?  What do you think an "excluding" punch is?



Still doesn't sound like you're familiar with the concept I describe at all.

---Sounds like you're probably not familiar with what I am talking about.  I don't think you are not quite the "serious researcher" that you think you are!



Not true at all? Explain what a _taan-da_ is then. Looks like a defense with one arm and attack with the other. I didn't make this idea up.

--I didn't say a Tan Da doesn't exist.  You seemed to be saying that taking "Tan" literally would limit one only to using it as a Tan Da, and not as part of a punching action.  Did I misunderstand your intent?   Because one can use a "Tan" concept in several ways....as a Tan Da, as part of an excluding punch, as a lead in to create an opening through which the Tan continues forward as a punch, etc.   You are the one limiting things by thinking it CAN'T be a Tan Da.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Why do you say that?  What do you think an "excluding" punch is?



It's a "bridging" idea that refers to/relies upon how you contact an opponent's arm. 

I don't think or function in those terms or tactics.



> You seemed to be saying that taking "Tan" literally would limit one only to using it as a Tan Da, and not as part of a punching action.  Did I misunderstand your intent?   Because one can use a "Tan" concept in several ways....as a Tan Da, as part of an excluding punch, as a lead in to create an opening through which the Tan continues forward as a punch, etc.   You are the one limiting things by thinking it CAN'T be a Tan Da.



It can be whatever you want it to be, but some of those ideas are indirect and inefficient, and therefore not VT strategy (WSLVT).


----------



## dudewingchun

LFJ said:


> It's a "bridging" idea that refers to/relies upon how you contact an opponent's arm.
> 
> I don't think or function in those terms or tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be whatever you want it to be, but some of those ideas are indirect and inefficient, and therefore not VT strategy (WSLVT).



Cant you guys just make a video to show what you guys are doing compared to what we think you are doing or whatever. Instead of just arguing back and forth where noone is ever going to back down...


----------



## DaveB

[QUOTE="LFJ, post: 1742969, member: 32866]

Tommy Carruthers Lesson -  Unrealistic Defence Against Punch—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看[/QUOTE]

Hi. I have no side in this argument but this video was a lot of fun to watch. 

It's also a total straw man. Two things happened that made the defence ineffective: first the puncher was simply too fast. No defence works against someone who outclasses you in speed. Second the puncher demonstrates.stationery punches, then proceeds to charge forwards.. Now of course advancing punches are fine, but don't set the guy up with one thing then do something else in a friendly demo...

Much of the nonsense people talk about realistic martial arts comes from failing to identify why something doesn't work. If our hapless parryer had moved with the assault he might have been better prepared although with the speed difference probably not. 

Assuming that every attack will be a barrage like that is as incorrect as assuming your assailant will stand still when he punches


----------



## LFJ

DaveB said:


> Hi. I have no side in this argument but this video was a lot of fun to watch.
> 
> It's also a total straw man.



As far as I can tell, the set up was a reenactment of another video showing unrealistic defense against unrealistic punches. Not a straw man.

Regardless, I posted it to show realistic punches, with speed and intent. Doesn't matter what the defender was trying to do. I'm asking others if they think their ideas will work against such realistic punches. Posted to encourage honest reflection.

Some people think there will be prolonged arm contact against punches in a fight. They think they can stick to these punches, spring load their arms, redirect the strike, and then automatically spring back off when contact is broken, because that's what the theory says.

I think there is no time for such things, and highly doubt it has ever been tested and proven outside of _chi-sau_, or that it's high percentage if ever it has been. Why dedicate 90% of training and fighting strategy to something unproven and likely very low percentage if at all usable?


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> Cant you guys just make a video to show what you guys are doing compared to what we think you are doing or whatever. Instead of just arguing back and forth where noone is ever going to back down...



The _taan_ and _jam_ energies are introduced in SNT and systematically developed with a partner from single to double _chi-sau_, and so on to free fighting where they aren't visible beyond "just punching" to the untrained eye. Takes careful, guided learning. Interested and serious practitioners will go seek it out in person. 

I know KPM enjoys online learning, but I'm not here to make a tutorial for him.  (Just teasing you, bud. Simmer down!)


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> The _taan_ and _jam_ energies are introduced in SNT and systematically developed with a partner from single to double _chi-sau_, and so on to free fighting where they aren't visible beyond "just punching" to the untrained eye. Takes careful, guided learning. Interested and serious practitioners will go seek it out in person.



The Wing Chun I have learned uses the Tan and Jum energies in punching...AND uses them as defensive actions in their own right as well.  I think most Wing Chun lineages do this.   But it sounds like WSLVT lineages may be missing out on the 2nd part?


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Some people think there will be *prolonged* arm contact against punches in a fight.



Well, not sure which people you're referring to...but I don't think they have used that term. I think that is a term you have been using.
Granted, that term is open to debate...


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> The Wing Chun I have learned uses the Tan and Jum energies in punching...AND uses them as defensive actions in their own right as well.  I think most Wing Chun lineages do this.   But it sounds like WSLVT lineages may be missing out on the 2nd part?



The _taan_ and _jam_ strikes don't function effectively if they aren't part of an overall strategy including footwork, entry, angling, tactics for sustained onslaught, etc.. A bit of a "gestalt", if you will. I've not seen the total package in other lineages. If any element is missing or substituted with something incompatible, the entire strategy is rendered ineffective.

The "2nd part" you refer to is incompatible, not missing. 

Indirect and inefficient. Not VT thinking.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Well, not sure which people you're referring to...but I don't think they have used that term. I think that is a term you have been using.
> Granted, that term is open to debate...



The time it would take to do what is suggested against real punches thrown in rapid succession is prolonged, meaning longer than the time there would be for real. 

If it's happening faster, it's likely no such thing has actually been done.


----------



## KPM

The _taan_ and _jam_ strikes don't function effectively if they aren't part of an overall strategy including footwork, entry, angling, tactics for sustained onslaught, etc..

---That's a matter of opinion.  I think they work just fine without positing some overall strategy for the entire system.  I can teach a relative beginner how to make them work fairly well in one lesson.

The "2nd part" you refer to is incompatible, not missing.

----If you think your "overall strategy" has rendered them incompatible, then I will repeat my past comment that WSLVT seems very "one dimensional." 

Indirect and inefficient. Not VT thinking.

---Maybe not "WSLVT" thinking.  But don't generalize to everyone else.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---That's a matter of opinion.  I think they work just fine without positing some overall strategy for the entire system.  I can teach a relative beginner how to make them work fairly well in one lesson.



Interesting.

You still haven't said anything that suggests you know what they are. A few posts back you were saying they are mutually exclusive actions from a strike, and now you're a teacher of the same method?

You're suggesting you can create a proficient VT fighter out of a relative beginner in one lesson without even teaching fight strategy? lmao



> ----If you think your "overall strategy" has rendered them incompatible, then I will repeat my past comment that WSLVT seems very "one dimensional."



Simple and effective, I would say. Not a convoluted mess of contradictory strategies and tactics that just make fighting more difficult.

If that's "one dimensional", it sounds all right to me.



> Indirect and inefficient. Not VT thinking.
> 
> ---Maybe not "WSLVT" thinking.  But don't generalize to everyone else.



That's fine. I afford anyone their right to indirect and inefficient methods.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Simple and effective, I would say. Not a convoluted mess of contradictory strategies and tactics that just make fighting more difficult.
> 
> If that's *"one dimensional",* it sounds all right to me.



Nope. Your description would still be at least _two-_dimensional. As in a _straight line!  
_
Now, getting to my actual point, LFJ and KPM, why don't you "Shut the heck up!!! 

And please, as _Chespirito_ so often said, "Take this in a nice way" (Tomalo por el lado amable). I mean seriously guys, I don't think I've met two individuals who have a harder time communicating. I mean, I often disagree with people but I usually understand what they are saying. Somehow, I'm just not seeing that between you guys. 

You both know that's the truth  ... So why not just ignore each other and instead talk to any reasonable third party. Like any of the rest of us. 

You know there are some of us, like me, who may often lean towards Keith's perspective, and others like T-Ray who favor LFJ's outlook. But LFJ and KPM, you two guys in particular are like oil and water, or worse, like _Hillary and Donald_. Not much point in even going there. Unless you want to make a Tarantino flick! 

Sincerely, your forum-friend, the Geez.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> You both know that's the truth  ... So why not just ignore each other and instead talk to any reasonable third party. Like any of the rest of us.



Oh, I think we communicate fine.  Its just that one person has his head in the sand and I don't.    One of us is trying to talk common sense, while the other is still stuck in "true believer" land.

But Ok.  I'll try talking to my forum-friend and someone that's always proven to be reasonable.   When I say a punch can have a Tan energy and a Jum energy, I'm talking about "excluding" punches or "cutting" punches.  A punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Tan energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch.  Likewise, a punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Jum energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch.  They are called "excluding" punches because they "exclude" the opponent's strike from the line as they travel forward to hit.  I can teach this to someone in one lesson.  Using this doesn't require some high-faluting strategy that runs through-out the whole system.  Now that's not to say I am making a "proficient fighter" out of that person in one lesson.   Did you think that's what I meant when I wrote that in my prior post? 

And I submit to you that this idea and practice is common is most Wing Chun lineages.  But most don't refer to them as "Tan punches" or "Jum punches" because this can get confusing when "Tan" and "Jum" are specific things as well. 

I also see no problem in using a Tan or Jum as a defensive movement in their own rights.  I don't see this as "indirect" or "inefficient" at all.   And given that EVERY Wing Chun lineage I know of besides WSLVT uses them, it seems that most Wing Chun people don't seem them as "indirect" or "inefficient" either.

Now Steve, do you disagree with what I am  saying?  Does anyone here other than the WSLVT people think I am talking anything other than common sense?


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> And please, as _Chespirito_ so often said, "Take this in a nice way" (Tomalo por el lado amable). I mean seriously guys, I don't think I've met two individuals who have a harder time communicating. I mean, I often disagree with people but I usually understand what they are saying. Somehow, I'm just not seeing that between you guys.



Actually I think I have a harder time communicating with KPM than LFJ does. The patience displayed by LFJ is superhuman.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> A punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Tan energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch. Likewise, a punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Jum energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch. T



??WTF

I don't think LFJ should coach you out of your wrongness any more. At least Alan Orr is charging you


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I also see no problem in using a Tan or Jum as a defensive movement in their own rights. I don't see this as "indirect" or "inefficient" at all. And given that EVERY Wing Chun lineage I know of besides WSLVT uses them, it seems that most Wing Chun people don't seem them as "indirect" or "inefficient" either.



You keep thinking that argument from popularity is worth something, odd

Opponent has 2 arms. You have 2 arms. Other arm is coming at you. Only gamble like that when no other option. Not a first line approach.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> ??WTF
> 
> I don't think LFJ should coach you out of your wrongness any more. At least Alan Orr is charging you



And after a comment like that, you still wonder why no one wants to discuss their Wing Chun in any depth with you??!!!


----------



## DaveB

LFJ said:


> As far as I can tell, the set up was a reenactment of another video showing unrealistic defense against unrealistic punches. Not a straw man.



Trying to claim something doesn't work by doing it wrong is near enough the definition of a straw man argument. 



> Some people think there will be prolonged arm contact against punches in a fight. They think they can stick to these punches, spring load their arms, redirect the strike, and then automatically spring back off when contact is broken, because that's what the theory says.
> 
> I think there is no time for such things, and highly doubt it has ever been tested and proven outside of _chi-sau_, or that it's high percentage if ever it has been. Why dedicate 90% of training and fighting strategy to something unproven and likely very low percentage if at all usable?



But another sure sign of a dogmatic theory based approach is a lack of recognition of the variety of situations and attacks one can face in a violent encounter.  

For example, punches that fast and straight are likely only to come from a trained fighter. A low percentage opponent unless you are training for the ring.  An angry or adrenalised opponent will throw big shots with total commitment, giving you body weight and recovery time to work with. 
Similarly standing grappling presents another set of extended contact opportunities. In short fighting is too chaotic to pick one attack and say that this is what you will encounter. Yes everyone should have an answer to attacks like those in the clip, but other stuff happens too.

That said I totally agree with the need to refine styles into systematic approaches to fighting and I think that ensuring your effectiveness against high level aggressive offence is a must in the modern age.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Now Steve, do you disagree with what I am  saying?  Does anyone here other than the WSLVT people think I am talking anything other than common sense?



Nope. I'm 100% with all that.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> ??WTF
> 
> I don't think LFJ should coach you out of your wrongness any more. At least Alan Orr is charging you



I'm confused by this comment. Does this mean that you think KPM _is _on the right track (perhaps due to Alan Orr) _...or not?_


----------



## Vajramusti

WSL. ex-brother in law (not Chinese)- I forget his name at  this moment was/is quite good. Has lived in HK,Oz and Germany.
Folks dont seem to mention him much.He wrote some good articles as well.


----------



## Bonesetter

^ Barry Lee. A quiet guy who keeps to himself


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> I'm confused by this comment. Does this mean that you think KPM _is _on the right track (perhaps due to Alan Orr) _...or not?_



No. Still quite far.

Excluding and including punches, as I've seen in some lineages, are a "bridging" idea where you attempt to occupy the line and "wedge" the opponent out while you punch. Depending on how you contact the opponent's arm you'll need to raise or sink your arm in order to keep them out. This is totally dependent on contact and is puppetry, only, the opponent is the master and you are at their mercy.

An example is in the video below (only one I can find). You'll see as he attempts to wedge the opponent out he is forced to raise his arm up, so much so that he's "punching" to the top of the guy's forehead with his elbow popped way up, or even fanning his elbow in order keep the opponent out. The focus is not actually on delivering a decisive blow, but wrestling for the line. This is the result of missing strategy elements, starting from _man/wu_ misconceptions, and an obsession with "occupying center" at the expense of solid punches with body mass behind them.

As for a cutting punch, referring to the "whipping" punch Alan does, a sweep to the outside is needed to then cut back in toward the opponent. Again, this required detour to the outside in order to cut back in is a workaround for missing elements of strategy.

Can this whipping punch work? Yes, it has been proven in the ring, so props there, but it is indirect, gap-filled Wing Chun. There is nothing necessarily wrong with indirect and inefficient methods, since most MAs are like that, but they aren't functioning according to VT principles which are designed to make fighting easier, not more complicated and harder than it already is.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I can teach this to someone in one lesson.  Using this doesn't require some high-faluting strategy that runs through-out the whole system.  Now that's not to say I am making a "proficient fighter" out of that person in one lesson.   Did you think that's what I meant when I wrote that in my prior post?



That you can teach someone a technique in a dead application drill that they can do "fairly well" doesn't mean it can be used effectively in a fight without knowing strategy.

Without knowing the strategy and the end-goal, you'll have a hard time understanding tactics and how they are to be used effectively. And you'll have to make workarounds, which most Wing Chun does. 

You are just dealing in techniques, and that is not how VT is designed to work.

The overall strategy _must_ run throughout the whole system, and be made clear from the beginning, precisely because we are working toward a single end-goal.

If you don't understand that, you aren't seeing the big picture and are stuck in techniques and applications.


----------



## LFJ

DaveB said:


> Trying to claim something doesn't work by doing it wrong is near enough the definition of a straw man argument.



Okay then. I admit it works as long as we feed unrealistic punches.



> For example, punches that fast and straight are likely only to come from a trained fighter. A low percentage opponent unless you are training for the ring.  An angry or adrenalised opponent will throw big shots with total commitment, giving you body weight and recovery time to work with.



If people prefer to aim low and train to defend against untrained people, like KPM's drunk uncle Ed, that's their 
prerogative, but it should come as no surprise when what they spend 90% of training time on doesn't work against someone with half a clue what they're doing. 

Sure, many things can happen in a fight, but I've not seen any situation where automatically springing punches happen. Have you?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I also see no problem in using a Tan or Jum as a defensive movement in their own rights.  I don't see this as "indirect" or "inefficient" at all.   And given that EVERY Wing Chun lineage I know of besides WSLVT uses them, it seems that most Wing Chun people don't seem them as "indirect" or "inefficient" either.



Again with an Appeal to the Majority fallacy? Most Wing Chun is simply gap-filled.

Lemme show you why a _taan-da_ is indirect and inefficient.

Opponent throws a single punch. You use one arm to run wide off line redirecting the punch (indirect), and use a second arm to punch, meaning two arms/actions against one (inefficient).

This is clearly in conflict with fundamental VT principles.

Again, this is a workaround for missing elements of strategy and tactics where none of this should be necessary.


----------



## Phobius

Why are you talking about techniques you don't train yourself?

It is as if WC should tell BJJ guys how to do grappling on the ground. Whatever you are talking about above it is nowhere near what I have been taught in terms of taan-da.

You do not chase arms. Situation differs but if your opponent forces you out of the way, punching harder than you wish to divert/take, you can use taan-da to control and move in. What I see above is no longer a taan-da but a movement going into your opponent with two punches.

Going on the inside like above I would fear the hook even if I do hit him. Still I can not say anything is wrong because I dont know these guys and how they decided to end up in this situation, the picture already depicts a guy out of balance and his opponent on the inside with clear path to continue punching.

Finally a question, would it be considered non WC to punch a guy that did not manage get his hands up to defend himself? After all that would be using two hands against zero, meaning inefficient?

Above can not be inefficient because his opponent has zero hands free to use due to being out of balance. It can however be very unrealistic. But just because a technique is demonstrated as above, does not mean that represents the technique. It represents the guy above demonstrating his version of a technique.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Why are you talking about techniques you don't train yourself?



Addressing everyone, right?

You're from LTWT? I don't even want to open that can of worms, plus you won't approve of me talking about it. 

Suffice it to say droves of people, including longtime practitioners and instructors, have switched from that lineage and wouldn't go back if forced at gunpoint. They are actually angry about their stolen time. Says a lot.



> Finally a question, would it be considered non WC to punch a guy that did not manage get his hands up to defend himself? After all that would be using two hands against zero, meaning inefficient?



 Uncle Ed? That you? Go home. You're drunk.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Addressing everyone, right?
> 
> You're from LTWT? I don't even want to open that can of worms, plus you won't approve of me talking about it.



I do not study under Kernspecht. Any holier than thou art does not really belong in this thread, instead try to answer questions in a polite and respectful manner or face the fact that above post was nothing more than trolling.

If you don't feel your post was flawed then adress such an issue directly. Calling me this "uncle Ed" is no more than a childish act and should be beneath your status as a long term student of VT.


----------



## LFJ

Eh? Didn't you just disapprove of me talking about techniques I don't train myself? I can't comment on your method of _taan-da _then. Whataya want me to do? And your last question was just stupid. You were actually serious...?


----------



## Phobius

My serious question was: How can you talk about a picture where a guy out of balance get punched and say it is not VT? The way is free so he punches. His balance is gone which means even his free arm is under control. So yes it was serious in terms of do you not consider it to be control unless you are actually touching both arms?

And as for your picture it was in my view not clear this is a taan-da. It might have been but not sure that it is anymore.

You said: "Lemme show you why a _taan-da_ is indirect and inefficient."

Then you write about a scenario where you would not use taan-da. Something about chasing an arm. This to me means you are talking about taan-da without using it yourself. This is similar to me talking about BJJ telling them what they do wrong.

I don't mind you talking about why taan-da is wrong. But I want to then read about taan-da. Not some weird scenario.


----------



## LFJ

Post your version of _taan-da_ then and we can discuss it without misrepresentation. Otherwise, don't get all bent out of shape when I talk about a version that may not be how you do it. I've taken a basic _taan-da_ application we can generally see Wing Chun people doing all the time.


----------



## Phobius

I can post a video that more resembles the way we study taan sau. This you can then use to visualize better what I mean with the taan da you describe and how it is off as a tool for comparison or argumenting.






Can not say whether or not he collapses his elbow or keep tension, collapsing elbow we do not accept ourselves but it is damn hard to see the difference on experienced people. He is also not part of my lineage, it was just the closest I could find in short amount of time with some description added.

We dont create a taan sau, it gets created for us as a tool to get a clearer path to our opponent. Meaning, there is no seeking a taan sau, if there is nothing it would simply be a punch instead.


----------



## KPM

_Lemme show you why a taan-da is indirect and inefficient._

_Opponent throws a single punch. You use one arm to run wide off line redirecting the punch (indirect), and use a second arm to punch, meaning two arms/actions against one (inefficient)._

---Really?  I don't know the lead in or the set up around what is happening in that picture.  But common sense would seem to say to me this.....if an opponent is throwing a wide punch that is coming in very fast if I simply step in and punch him I still run the risk of his punch continuing through and striking the side of my head.  I can imagine that when viewing that picture....if  the opponent had been a  bit faster, or the Wing Chun guy's timing a little off, AND the Wing Chun guy didn't have that Tan Sau up....he would have gotten nailed in the side of the head.  This is very much the "Choy Lit Fut vs. Wing Chun" scenario that was classic in the HK during Ip Man's heyday.

So...the Tan Sau hand is up as a cover as he goes in for the punch.  If it engages the opponent's attack...that's good.  If it doesn't...that's Ok as well.  But the Wing Chun guy has given himself an extra little bit of insurance and protection from getting hit.  And you think that is "inefficient"???

And he is punching with one hand while defending with the other. Because when I look at that picture I see someone defending against a wide punch, not someone that has redirected a centerline punch outward.   You think that is "indirect"??


_Again with an Appeal to the Majority fallacy?_

---Majority fallacy?   I'm simply pointing out that when the entire Wing Chun world other than you and your little pocket see no problem with something, then you have to start  questioning what you've been told.   It might not be so horrible as you think.  After all, there are plenty of smart people and good fighters doing Wing Chun.  Again, just common sense.


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> Any holier than thou art does not really belong in this thread, instead try to answer questions in a polite and respectful manner or face the fact that above post was nothing more than trolling.
> 
> .



Yes, this!  ^^^^^^   You see Steve, its not just me!  And I don't think I'm the one with the communication problem!


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> This you can then use to visualize better what I mean with the taan da you describe and how it is off as a tool for comparison or argumenting.



From your point of view. There are others who do _taan-da_ just as I described, but whatever. Let's look at what you do then.



> We dont create a taan sau, it gets created for us as a tool to get a clearer path to our opponent. Meaning, there is no seeking a taan sau, if there is nothing it would simply be a punch instead.



You guys say this all the time, but what is shown is just moving straight forward with a _man-sau _that doesn't start out with the intent to punch. In fact, it is just walked straight into the opponent's arms like a zombie, thinking it's going to "wedge" things out of the way. Starting like this, without the intent to punch from the beginning, the converted punch will lack speed, power, and accuracy.

That's the first issue. Second, he is walking straight up an occupied and well guarded center that he knows he will not likely just walk through. Why? He's walking into an obstruction knowing he will most likely have to convert to _taan_ or _bong_ or something else to get around it.

That may be "direct" but it's not intelligent. Nor is it efficient, because now he has to do several things in order to get around the obstacle he just mindlessly walked into. He has to change his shape, his footwork, his facing, his angles. Everything. Not so direct after all.

(I think this comes from a misconception of _man/wu_ and an obsession with occupying the center, all due to missing elements of strategy. _Cham-kiu_, seeking the bridge. Many interpret the bridge as contact with an opponent, so they walk straight forward with outstretched arms expecting to run into contact and work their _chi-sau_ skills. For me, the bridge is the most simple and direct path to the target. Has nothing to do with touching arms, and walking straight up the middle into an occupied center is not it!)

Third, his arm is converted to _taan_ before he steps through and punches, or perhaps as he steps, but before the punch. Problem is, from the moment contact is made with the lead hand, both people have the same amount of reaction time. It will come down to which of them is faster, more direct, and powerful.

Stepping through like that isn't going to be fast or powerful. It's a full step forward changing direction, alignment is broken during the step and the punch has no base behind/under it. And obviously it isn't direct, as it's moving around an obstacle.

For the opponent, @0:35 say, all he needs to do is sharply _jat_+punch to cut him off and knock him out with a direct power shot before any of the rest of his idea gets to play out. Simple, direct, done.


----------



## LFJ

@KPM

So, you're in the camp that says to step into a round punch and block it with _taan-sau_?



KPM said:


> ---Majority fallacy?   I'm simply pointing out that when the entire Wing Chun world other than you and your little pocket see no problem with something, then you have to start  questioning what you've been told.



Well, look... There are many lines stemming from YM. It is all supposed to be or to have come from the same system, except for a couple who claim "final" or "traditional" versions. 

So, when I look around at other YM derived Wing Chun, I notice a lot of indirect and inefficient tactics that appear to be workarounds and gap-fills for the lack of certain elements of strategy, as I've been saying. They just don't quite work logically or so much in practice. 

With a more coherent system having answers that render these workarounds unnecessary, and that isn't in direct conflict with fundamental principles of the system, I can honestly say what I train stands up to questioning and testing. Others not so much, but I'm supposed to accept their ideas because there are more people who hold them? That's an Appeal to the Majority.


----------



## Vajramusti

I choose not to use the same interpretations of terms that several people are using on this thread.
Entire body structure details are relevant in understanding wing chun applications.
Several people seem to be more oriented towards just the hands.


----------



## KPM

So, you're in the camp that says to step into a round punch and block it with _taan-sau_?

---I won't even dignify that with a response, since you are clearly just trolling.

So, when I look around at other YM derived Wing Chun, I notice a lot of indirect and inefficient tactics that appear to be workarounds and gap-fills for the lack of certain elements of strategy, as I've been saying.

---Maybe what you are seeing is Wing Chun that has a little broader perspective than yours.  Maybe you are seeing Wing Chun that allows for other things rather than blasting in with a maximum response as its only option.  Maybe you are seeing Wing Chun that allows for more controlling elements and Chin Na elements.  Maybe you are so focused on your "one-dimensional" approach that you can't see the logic in anything that is different? 

They just don't quite work logically or so much in practice.

---And that is only your opinion.   You did not answer my points about what you seem to think is "inefficient" and "indirect" in my prior post.  You seem incapable considering a viewpoint that differs from your own.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> An example is in the video below (only one I can find). You'll see as he attempts to wedge the opponent out he is forced to raise his arm up, so much so that he's "punching" to the top of the guy's forehead with his elbow popped way up, or even fanning his elbow in order keep the opponent out. The focus is not actually on delivering a decisive blow, but wrestling for the line. This is the result of missing strategy elements, starting from _man/wu_ misconceptions, and an obsession with "occupying center" at the expense of solid punches with body mass behind them.



Hmmm. I agree with most of your critique of that videoclip (post # 119). That's Alex Wallenwein. He originally got some training in the EWTO and then became an LT seminar student here in the States before breaking off to join another group. For demo purposes, I could accept the punching at the forehead (too high for actual application) and prematurely extended punch with a locked elbow (too far away to hit), but the excessively out-turned elbow does seem problematic to me.

On the other hand, I find much to like in Sifu Fernandez' stuff. The aggressive use of footwork and forward pressure is loosely reminiscent of some WSL VT clips.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> You seem incapable considering a viewpoint that differs from your own.



Nonsense! LFJ frequently considers viewpoints other than his own.





...and then summarily dismisses them as _rubbish._


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> WSL. ex-brother in law (not Chinese)- I forget his name at  this moment was/is quite good. Has lived in HK,Oz and Germany.
> Folks dont seem to mention him much.He wrote some good articles as well.



Yes!  Barry Lee!  WSL's brother in law.  Widely noted as one of if not THE best fighter to come out of WSL's school.

Here's a pic of Barry Lee:

Robert Vogel jr. en Barry Lee

Now, that can't be a Tan Da he is doing!  Surely WSL wouldn't teach his own brother in law and one of his best fighters a sub-standard version of Wing Chun!


----------



## Danny T

There several so called 'applications' used to show and for beginners (sometimes intermediate) level practitioners to view and understand principles. There are several 'drills' utilized to physically apply those principles to gain a greater level of understanding and to ability to actually do. Unfortunately many never learn the difference in using a demo or a drill to gain a mental and physical understanding and actually applying that understanding against a full force attack/s. Many inside the guard demos or drills are about defending, attacking, or controlling the centerline while application in a fight may well be on the outside of the guard.


----------



## PiedmontChun

Let's break out this classis: 




@8:26-9:30 WSL clearly uses a Tan-Da when presenting the 'Four Gates' Principle. WSL guys like LFJ and Guy: Is this something WSL taught to introduce concept only and not actual application? If yes, then it seems superfluous to teach it at all. If it IS for application, then why all the finger pointing here that other lineages doing this are doing so against the basic principles of VT?

To be clear, some of the pictures posted earlier do show a Tan-Da that I was never taught, being that the elbow is coming out wider than its normal position and the Tan hand essentially 'chasing' the opponent's arm. Keeping the elbow in closer to the centerline like WSL does here in this video is more similar (appearance wise) to how I was taught and how I know LT/WT people use Tan.

Also, @ 7:41 WSL sends a hand out and it becomes a Lop once it meets the opponent's punch, to which he then punches over with the other hand in a 1-2 fashion. It is common for my LT offshoot school to teach and do drills like this, but we use Tan hand shape as well since it can disperse an incoming punch off the centerline, and depending on the vector it might have even stronger structure. What is wrong or out of 'VT principle' with that?

I'm not trying to be a troll; its an honest question from someone with no experience in WSLVT. I've watched this entire cringe-worthy thread from the sidelines scratching my head why this is such a huge deal at all.


----------



## JPinAZ

I can't believe this argument is still going on. Regardless of any disagreements in application or methods, once you consider how often and quick some are to put others down, call names, belittle other's views.call them 'stupid', etc the discussion is over. This forum has been a great place for sharing and honest dialog. This is not the place for these child-like actions and it only pulls this great forum down to levels other forums started falling apart at. If individuals can't refrain from getting personal maybe this isn't the forum for them.

That said, I'm with Piedmont on scratching my head on why this is such a big deal, and find it rather funny that there has to be this level of disagreement over a f'g taan sau! It really isn't that complicated.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So, you're in the camp that says to step into a round punch and block it with _taan-sau_?
> 
> ---I won't even dignify that with a response, since you are clearly just trolling.



Not at all. You described that exact response, with a punch, against CLF type round punches and seem to think it a good idea. If you own that opinion, I can send you to some posts where it has already been discussed so we need not spend more time repeating it.



> ---Maybe what you are seeing is Wing Chun that has a little broader perspective than yours.  Maybe you are seeing Wing Chun that allows for other things rather than blasting in with a maximum response as its only option.  Maybe you are seeing Wing Chun that allows for more controlling elements and Chin Na elements.  Maybe you are so focused on your "one-dimensional" approach that you can't see the logic in anything that is different?



I see how you might think like that having only seen one side of the equation. All I can do is suggest you, and others, go and experience it for yourself. Hear the thinking, give it a go, then see what sort of impression you walk away with. Until you do that, you really have no frame of reference to be making comparisons.



> You seem incapable considering a viewpoint that differs from your own.



No? You must have missed every post where I've taken the time to detailedly explain why I don't agree with specific ideas. I can consider them, but don't have to accept them. 

I've made two such posts on this thread addressing what anyone can see on videos. No one has made counterpoints to the problems I see yet. In fact, geezer agreed on the first one.

That is the trend I've seen. No one makes counterpoints to the problems I point out, some even agree, and no one points out serious flaws in my approach besides "ugh, it's too one-dimensional". People will post videos of PB but not really find much to critique.

So, what am I led to believe? You want me to think I'm missing something? You'll have to do better than that.



> Now, that can't be a Tan Da he is doing! Surely WSL wouldn't teach his own brother in law and one of his best fighters a sub-standard version of Wing Chun!



Why look at photos and make assumptions about what they actually teach? Better to go find out for yourself. BL is a bit of a legend, a mystery. I haven't seen him in much action. Have you? To be honest, I've seen some stuff coming from his line that is quite shocking. But having not seen him, I can't make a judgement, much less should you!

Btw, the previous lineage of the other guy is one that WSL didn't want to embarrass when he was invited to the Netherlands for seminars and so taught "mainstream" ideas, like _taan-da_ which the other sifu was teaching his students.


----------



## LFJ

PiedmontChun said:


> @8:26-9:30 WSL clearly uses a Tan-Da when presenting the 'Four Gates' Principle. WSL guys like LFJ and Guy: Is this something WSL taught to introduce concept only and not actual application? If yes, then it seems superfluous to teach it at all. If it IS for application, then why all the finger pointing here that other lineages doing this are doing so against the basic principles of VT?



This old tape has been discussed before. WSL intentionally put several mistakes in it. It's called "marking" for public consumption. Very common in TCMAs. Not worth discussing. Standing right in front of someone and dealing with "four gates" is not an efficient method. _Taan-sau_ as a defensive technique was born out of man/wu misconceptions and an obsession with occupying center.



> Also, @ 7:41 WSL sends a hand out and it becomes a Lop once it meets the opponent's punch, to which he then punches over with the other hand in a 1-2 fashion. It is common for my LT offshoot school to teach and do drills like this, but we use Tan hand shape as well since it can disperse an incoming punch off the centerline, and depending on the vector it might have even stronger structure. What is wrong or out of 'VT principle' with that?



Two arms against one, when one would suffice. Superfluous. WSL used to say if it can be simpler and more direct, _that_ is VT.



> I've watched this entire cringe-worthy thread from the sidelines scratching my head why this is such a huge deal at all.





JPinAZ said:


> That said, I'm with Piedmont on scratching my head on why this is such a big deal, and find it rather funny that there has to be this level of disagreement over a f'g taan sau! It really isn't that complicated.



It's not just about _taan-sau_, it's about the entire fighting strategy of the system! If you can't see that, you might be caught up looking at techniques and scenarios. It's much more than _taan-sau_. Look at my response to the video Phobius posted. It's about intelligent strategy where none of that would be necessary.


----------



## LFJ

JPinAZ said:


> Regardless of any disagreements in application or methods, once you consider how often and quick some are to put others down, call names, belittle other's views.call them 'stupid', etc the discussion is over.



To be honest, I may have misread Phobius' question and thought he was just being silly. Lighten up.

I've given an honest and detailed response explaining why I disagree with the presented method. No one should feel belittled by logic. Just consider the points I've made, and if you disagree, explain precisely why my critique is invalid. Or accept it and explore further.


----------



## KPM

I've made two such posts on this thread addressing what anyone can see on videos. No one has made counterpoints to the problems I see yet. In fact, geezer agreed on the first one.

---Are you blind?  I most certainly did provide counterpoints to when you claimed the picture of a Tan Da you posted was "inefficient" and "indirect."   Should I call you a liar, as you did me?  


So, what am I led to believe? You want me to think I'm missing something? You'll have to do better than that.

---Yes!  I think you are so sold on what you are doing that you are incapable of seeing the logic in what others are doing as being just as valid.  Two different approaches doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong.   WSLVT works for you!  That's great!  Post about what you like about it and why it works.  That doesn't require belittling everyone else's Wing Chun.   Just like Guy, you seem incapable of having polite and tactful discussions.  Is that something they teach in WSLVT?  


Why look at photos and make assumptions about what they actually teach?

---Well, you keep saying that WSLVT would never use a Tan Da because it is "inefficient" and "indirect."  Yet I can find photos of several WSL people, including WSL himself doing exactly that!   Makes me think YOU don't really know as much as you think you know.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> ---Yes!  I think you are so sold on what you are doing that you are incapable of seeing the logic in what others are doing as being just as valid.  Two different approaches doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong.   WSLVT works for you!  That's great!  Post about what you like about it and why it works.  That doesn't require belittling everyone else's Wing Chun.



I think we all drink our koolaid one way or another. Clearly the koolaid over at WSL VT must be really tasty!  

The pattern seems to be that person X (who spent lots of time/money/effort etc learning lineage Y) has now found out that lineage Z is the best gig in town and now feel it is their job to shout from the rooftops so the rest of us (apparently) blind idiots can follow suit.

It plagued that other forum with the dynamic duo from wslpbvt...hopefully it doesn't happen here(?)

I've learned a lot about all of you guys and your viewpoints on WC/WT/VT and am hoping the adult conversations continue. I don't really care about the hype of certain threads or individuals; mostly due to the fact that they are probably living on the other side of the planet and not likely to be able to meet up with them to physically compare/contrast. I would, however, still buy them a pint or two if we ever do meet up!  

As for the two different approaches...if the ultimate goal is to hit/strike/drop the bad guy...whether that happens with "one arm against two" or the other "inefficient" way seems a strange argument and revolves around ones own interpretation on just what the term 'efficient' means.

Early morning rant over now...continue drinking koolaid!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> you seem incapable of having polite and tactful discussions. Is that something they teach in WSLVT?





> ---Are you blind?



Where did you pick it up?



> I've made two such posts on this thread addressing what anyone can see on videos. No one has made counterpoints to the problems I see yet. In fact, geezer agreed on the first one.
> 
> ---Are you blind?  I most certainly did provide counterpoints to when you claimed the picture of a Tan Da you posted was "inefficient" and "indirect."   Should I call you a liar, as you did me?



Are _you_ blind? I'm referring to two specific posts where I discussed methods proposed by others. The first of which was covering two ideas _you_ brought up, but you went silent after I critiqued them. No counterpoints provided.

Phobius seemed to think the picture I posted was a bit of a strawman. So I asked him to provide a clip to avoid misrepresentation, and I then detailed the issues I saw with the proposed method. Maybe he's busy and hasn't gotten back, but once again, no counterpoints have been made.

Why don't you present a clip of your method of _taan-da _so you aren't misrepresented, and you can fully defend your own ideas?

Regarding your response to the picture, I would call what you said hardly counterpoints. I'll quote you from that post:



> the Wing Chun guy has given himself an extra little bit of insurance and protection from getting hit. And you think that is "inefficient"???



Yup, because if he used a more efficient strategy than walking into a round punch, as you seem to interpret the picture, it would be unnecessary.



> And he is punching with one hand while defending with the other. Because when I look at that picture I see someone defending against a wide punch, not someone that has redirected a centerline punch outward. You think that is "indirect"??



Yup, because one hand is chasing outward to the wide punch, meaning a lot of his energy is not directed at the opponent. If he had a more intelligent overall strategy, both hands could be directed at the opponent and he'd only need to gamble like that as a very last resort if he really screwed things up.

Anyway, if you would rather not discuss a still picture that neither of us made, you're welcome to post a video representing your method of _taan-da_.



> I think you are so sold on what you are doing that you are incapable of seeing the logic in what others are doing as being just as valid.



Not true, because I've been through some of those ideas and was previously sold on them, until I learned a more direct and efficient method (because serious martial artists tend to continue in honest exploration). 

It's impossible for me to turn back to what is now clear to me as quite indirect and inefficient methods. When I find something just as valid as what I know now, I'll acknowledge it. And if I find something more direct and efficient than what I know now, I'll gladly adopt it.



> Why look at photos and make assumptions about what they actually teach?
> 
> ---Well, you keep saying that WSLVT would never use a Tan Da because it is "inefficient" and "indirect."  Yet I can find photos of several WSL people, including WSL himself doing exactly that!   Makes me think YOU don't really know as much as you think you know.



And how many of them have you trained with, spoken to, asked about it?

You still prefer to look at photos and make up your own mind when it has already been explained to you why WSL has shown _taan-da_ on certain occasions and why it is not part of the system? I think maybe you are sold on what you do and want to validate it rather than face the facts.

Again, I'll suggest you seek out some instructors of quality WSLVT and see for yourself, then form an opinion.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> As for the two different approaches...if the ultimate goal is to hit/strike/drop the bad guy...whether that happens with "one arm against two" or the other "inefficient" way seems a strange argument and revolves around ones own interpretation on just what the term 'efficient' means.



Why do you train Wing Chun as opposed to any other martial art then?

I think efficiency is very well defined in VT. It's really not something to be freely interpreted in different ways, IMO.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Why do you train Wing Chun as opposed to any other martial art then?



Because it is efficient.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Because it is efficient.



So you value efficiency, but don't see why one would pursue the most efficient method? That seems strange.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> So you value efficiency, but don't see why one would pursue the most efficient method? That seems strange.



So, in your opinion...the WSL method is the "most efficient method". That's cool. To me, my way of WC is also efficient. You guys like to emphasize one arm vs two...other WC does this also. I don't know which lineage of WC you originally learned prior to WSL; so it is difficult to know exactly why you are so adamant. I think its great that you and Guy found a more efficient method. I look forward to the day when I can link up with a properly trained practitioner of the WSL / PB(?) VT methods so I can see for myself first hand. 
Bottom line for me is I think I was born with two arms so I'm going to deploy these assets in the most efficient manner possible.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> So, in your opinion...the WSL method is the "most efficient method".



Didn't say that. It's just what my exploration has led me to. Thus far, of the methods presented, I think it can be logically argued and practically demonstrated quite clearly as being the most efficient. But when I find something more efficient, I'll be adopting it. 

I can only suggest people make the effort to seek it out and experience it for themselves and see what sort of impression they come away with. For some that may mean taking an impossible trip. And if that's impossible, I'd just suggest other styles.


----------



## KPM

Are _you_ blind? I'm referring to two specific posts where I discussed methods proposed by others. The first of which was covering two ideas _you_ brought up, but you went silent after I critiqued them. No counterpoints provided.

----

wckf92 said: ↑
So, in your opinion...the WSL method is the "most efficient method".

LFJ said:
Didn't say that. It's just what my exploration has led me to.

---I'm done.  This guy is beyond belief!     He has proven that he cannot carry on a coherent and logical conversation.   On to other things!  This thread needs to come to an end.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Didn't say that. It's just what my exploration has led me to.



Agreed. My exploration has done the same. 




LFJ said:


> Thus far, of the methods presented, I think it can be logically argued and practically demonstrated quite clearly as being the most efficient.



Outstanding! But this would be based on ones views on efficiency. 



LFJ said:


> I can only suggest people make the effort to seek it out and experience it for themselves and see what sort of impression they come away with. For some that may mean taking an impossible trip.



Yup... believe me if I am ever passing through the NYC area I'll plan on stopping by the WSL gym there. Or, perhaps PB gives seminars in the US some times?


----------



## LFJ

@KPM

Post #119. Coherent enough for you? 

Feel free to remain silent again. I never got the impression you were a serious martial artist willing to examine critiques on what you do. So, I'm not bothered if you wish to exit the thread.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Agreed. My exploration has done the same.



Cool. Let's keep it up.



> Outstanding! But this would be based on ones views on efficiency.



Indeed, but views on efficiency can be changed. I used to think inefficient things were efficient.



> Yup... believe me if I am ever passing through the NYC area I'll plan on stopping by the WSL gym there. Or, perhaps PB gives seminars in the US some times?



He does. You'll have to keep an eye on it.


----------



## Danny T

Ho hummm. Guys this is has been such bore.
Strategy is great. 
Using one arm against one is efficient. I believe we can all agree with that, at least I can.
How many times does that work every time. What do you do when it doesn't happen? You continue with your attack and get hit as well? Or do you adjust and then advance with your attack? What do you do when your attack has been countered? 
Guess what you have just become inefficient! Now what do you do? You Have To Do A Different Move!! Oh the Inefficiency of it all. The reality is you train to strike and not get struck but you do get struck. Now how do you deal with it? Get struck again or counter attack using a secondary move? Or is your attitude a Na man if you had trained properly you would not have got struck to begin with. Mine is I accept I will get hit (don't want to; train not to) but I know I will. How do you deal with the reality not the Strategy, Not the Theory.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Indeed, but views on efficiency can be changed. I used to think inefficient things were efficient.



Absolutely true! haha. As my journey through the WC land has led me...I've even found more efficient ways of doing things inside the same school of thought.    Just didn't recognize till I'd acquired more time/training/experience. Ce La Vie I reckon.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> @KPM
> 
> Post #119. Coherent enough for you?
> 
> Feel free to remain silent again. I never got the impression you were a serious martial artist willing to examine critiques on what you do. So, I'm not bothered if you wish to exit the thread.


----------



## Phobius

Sorry but I am kind of busy during normal days. After all we all train as much as we can, this forum is just for those hours where our body needs the rest or otherwise don´t work to fund our basic needs.

Anyways the things you posted about the video, I would like to say in my view you are trying to visualize this technique as if used forcible in a fight that is believed to occur just like in demonstration, it is not. There is an intent to do taan sau upon certain situations. That intent is felt through and if the moment persists it will become visible but otherwise it will move on to another movement. We dont do techniques in fight like some planned chess game.



LFJ said:


> You guys say this all the time, but what is shown is just moving straight forward with a _man-sau _that doesn't start out with the intent to punch. In fact, it is just walked straight into the opponent's arms like a zombie, thinking it's going to "wedge" things out of the way.



Actually the answer is yes and no, that "zombie bridge" is just a well used drill to
learn about the feeling and building up tension. (In this case to demonstrate) 
Problem starting out with punching is that it will be flawed unless done with full intent. Full intent would cause many students to lose their body structure or start doing taan sau as a stressed technique rather than a natural move due to tension.



LFJ said:


> Starting like this, without the intent to punch from the beginning, the converted punch will lack speed, power, and accuracy.



This is just a drill, or in the video it is simply a slow description of taan sau.



LFJ said:


> That's the first issue. Second, he is walking straight up an occupied and well guarded center that he knows he will not likely just walk through. Why? He's walking into an obstruction knowing he will most likely have to convert to _taan_ or _bong_ or something else to get around it.



Pretty sure I said that elbow collapse is not part of what I am doing, just like in the movie there
is no just walk through attack here. It most likely look that way because of lack of intent in his student.
When you learn how tension works there is no point moving more than enough to exit the path of his punch and use that angle to attack him.



LFJ said:


> That may be "direct" but it's not intelligent. Nor is it efficient, because now he has to do several things in order to get around the obstacle he just mindlessly walked into. He has to change his shape, his footwork, his facing, his angles. Everything. Not so direct after all.



Not sure where you see this happening, he has a clear path to attack his opponent.
Only exception I could see was when he was talking about if an opponent pushes him hard,
something his opponent did not do which made it look rather odd. @0:40



LFJ said:


> (I think this comes from a misconception of _man/wu_ and an obsession with occupying the center, all due to missing elements of strategy. _Cham-kiu_, seeking the bridge. Many interpret the bridge as contact with an opponent, so they walk straight forward with outstretched arms expecting to run into contact and work their _chi-sau_ skills. For me, the bridge is the most simple and direct path to the target. Has nothing to do with touching arms, and walking straight up the middle into an occupied center is not it!)



This you need to show what you mean it should have been, but keep in mind that scenario of walking in
like a zombie is nothing more than simple drill to get basics. Advanced use is for more live action drills.
Also note that taan sau only exist for a very short moment in case of punch. If it even becomes a taan sau at all. Not all techniques are always needed against a quick jab however.



LFJ said:


> Third, his arm is converted to _taan_ before he steps through and punches, or perhaps as he steps, but before the punch. Problem is, from the moment contact is made with the lead hand, both people have the same amount of reaction time. It will come down to which of them is faster, more direct, and powerful.


Taan sau has nothing to do with the punching. Taan da or not to taan da, the situation decides.



LFJ said:


> Stepping through like that isn't going to be fast or powerful. It's a full step forward changing direction, alignment is broken during the step and the punch has no base behind/under it. And obviously it isn't direct, as it's moving around an obstacle.



So you never move to the sides, sidestepping in towards your opponent? If you do, you will notice that body structure is intact all through the movement and in many cases, but not all, the power of such a move is present in a punch as well.



LFJ said:


> For the opponent, @0:35 say, all he needs to do is sharply _jat_+punch to cut him off and knock him out with a direct power shot before any of the rest of his idea gets to play out. Simple, direct, done.



Yes his opponent can, and then he can react to such a movement. There are no unbeatable techniques.
Keep in mind that if you want to train taan sau, you need to do so in a scenario where you can prolong its existence.

Everyone can make more moves. I usually see it like this, if I make a move, you can make a move. When you made a move that leaves me the option to make a new move as well.

Please, those kind of comments I dont even know how to counter because they are unrealistic. If something changes then taan sau is no longer kept, believing anything else would go against WC/VT and you know this well enough.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Everyone can make more moves. I usually see it like this, if I make a move, you can make a move. When you made a move that leaves me the option to make a new move as well.



With respect this is a terrible gambling way to approach fighting. It is like taking turns rolling a die, with everyone having a different number of sides depending on physical capability. A more intelligent approach is to impose upon the opponent, forcing them to react in a predictable way, and taking advantage of that reaction. 

Can you not see the simple calculation being presented by LFJ in terms of tan blocking one hand and punching with the other (50:50, you both have one hand left), vs covering with the punch and punching angle every time it is made (ups the % in your favour)?


----------



## paitingman

I can see everyone's points. And have been agreeing with everyone's posts as a silent reader of this thread. 
I just want to see a video or get a clear explanation of Tan-punch or Jam-punch. 

Honestly I thought it was the same as excluding punch or including punch or wedge punching or whatever, but now that LFJ has repeatedly said it is NOT that, I'm just super interested and curious as to what tan-punch looks like in action


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> With respect this is a terrible gambling way to approach fighting. It is like taking turns rolling a die, with everyone having a different number of sides depending on physical capability. A more intelligent approach is to impose upon the opponent, forcing them to react in a predictable way, and taking advantage of that reaction.
> 
> Can you not see the simple calculation being presented by LFJ in terms of tan blocking one hand and punching with the other (50:50, you both have one hand left), vs covering with the punch and punching angle every time it is made (ups the % in your favour)?



None of this changes the fact that there is always a counter move.

And you are wrong, sorry to say. There is no gambling to know what those counter moves are and being prepared, as such you lead your opponent without them perhaps seeing it.

The gambling is when you believe they can do nothing.

Also no, an opponent can have both hands controlled simply by breaking their posture. Also a punch as in the situation above is controlling, you can not see that?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Actually the answer is yes and no, that "zombie bridge" is just a well used drill to
> learn about the feeling and building up tension. (In this case to demonstrate)



Why?

That's one of the major mistakes guys try to de-train when they change lineages. Previously, in _gwo-sau _they'd start out from contact in _chi-sau_ and as soon as distance was made, they'd stretch their arms out like zombies trying to feel for arms and get back into contact where they feel safe and comfortable.

This creates a bad habit that carries over to free sparring and fighting. Many guys come and say their stuff worked great when drilling with likeminded people, but when things got loose in free sparring, especially with other styles, suddenly nothing worked anymore. And these are often "high level" practitioners and instructors of many years in their previous lineages.

Of course you will say that's not what they should be doing. They know that too, but it's an ingrained habit, perhaps a side effect from the way you train, the strategy and tactics, the focus on "feeling".



> Problem starting out with punching is that it will be flawed unless done with full intent. Full intent would cause many students to lose their body structure or start doing taan sau as a stressed technique rather than a natural move due to tension.



The issue here isn't whether you start with an intent to punch or just enter with an outstretched _man-sau_, the problem is the fact that you're going straight into an already occupied and well guarded center knowing you will not likely just walk through someone and will have to change.



> Pretty sure I said that elbow collapse is not part of what I am doing, just like in the movie there
> is no just walk through attack here. It most likely look that way because of lack of intent in his student.
> When you learn how tension works there is no point moving more than enough to exit the path of his punch and use that angle to attack him.



Don't you see the problem here? You have to "exit the path of his punch" because you were walking straight into it to begin with!



> _That may be "direct" but it's not intelligent. Nor is it efficient, because now he has to do several things in order to get around the obstacle he just mindlessly walked into. He has to change his shape, his footwork, his facing, his angles. Everything. Not so direct after all._
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where you see this happening, he has a clear path to attack his opponent.
> Only exception I could see was when he was talking about if an opponent pushes him hard,
> something his opponent did not do which made it look rather odd. @0:40
Click to expand...


Not sure? He even said "my footwork changes" @0:18 as he rotates his body and angle from straight on to coming in from the side. He's forced to do all of this precisely because he doesn't have a clear path to attack directly!

This problem is one he brought on himself by going straight into an occupied center hoping the opponent's structure would be weak, then having to change when the opponent resists, as is the natural reaction of any conscious human being...



> _(I think this comes from a misconception of man/wu and an obsession with occupying the center, all due to missing elements of strategy. Cham-kiu, seeking the bridge. Many interpret the bridge as contact with an opponent, so they walk straight forward with outstretched arms expecting to run into contact and work their chi-sau skills. For me, the bridge is the most simple and direct path to the target. Has nothing to do with touching arms, and walking straight up the middle into an occupied center is not it!)_
> 
> 
> 
> This you need to show what you mean it should have been, but keep in mind that scenario of walking in
> like a zombie is nothing more than simple drill to get basics.
Click to expand...


Basics of flawed strategy and tactics, that is.

Do you understand what YM is showing in this photo? If you think in terms of what he might be doing to an invisible opponent, you will miss the point entirely.









> Taan sau has nothing to do with the punching. Taan da or not to taan da, the situation decides.



Isn't it your theory that you let the opponent create your _taan-sau_ and turn you with their punch if it is too strong?



> So you never move to the sides, sidestepping in towards your opponent?



As shown, never. Because I follow more intelligent guidelines for engaging an opponent which don't entail going straight up an occupied center so that I have to take a detour around them.



> Yes his opponent can, and then he can react to such a movement. There are no unbeatable techniques.



Problem is, he's in the middle of a large, committed action taking a full step and making a change of direction. At that moment he will be caught mid-action both physically and mentally. It will be extremely difficult to recover from that. Plus the fact that he has one foot on the floor and no base behind the line of an incoming right hand punch.

The opponent at this moment can sharply _jat-da_, simple and direct, to cut him off. The _jat _will destroy his balance and facing (especially since he is mid-step), resulting in the effect of the punch likely being a decisive one. 

Even when he completes his step, his position is as someone standing straight with parallel feet. Receiving a power shot in such a position usually spells knockout. Also, nothing has been done to prevent action from the opponent well before any of this plan gets to play out. There is still plenty of space for a sharp turn to face with a power shot.

Sure, nothing is 100% and maybe he could recover somehow. But as guy b. already said, fighting is a numbers game and the odds are stacked greatly against him, and he did it to himself!


----------



## LFJ

paitingman said:


> Honestly I thought it was the same as excluding punch or including punch or wedge punching or whatever, but now that LFJ has repeatedly said it is NOT that, I'm just super interested and curious as to what tan-punch looks like in action



In action, it looks like "just a punch". That was a critique some made of WSL's fights. He "just punched and kicked". But that's what VT is!

It's subtle, not a technique. It is not in reference to what an opponent is doing and how I use my elbow or contort my arm to wedge them out this way or that depending on what they do. Without understanding overall strategy and tactics, you will be seeing "just a punch".

It's strategic. It's trained throughout the dummy form, which many take as techniques against an opponent. They see the arms as representing a human or punches. Rather it's a tool to refine our own actions within the limitations of our own structure.

Many are obsessed with occupying the center. So they hold their _man/wu _on the center and move straight forward with it, aiming to wedge things out. This breaks things into "4 gates" and they are forced to use one hand to defend one of these gates while the other hand punches. Inefficient. Or they are forced to make a detour and cut back in on an incoming attack because they are stuck on the center. Indirect.

It's more about spatial domination that doesn't require stubbornly occupying the center. The correct position and path of _wu-sau_ is taught in CK where it forms a punching unit with _bong-sau _(aka _kwan-sau_). But people are too focused on application ideas that they entirely miss the strategic ones. 

Rather than 4 gates, I want to cut that in half in such a way that I only need to use one arm with dual functions in direct attack, and two such arms in rotation to sustain an unthinking assault regardless what the opponent does. I don't want to defend with techniques at the mercy of my opponent. I will get set up. I want to protect space while attacking so that I need not think and decide which hand to use where. I want to impose upon the opponent, as guy b. says. Take their space and facing away, limiting their options for response. 

I also don't want to let them turn me, as some lineages do. Overturning on one's own is hard enough not to do in the heat of a fight. Training against this begins in CK, where most focus on elbow strikes and other application ideas. We turn the opponent or if the opponent turns themselves, we let them overshoot, taking advantage of the mistake, and taking whichever side they expose. The opponent shows us how to hit them.

But in action, and to the untrained eye, you will only see "just a punch".


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Why?
> 
> That's one of the major mistakes guys try to de-train when they change lineages. Previously, in _gwo-sau _they'd start out from contact in _chi-sau_ and as soon as distance was made, they'd stretch their arms out like zombies trying to feel for arms and get back into contact where they feel safe and comfortable.
> 
> This creates a bad habit that carries over to free sparring and fighting. Many guys come and say their stuff worked great when drilling with likeminded people, but when things got loose in free sparring, especially with other styles, suddenly nothing worked anymore. And these are often "high level" practitioners and instructors of many years in their previous lineages.
> 
> Of course you will say that's not what they should be doing. They know that too, but it's an ingrained habit, perhaps a side effect from the way you train, the strategy and tactics, the focus on "feeling".



So you want to discuss taan sau or drills? You cant do both. If advanced students spend their time doing this drill that should be the core of the problem. You need to move on to drills with intent. Those instructors you met, have they not gotten bored doing basic drills?



LFJ said:


> The issue here isn't whether you start with an intent to punch or just enter with an outstretched _man-sau_, the problem is the fact that you're going straight into an already occupied and well guarded center knowing you will not likely just walk through someone and will have to change.



You do know that noone will punch so slowly that you can know whether or not to walk into a guarded center. There will come a time when you do, for those times you need to know what to do if the situation arises.

Or are you saying taan sau in this discussion has to be some sort of main technique behind all WC? It is just one more tool in the box, nothing more.



LFJ said:


> Don't you see the problem here? You have to "exit the path of his punch" because you were walking straight into it to begin with!



You don't think that will ever happen to you? Such a scenario will happen to everyone. Taan sau is not a goal. Saying it again, it is just one of those tools you have in your box. More in chi sau perhaps than in a real fight except if you are not really prepared, slow to react, suprised, being grabbed...  what not. There are more situations than competition or sparring.



LFJ said:


> Not sure? He even said "my footwork changes" @0:18 as he rotates his body and angle from straight on to coming in from the side. He's forced to do all of this precisely because he doesn't have a clear path to attack directly!



One thing I do agree with, he is not really side stepping. Does not mean someone can't sidestep into your opponent. I am guessing Fernandez has a natural boxer instinct popping up every now and then.



LFJ said:


> This problem is one he brought on himself by going straight into an occupied center hoping the opponent's structure would be weak, then having to change when the opponent resists, as is the natural reaction of any conscious human being...





He is going on the outside of his opponent and in some cases attacking his opponents opposite shoulder line to conquer his balance and structure. That means his first punch will be more of a control followed up by his second punch. Of course his opponent can shift his own structure to attack but that would be sensed.



LFJ said:


> Do you understand what YM is showing in this photo? If you think in terms of what he might be doing to an invisible opponent, you will miss the point entirely.



The question was as to how "Walk straight into opponent" has anything to do with taan sau. You can have an opponent walk into you, dont you know? There are other styles of fighting other than WC and such opponents dont follow your plan of perfect WSLVT movements.



LFJ said:


> Isn't it your theory that you let the opponent create your _taan-sau_ and turn you with their punch if it is too strong?





Yes but you talk as if the punching was that of second hand, not the taan sau hand. Actually in all talks about zombie hand you keep on talking as if it was not seen as a punch.



LFJ said:


> As shown, never. Because I follow more intelligent guidelines for engaging an opponent which don't entail going straight up an occupied center so that I have to take a detour around them.



You are starting to sound one dimensional. This was a discussion about taan sau. You wanted to know what I meant, now you wish to discuss sidestepping? It exists and it works, trust me. Might not be part of WSLVT as part of the underground teachings but it is there for me.



LFJ said:


> Problem is, he's in the middle of a large, committed action taking a full step and making a change of direction. At that moment he will be caught mid-action both physically and mentally. It will be extremely difficult to recover from that. Plus the fact that he has one foot on the floor and no base behind the line of an incoming right hand punch.



You are welcome to discuss this with Fernandez, his stepping was not part of the discussion.



LFJ said:


> The opponent at this moment can sharply _jat-da_, simple and direct, to cut him off. The _jat _will destroy his balance and facing (especially since he is mid-step), resulting in the effect of the punch likely being a decisive one.



You mean shift himself so to attack the centerline of Fernandez? Sure it might be possible. Most likely going to happen during a planned demonstration on a YouTube clip however. If it would that shift is noticable.



LFJ said:


> Even when he completes his step, his position is as someone standing straight with parallel feet. Receiving a power shot in such a position usually spells knockout. Also, nothing has been done to prevent action from the opponent well before any of this plan gets to play out. There is still plenty of space for a sharp turn to face with a power shot.
> 
> Sure, nothing is 100% and maybe he could recover somehow. But as guy b. already said, fighting is a numbers game and the odds are stacked greatly against him, and he did it to himself!



You are free to tell Fernandez this, has nothing to do with the taan sau discussion itself.


----------



## DaveB

LFJ said:


> In action, it looks like "just a punch". That was a critique some made of WSL's fights. He "just punched and kicked". But that's what VT is!
> 
> It's subtle, not a technique. It is not in reference to what an opponent is doing and how I use my elbow or contort my arm to wedge them out this way or that depending on what they do. Without understanding overall strategy and tactics, you will be seeing "just a punch".
> 
> It's strategic. It's trained throughout the dummy form, which many take as techniques against an opponent. They see the arms as representing a human or punches. Rather it's a tool to refine our own actions within the limitations of our own structure.
> 
> Many are obsessed with occupying the center. So they hold their _man/wu _on the center and move straight forward with it, aiming to wedge things out. This breaks things into "4 gates" and they are forced to use one hand to defend one of these gates while the other hand punches. Inefficient. Or they are forced to make a detour and cut back in on an incoming attack because they are stuck on the center. Indirect.
> 
> It's more about spatial domination that doesn't require stubbornly occupying the center. The correct position and path of _wu-sau_ is taught in CK where it forms a punching unit with _bong-sau _(aka _kwan-sau_). But people are too focused on application ideas that they entirely miss the strategic ones.
> 
> Rather than 4 gates, I want to cut that in half in such a way that I only need to use one arm with dual functions in direct attack, and two such arms in rotation to sustain an unthinking assault regardless what the opponent does. I don't want to defend with techniques at the mercy of my opponent. I will get set up. I want to protect space while attacking so that I need not think and decide which hand to use where. I want to impose upon the opponent, as guy b. says. Take their space and facing away, limiting their options for response.
> 
> I also don't want to let them turn me, as some lineages do. Overturning on one's own is hard enough not to do in the heat of a fight. Training against this begins in CK, where most focus on elbow strikes and other application ideas. We turn the opponent or if the opponent turns themselves, we let them overshoot, taking advantage of the mistake, and taking whichever side they expose. The opponent shows us how to hit them.
> 
> But in action, and to the untrained eye, you will only see "just a punch".



I for one would love to see this wing chun style in action. Preferably against a comparable opponent of a different art in full contact competition, since that is the level that the strategy has been developed towards.

If not I too would settle for a demo of this tan punch principle.

While comments like "a more intelligent guideline" suggest he is posting purely to stroke his own ego, I think LFJ is right about the general issue of martial artists focusing on techniques and applications instead of looking to ingrain and expand upon a strategy.

Martial arts in my view are at their core, strategies for winning fights.


----------



## Phobius

To avoid extending my wall of quote/text above.

I just wanted to say that above messages are just for discussing. I tried to focus on taan sau.
In some places I don't think I understand your comment so well.

What I see the talk about 4 gates it is valid, same as the hope of not needing them. None of that in my view is special to WSLVT. I just argue that it sounds to me as if you feel that one should just assume that fight can always be controlled and as such you rule out all techniques necessary to master in order to not use them.

That is the thing, by mastering a technique completely you render it non-used. Not the other way around. You do not avoid techniques because they are unused, you master them so much that you no longer even need to use them. This I believe WSL may have stated numerous times but it is not equal to a technique being bad, just that it takes time mastering and once you get there you will no longer be using it.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> So you want to discuss taan sau or drills? You cant do both. If advanced students spend their time doing this drill that should be the core of the problem. You need to move on to drills with intent. Those instructors you met, have they not gotten bored doing basic drills?



I said _gwo-sau_, and free sparring and fighting against other styles. Not just basic drills.



> You do know that noone will punch so slowly that you can know whether or not to walk into a guarded center.



You are directly faced off with an opponent who has his guard up. You enter straight up the middle aiming to wedge things out, hoping your opponent has weak structure you can just walk through or that he doesn't resist.

That's walking into a guarded center, purposefully.



> Or are you saying taan sau in this discussion has to be some sort of main technique behind all WC? It is just one more tool in the box, nothing more.



That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. It's a training tool, not a fighting technique. Just like _fuk-sau_.



> You don't think that will ever happen to you?



Walking straight into the path of a punch on purpose by holding center and going straight up the middle? Of course not.



> He is going on the outside of his opponent and in some cases attacking his opponents opposite shoulder line to conquer his balance and structure. That means his first punch will be more of a control followed up by his second punch. Of course his opponent can shift his own structure to attack but that would be sensed.



Attacking shoulder lines? Why not jaw lines?

Control? Sensing?

One thing you must understand is how high stress and spiked heart rate in the heat of a fight can affect your performance. Not saying everyone will lose the same amount of fine motor dexterity, and hard sparring is a good stress inoculator, if you're doing it.

But generally speaking, techniques that rely on tactile information to make fine adjustments and appropriate decisions cannot be relied upon in a fight. It would be wiser to use simple techniques that rely on gross motor movements, like punches or kicks, or running. Tightening your lines and reducing your necessary actions, while reducing possible responses for your opponent ups your percentages. Sticking and feeling is fantasy outside of _chi-sau_.



> Yes but you talk as if the punching was that of second hand, not the taan sau hand. Actually in all talks about zombie hand you keep on talking as if it was not seen as a punch.



Does. Not. Matter.

The problem is you move straight into a guarded center knowing you'll likely have to convert to _taan-sau_ or something else since you aren't fighting a scarecrow. I don't care if you were punching. It's just poor strategy.



> You are starting to sound one dimensional. This was a discussion about taan sau. You wanted to know what I meant, now you wish to discuss sidestepping?



Eh? You asked me about sidestepping. It was part of your presented _taan-sau_ application anyway, when the opponent's force causes him to rotate and change directions, he changes footwork. Figured we'd discuss the thing as a whole.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> I just argue that it sounds to me as if you feel that one should just assume that fight can always be controlled and as such you rule out all techniques necessary to master in order to not use them.



No. I know the fight cannot always be controlled, and that's the reason I rule out all indirect and inefficient techniques and flawed strategies. Increases my chances of success.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ, you obviously need to be more humble when revealing the way that wing chun functions. That way people can feel happier about themselves as they pretend they knew it all along.


----------



## LFJ

DaveB said:


> I for one would love to see this wing chun style in action. Preferably against a comparable opponent of a different art in full contact competition, since that is the level that the strategy has been developed towards.
> 
> If not I too would settle for a demo of this tan punch principle.



If what I've said sounds in any way interesting or convincing, I would suggest serious people with the means and opportunity go and try it out for themselves. Most schools welcome enthusiastic seekers and would be open to showing it hands-on, which is of course the best way to learn.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I said _gwo-sau_, and free sparring and fighting against other styles. Not just basic drills.



You are the one talking about zombie hands in fighting then, that has not been something I said, shown or in any way referred to.



LFJ said:


> You are directly faced off with an opponent who has his guard up. You enter straight up the middle aiming to wedge things out, hoping your opponent has weak structure you can just walk through or that he doesn't resist.
> 
> That's walking into a guarded center, purposefully.



I do not, what gives you that impression? There is nothing "Going straight up the middle", the middle is blocked. There might be someone here who can do a taan sau moving straight into an opponent but I am not one of those. Therefore sidestep and attack from outside.

And you can say "it never happens in WSL VT which is nice for you, but sounds really unrealistic.



LFJ said:


> That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. It's a training tool, not a fighting technique. Just like _fuk-sau_.


You missunderstand, what I meant is. "Are you saying that I mean taan sau in some way is a main technique of WC that is always used?" I never have said such a thing. I am simply stating that taan sau is a tool to have in your toolbox. Nothing more. You are the one saying a taan sau is not a tool at all and has no use nor can be used in a fight whatsoever in any scenario whatosever with any positive results whatsoever. Or you phrased it as being completely and utterly useless.



LFJ said:


> Walking straight into the path of a punch on purpose by holding center and going straight up the middle? Of course not.



Noone has done that. It takes skill to walk into a punch, you need to time that really well. Most often a punch simply comes towards you. In some cases it does that when you are punching as well. And if you are not punching then either A. You are in a position where you cannot punch, MOVE!, B. You are sleeping or otherwise unprepared for fight.



LFJ said:


> Attacking shoulder lines? Why not jaw lines?



If you draw a vertical line through your shoulder. Not sure what to call it. Is a way to conquer and destroy a persons structure when attacking on the outside. Depends of course on where that person has his axis of rotation.



LFJ said:


> Control? Sensing?
> 
> One thing you must understand is how high stress and spiked heart rate in the heat of a fight can affect your performance. Not saying everyone will lose the same amount of fine motor dexterity, and hard sparring is a good stress inoculator, if you're doing it.
> 
> But generally speaking, techniques that rely on tactile information to make fine adjustments and appropriate decisions cannot be relied upon in a fight. It would be wiser to use simple techniques that rely on gross motor movements, like punches or kicks, or running. Tightening your lines and reducing your necessary actions, while reducing possible responses for your opponent ups your percentages. Sticking and feeling is fantasy outside of _chi-sau_.



This is really just wall of text saying nothing in terms of value. Did I ever state that taan sau was not a move done because of need and that everything starts out being punches. There is not a "Lets extend my arm and become a taan sau when I meet something!". There is a reaction to a force moving towards yours that you can not control.

You are saying such scenario never happens which means you believe from the first moment even before a fight has started you have won and will always win because no opponent will ever punch or hit you.

The rest of us are not there yet. We do get hit.



LFJ said:


> Does. Not. Matter.



With such an attitude this discussion is over, you are not interested in discussing but rather win some verbal fighting? This is not fighting, I can do that with a physical person instead. Teaches me more. I want to know more about how you can be so sure to never end up having to defend your gates.



LFJ said:


> The problem is you move straight into a guarded center knowing you'll likely have to convert to _taan-sau_ or something else since you aren't fighting a scarecrow. I don't care if you were punching. It's just poor strategy.



No I dont. Nice of you to think you know me so well but you don't. Taan sau is not something you plan or do because it is funny. It is something you become forced to do as a movement because your body will not twist in another way that disrupts your bodily structure. Meaning you feel it but not as you think some thought in terms of 'oh I sense him doing this, so I do taan sau' but rather a sense of maintaining your structure and as such move accordingly.



LFJ said:


> Eh? You asked me about sidestepping. It was part of your presented _taan-sau_ application anyway, when the opponent's force causes him to rotate and change directions, he changes footwork. Figured we'd discuss the thing as a whole.



I did not ask you anything about sidestepping, doubt so at least because I have no interest in discussing it. You asked me about how I would describe the taan sau technique and I linked a video that described it fairly close to my own interpretation.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You are the one talking about zombie hands in fighting then, that has not been something I said, shown or in any way referred to.



I saw it as a demo in the video you posted, and it's a habit of many LTWT guys when they are out of contact to search for it again, because that's where they're comfortable.

Again, maybe it's not something they're supposed to do, but it's an ingrained habit from focussing so much on sticking and feeling and general "bridging" ideas. CK is even interpreted as seeking arm contact (the "bridge" taken literally).



> I do not, what gives you that impression? There is nothing "Going straight up the middle", the middle is blocked.



The video you posted. The guy is.



> There might be someone here who can do a taan sau moving straight into an opponent but I am not one of those. Therefore sidestep and attack from outside.



Don't play straight line and stubbornly try to occupy center and you won't have to make such a detour. Your primary method of engagement should be more along the lines of tactical footwork to find cleaner entry opportunities.



> Walking straight into the path of a punch on purpose by holding center and going straight up the middle? Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> Noone has done that.
Click to expand...


Except the guy in your video demonstrating what you say represents your method fairly closely.



> Did I ever state that taan sau was not a move done because of need and that everything starts out being punches. There is not a "Lets extend my arm and become a taan sau when I meet something!". There is a reaction to a force moving towards yours that you can not control.



I've never needed to do a _taan-sau _like you. It's a volitional act on your part even if you're just maintaining structure against force and spinning around it.



> With such an attitude this discussion is over, you are not interested in discussing but rather win some verbal fighting? This is not fighting, I can do that with a physical person instead. Teaches me more. I want to know more about how you can be so sure to never end up having to defend your gates.



It's not an "attitude". It really doesn't matter if you were punching first or not. It's about (intelligent) strategy, if that hasn't been coming across in my posts. 

I don't have to defend a whole bunch of gates with arms going in every direction because I'm not obsessed with occupying the center and playing straight line. My strategy and tactics are to reduce available paths for the opponent.



> The problem is you move straight into a guarded center knowing you'll likely have to convert to _taan-sau_ or something else since you aren't fighting a scarecrow. I don't care if you were punching. It's just poor strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> No I dont. Nice of you to think you know me so well but you don't.
Click to expand...


I asked you to post something so you weren't misrepresented. If you'd like to distance yourself from the presented method in the video you posted, feel free to post another video that more closely represents your method.



> Taan sau is not something you plan or do because it is funny. It is something you become forced to do as a movement because your body will not twist in another way that disrupts your bodily structure. Meaning you feel it but not as you think some thought in terms of 'oh I sense him doing this, so I do taan sau' but rather a sense of maintaining your structure and as such move accordingly.



I understand what you're saying. But it is a volitional act for you to maintain structure and let yourself be turned into _taan-sau_. I've never been forced to do that. Also you wouldn't have to either if you weren't making head on collisions up the middle.

The best analogy I think is a water fight. Play straight line with an opponent and you'll both get soaked. Better to adopt angles and tactics that allow you to wet your opponent while avoiding and preventing them from facing you so you stay relatively dry. We first learn that with _seung-ma_/_teui-ma_ drills, which many people do in, you guessed it, straight lines!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> LFJ, you obviously need to be more humble when revealing the way that wing chun functions. That way people can feel happier about themselves as they pretend they knew it all along.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I asked you to post something so you weren't misrepresented. If you'd like to distance yourself from the presented method in the video you posted, feel free to post another video that more closely represents your method.



I am a busy person mostly, and it is not my turn to post videos. (I cant be arsed to find someone on YouTube that does things the way I do, ironic given that what I do should be nothing special) Now you need to show what you mean about not having to defend the gates against any opponent ever. How is this achieved? Text does not convey your message because there are a million "What ifs" in regards to your text.

So far what you write sounds very close to: "if you do as I do you will never ever get hit!" which we all know is (Bah:censorship) 'not true' and that cant be what you mean.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> LFJ, you obviously need to be more humble when revealing the way that wing chun functions. That way people can feel happier about themselves as they pretend they knew it all along.



I shouldnt but this is just an arrogant troll post. If you have nothing valuable to add then leave room for LFJ instead. Cant even believe I am saying this.


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> With such an attitude this discussion is over, you are not interested in discussing but rather win some verbal fighting? .


 
That was my conclusion Phobius.  I think you are wasting your time.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> That was my conclusion Phobius.  I think you are wasting your time.



Could be but I am actually interested in what makes LFJ believe he never has to worry about his own gates.


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> Could be but I am actually interested in what makes LFJ believe he never has to worry about his own gates.


 
Yes.  Why he thinks he doesn't need to worry about his own gates.  Why he thinks that a real fight isn't a chaotic mess where you may need to cover yourself when you aren't in control of the situation...which may be often!  Why he thinks that WSL never taught or did a Tan Da when there is clear photographic evidence that he did.  Why he thinks it would be "inefficient" and "indirect" to use a Tan Da motion to cover against a wide punch while moving in with a punch of your own.  The list could go on.  But, again, this will go nowhere as has already been proven.  So time to just move on to something else.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Now you need to show what you mean about not having to defend the gates against any opponent ever. How is this achieved? Text does not convey your message because there are a million "What ifs" in regards to your text.



I said "4 gates", as in facing your opponent with a _man/wu_ guard holding center. 
That is already a strategy that spreads you too thin and leads to tactics like _taan-da_.



> So far what you write sounds very close to: "if you do as I do you will never ever get hit!" which we all know is (Bah:censorship) 'not true' and that cant be what you mean.



Of course it isn't. Like a water fight, both parties are bound to get wet, but it's about increasing percentages in our favor to come away drier than the other guy.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Yes.  Why he thinks he doesn't need to worry about his own gates.  Why he thinks that a real fight isn't a chaotic mess where you may need to cover yourself when you aren't in control of the situation...which may be often!  Why he thinks that WSL never taught or did a Tan Da when there is clear photographic evidence that he did.  Why he thinks it would be "inefficient" and "indirect" to use a Tan Da motion to cover against a wide punch while moving in with a punch of your own.  The list could go on.  But, again, this will go nowhere as has already been proven.  So time to just move on to something else.



And why are you posting here again? You don't listen to the answers you are given. You believe what you want to believe based on photos rather than personal experience. And you're too cowardly to even defend your own methods in writing like Phobius has. Talk about a waste of time!


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> I want to know more about how you can be so sure to never end up having to defend your gates.





KPM said:


>



Waiting for the crumbs?


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I said "4 gates", as in facing your opponent with a _man/wu_ guard holding center.
> That is already a strategy that spreads you too thin and leads to tactics like _taan-da_.



To be honest I find that guard a bit silly. Then again I am not a purist in terms of WC. For long range (where use of guard serves a point) I prefer to use a stance more similar to boxing. Reason being that I am far taller than most and would be stupid to not utilize my size to an advantage. There is a zone between WC and my guard however, the kicking distance, which means that my body structure is keeping internal tension for faster movement as taught in WC. It is not as messy as it sounds, just utilizing that position where I can hit you and you can not hit me (long arms) to better my own situation.

Once I get close enough, "WC range", I don't believe you (in this case me) really get a chance to use a guard. In this position there are punches and reactions. Standing still in some kind of guard at close range is like begging to get hit in the face. (I am not believing you can defend your face against a jab from man/wu sau in that range)



LFJ said:


> Of course it isn't. Like a water fight, both parties are bound to get wet, but it's about increasing percentages in our favor to come away drier than the other guy.



This is the whole problem to all arguments, discussions and verbal fighting in WC forums. "Increasing percentages" are what we strive for, all of us. The question that is open to debate is how to increase that percentage.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Yes.  Why he thinks he doesn't need to worry about his own gates.  Why he thinks that a real fight isn't a chaotic mess where you may need to cover yourself when you aren't in control of the situation...which may be often!  Why he thinks that WSL never taught or did a Tan Da when there is clear photographic evidence that he did.  Why he thinks it would be "inefficient" and "indirect" to use a Tan Da motion to cover against a wide punch while moving in with a punch of your own.  The list could go on.  But, again, this will go nowhere as has already been proven.  So time to just move on to something else.



If you cock up and have to cover there are much better ways to do it than a tan da. Lol at reactively covering incoming strikes with your hands way out in front of you instead of near your face! Wing chun is the strategy we impose upon opponent based on certain beliefs we share about fighting. Recovery methods in case of failure are something different. 

Wing chun certainly not a bunch of techniques and training shapes busted out at random in response to things done by opponent with no strategic approach. That is like the opposite of wing chun. Complete misunderstanding.

Apart from that just another dishonest post regarding what LFJ has and hasn't said. Carry on!


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> I shouldnt but this is just an arrogant troll post. If you have nothing valuable to add then leave room for LFJ instead. Cant even believe I am saying this.



It isn't aimed at you Phobius. You are discussing what you do and why. All good


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> "Increasing percentages" are what we strive for, all of us. The question that is open to debate is how to increase that percentage.



That's what we're debating. Sitting in the middle trying to defend things all around us at once, as typical Wing Chun, is low percentage. Ever play Whack-a-mole? It's like trying to whack the moles that pop up with one arm while punching a center target at the same time with the other.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> That's what we're debating. Sitting in the middle trying to defend things all around us at once, as typical Wing Chun, is low percentage. Ever play Whack-a-mole? It's like trying to whack the moles that pop up with one arm while punching a center target at the same time with the other.



Very low percentage. Covering your head and running away would be a higher percentage approach


----------



## JPinAZ

LFJ said:


> That's what we're debating. Sitting in the middle trying to defend things all around us at once, as typical Wing Chun, is low percentage. Ever play Whack-a-mole? It's like trying to whack the moles that pop up with one arm while punching a center target at the same time with the other.



No one here (besides LFJ) is arguing that or saying anything of the sort. This is just another of the many straw man arguments being created by this poster. Looks like someone is trying to build their own straw-man terracotta army! LOL

If this LFJ's idea of what '4-gate' defense is about or how 'typical wing chun' operates, then I can fully understand why he argue against these things. Problem is, with statements like above, he only expose just how clueless he is on even the most basic ideas of WC Gate theory, what it's for, or anything regarding the rest of the WC world (aka 'typical WC') outside his very small bubble.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> And why are you posting here again? You don't listen to the answers you are given. You believe what you want to believe based on photos rather than personal experience. And you're too cowardly to even defend your own methods in writing like Phobius has. Talk about a waste of time!


 
You and Guy are on a roll.  So far you've both managed to call me a coward and a liar.     Funny that I don't get that reaction from non-WSLVT people!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Waiting for the crumbs?


 
Your shoes are squishing!!!!


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> Your shoes are squishing!!!!



Can't believe you have just been cited as being a coward. That is lemons below the belt. For the record, I have always enjoyed you're threads and posts.


----------



## LFJ

JPinAZ said:


> If this LFJ's idea of what '4-gate' defense is about or how 'typical wing chun' operates, then I can fully understand why he argue against these things. Problem is, with statements like above, he only expose just how clueless he is on even the most basic WC ideas like 4-gate concept, what it's for or anything regarding the rest of the WC world (aka 'typical WC') outside his very small bubble.



Walk into about any beginner Wing Chun class in the world, and this will be a typical 4-gate drill to see. 

Of course you don't fight standing there like this, but it's introducing ideas for dividing space into 4 gates and these are ideas people take into fighting. 

Some will hold center and defend what comes. We've been logically dismantling that approach. 

Some will try to use "blind side" tactics to reduce chances for the opponent to attack all 4 gates, but then there is a whole host of problems with that approach too!

If this is a "straw man", you're welcome to post your method, in video or text, so I'm not misrepresenting it, and I'll tell you where exactly I don't agree and why. Unless of course you have a sound method. Then I'd love to hear it.


----------



## guy b.

JPinAZ said:


> If this LFJ's idea of what '4-gate' defense is about or how 'typical wing chun' operates, then I can fully understand why he argue against these things. Problem is, with statements like above, he only expose just how clueless he is on even the most basic ideas of WC Gate theory, what it's for, or anything regarding the rest of the WC world (aka 'typical WC') outside his very small bubble.



Please educate LFJ about how you approach gate theory and why he has it all wrong. I for one am getting sick of his arrogance in bringing logic and discussion to this forum! I will join you in sneering when you have put him in his place.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You and Guy are on a roll.  So far you've both managed to call me a coward and a liar.



That's because you are frequently dishonest and cowardly. I haven't seen anyone else here who behaves as you do and so haven't used those terms with anyone else. If you don't do it then I won't say it, if you do then I will. Simple.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Your shoes are squishing!!!!



Lol at still hanging around the thread when you have been "done" with the discussion so many times and proven WSL's method to be just the same old stuff everyone does.


----------



## JPinAZ

The 2 posters that have been dragging down this forum lately arguing against ANY reply regardless how logical, constantly name calling, etc are now on ignore.
Problem solved. Ahhh, peace and quiet lol


----------



## KPM

Transk53 said:


> Can't believe you have just been cited as being a coward. That is lemons below the belt. For the record, I have always enjoyed you're threads and posts.



Thanks man!


----------



## geezer

JPinAZ said:


> The 2 posters that have been dragging down this forum lately arguing against ANY reply regardless how logical, constantly name calling, etc are now on ignore.
> Problem solved. Ahhh, peace and quiet lol



Yeah, for a while having some contrarian input seemed to liven things up, and the parties made some good points from time to time, or at least I thought so. But lately their input has become insulting and destructive IMO, and I'd really hate to see this forum wither away like that _other one_. I don't put anybody on "ignore" and I recommend others don't either. Instead, read, keep your cool, and _report _anything that violates our forum rules to Admin. Let's all work maintain a good, fun and productive WC forum.


----------



## paitingman

LFJ said:


> In action, it looks like "just a punch". That was a critique some made of WSL's fights. He "just punched and kicked". But that's what VT is!
> 
> It's subtle, not a technique. It is not in reference to what an opponent is doing and how I use my elbow or contort my arm to wedge them out this way or that depending on what they do. Without understanding overall strategy and tactics, you will be seeing "just a punch".
> 
> It's strategic. It's trained throughout the dummy form, which many take as techniques against an opponent. They see the arms as representing a human or punches. Rather it's a tool to refine our own actions within the limitations of our own structure.
> 
> Many are obsessed with occupying the center. So they hold their _man/wu _on the center and move straight forward with it, aiming to wedge things out. This breaks things into "4 gates" and they are forced to use one hand to defend one of these gates while the other hand punches. Inefficient. Or they are forced to make a detour and cut back in on an incoming attack because they are stuck on the center. Indirect.
> 
> It's more about spatial domination that doesn't require stubbornly occupying the center. The correct position and path of _wu-sau_ is taught in CK where it forms a punching unit with _bong-sau _(aka _kwan-sau_). But people are too focused on application ideas that they entirely miss the strategic ones.
> 
> Rather than 4 gates, I want to cut that in half in such a way that I only need to use one arm with dual functions in direct attack, and two such arms in rotation to sustain an unthinking assault regardless what the opponent does. I don't want to defend with techniques at the mercy of my opponent. I will get set up. I want to protect space while attacking so that I need not think and decide which hand to use where. I want to impose upon the opponent, as guy b. says. Take their space and facing away, limiting their options for response.
> 
> I also don't want to let them turn me, as some lineages do. Overturning on one's own is hard enough not to do in the heat of a fight. Training against this begins in CK, where most focus on elbow strikes and other application ideas. We turn the opponent or if the opponent turns themselves, we let them overshoot, taking advantage of the mistake, and taking whichever side they expose. The opponent shows us how to hit them.
> 
> But in action, and to the untrained eye, you will only see "just a punch".



Alright, thanks! 
I've only got two questions:
1. It's not a technique, it's more a strategy and overall approach right? but where does the elbow training in the forms discussed earlier in the thread fall in to all this? The elbow training is necessary to what part of the strategy?
2. In the photo you showed of Ip Man, what is in fact he doing/showing?


----------



## LFJ

JPinAZ said:


> The 2 posters that have been dragging down this forum lately arguing against ANY reply regardless how logical, constantly name calling, etc are now on ignore.
> Problem solved. Ahhh, peace and quiet lol



Cute, having to announce publicly that he has stuck his fingers in his ears...

JP hasn't added anything to this thread beyond telling me I'm wrong and don't understand things, which is fine, but he doesn't even bother to explain exactly how. _That_, I would call dragging things down.

Respect and thanks to those who have honestly and non-confrontationally discussed what they do and why, and were confident enough to defend their method against critique.

I think VT is and must be able to be logically explained and withstand scrutiny, as well as be practically demonstrated.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> But lately their input has become insulting and destructive IMO



If people are seeing my posts as destructive, I would say their minds are in the wrong place. I would say rather that my posts have been deconstructive of presented methods, but that has not been done with malice. I've honestly expressed my point of view on things, what I believe and why. 

Discussing methods in detail is always constructive, even if in the form of deconstruction (logical analysis). If one _chooses_ to view it as destructive and insulting, they may not care much about their system. It's nothing personal. Just defend the methods you use. If you are honest, you won't be called dishonest. If you don't dodge, you won't be called cowardly.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Walk into about any beginner Wing Chun class in the world, and this will be a typical 4-gate drill to see.
> 
> Of course you don't fight standing there like this, but it's introducing ideas for dividing space into 4 gates and these are ideas people take into fighting.
> 
> Some will hold center and defend what comes. We've been logically dismantling that approach.
> 
> Some will try to use "blind side" tactics to reduce chances for the opponent to attack all 4 gates, but then there is a whole host of problems with that approach too!
> 
> If this is a "straw man", you're welcome to post your method, in video or text, so I'm not misrepresenting it, and I'll tell you where exactly I don't agree and why. Unless of course you have a sound method. Then I'd love to hear it.



There are 4 gates, 6 gates, 9 gates, 12 gates. And 0 gates. This is just a way to describe different areas opponent may attack in terms of vectors. At least in my view. If the video you posted in any way reflects how you trained I believe I understand why you show such despise to all other lineages in your posts.

The video is terrible, I cant even break apart anything to argue with you. Gates theory should never be about chasing hands. As for the rest I have not really been taught using gate theory, so can not say much about it. One thing I might use it for is to explain how to reduce possible incoming vectors from enemy by movement and positioning.

Are you saying a technique exists that will defend your entire body and head at the same time while standing facing your opponent? Since you are against the possibility of movement to reduce the way your opponent can attack you.



LFJ said:


> If people are seeing my posts as destructive, I would say their minds are in the wrong place. I would say rather that my posts have been deconstructive of presented methods, but that has not been done with malice. I've honestly expressed my point of view on things, what I believe and why.
> 
> Discussing methods in detail is always constructive, even if in the form of deconstruction (logical analysis). If one _chooses_ to view it as destructive and insulting, they may not care much about their system. It's nothing personal. Just defend the methods you use. If you are honest, you won't be called dishonest. If you don't dodge, you won't be called cowardly.



The destructive way is actually there if you do not show your own arguments. They are still too vaguely written and any attempt to argue about it gets a reply similar to "This is only shown that way to outsiders, we keep the rest secret so we dont offend" but clearly you do offend a bunch of people.

Reason I am saying above is due to your point below:



LFJ said:


> For this reason, to discuss it in much detail, I'd have to explain the entire strategy. That's something I'm not so sure I want to do. Instead I've been logically breaking down other methods, and perhaps what I've explained will put enough doubt in the minds of some readers that they, the serious ones, will go seek it out in person.
> 
> Thing is, I don't want to give KPM a full, free tutorial on a public forum. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a dishonest parasite, and as PB once said in an interview when asked his wish for the future of the style, we hope to keep stupid people away from system.



This post states clearly that your intentions are never to share your own vision, this makes all your arguments about when WSL VT does it better void. If you do not wish to show your own strategy then you are not contributing to a discussion. Anyone else can take your job of saying why things do not work, that text means nothing without someone showing what would be the "better percentage". I don't need someone to tell me where there are openings, I use active training to figure that out in person. What I would have wished for is other options to compare against which you seem unwilling to give apparently?

PB once said in an interview that he hopes to keep stupid people away from the system, you are not doing him justice by filling in your understanding of what "stupid" means. If he is your sifu you should adhere to his teaching and not convert it to your own version. (If he meant that KPM was not welcome, and said so in person I do apologize but would say it is kind of rude of him)

Any lineage that is considered so good it renders other lineages into crap in comparison should not be considering other people stupid, that is a very one sided view on life as it takes a lifetime of actually knowing someone before you can call them stupid or not.


----------



## Phobius

Can also add that the school close to me that teaches WSL VT does not teach a behind the door kind of teachings.

But I do say I rather want to go there some point to study their punching technique in detail, there are quite a few aspects of it that I believe could be an improvement to my own. Not that it replaces everything else.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Thing is, I don't want to give KPM a full, free tutorial on a public forum. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a dishonest parasite, and as PB once said in an interview when asked his wish for the* future of the style*, we hope to keep stupid people away from system.



Sorry stupid question time. Are you not actually contradicting yourself by stating "future of the style" but keeping to a fanatical viewpoint that WSL is this, WSL is that kind of thing?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Are you saying a technique exists that will defend your entire body and head at the same time while standing facing your opponent? Since you are against the possibility of movement to reduce the way your opponent can attack you.



I'm against what??

How do you stay relatively dry in a water fight without movement? Mobility is of great importance, but a lot of Wing Chun footwork kills fluid mobility.



> The destructive way is actually there if you do not show your own arguments.



You may choose to see it that way. Some times you must first deconstruct, before you are able to reconstruct. Empty one's cup sort of thing. Some individuals aren't willing to do that, and they are beyond help on a forum. If one can't acknowledge flaws in what they do through logical analysis, it will take hands-on training.

People who are serious enough will seek it out in person. I mean, literally thousands have changed from other mainstream lineages, never to go back, and they share similar stories. That would pique my interest.


----------



## LFJ

Transk53 said:


> Sorry stupid question time. Are you not actually contradicting yourself by stating "future of the style" but keeping to a fanatical viewpoint that WSL is this, WSL is that kind of thing?



Point is, the future of the system relies on keeping stupid people and ideas from ruining it.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I'm against what??
> 
> How do you stay relatively dry in a water fight without movement? Mobility is of great importance, but a lot of Wing Chun footwork kills fluid mobility.



Might have misunderstood you. You are saying that situations where you are facing your opponent are just silly. However when you add mobility as an important part of defending yourself/fighting then you are facing an opponent that will do the same. As such you can not prevent the fact that when you move he will move right along with you. As such how do you face such a situation if you neglect to train anything related to facing directly towards your opponent?

In my view you first learn the little idea, then as you go along you master everything so much that in the end noone can hit you thus none of this is needed. Such a point of view does not render anything taught useless. It just requires you to make an error or end up in bad situation. (Do not get me started on my thought on WC starting beginners to train just standing still for ages, mobility is key part of WC. Teach it)

What you are saying then is that you have a way to move that can never be nullified by an opponent having better movement than you?



LFJ said:


> You may choose to see it that way. Some times you must first deconstruct, before you are able to reconstruct. Empty one's cup sort of thing. Some individuals aren't willing to do that, and they are beyond help on a forum. If one can't acknowledge flaws in what they do through logical analysis, it will take hands-on training.



It is destructive to a forum, you get to hear all points of views. Then you decide alone, not the participants as a whole, what is good and what is bad. Not only for you but for them all. All anger, confusion or whatnot people feel could simply be avoided if you learned to write the truth, truth being that in your point of view it does not seem effective. Stay away from words stating that things are a certain way and instead tell people how you look at it.

Such a discussion would change attitude where people would get a choice to participate because a wish to see if they can convince you otherwise. When you are stating how things are then people expect you to stand up for your ideas and actually show them as such add some value to the posts. If your intention was just to hear a bunch of stuff and pass judgement then I misunderstood you once more. Such a post would serve me no interest personally, I have no interest in educating you but rather to see if there is anything of value to me.

Give and take in a discussion, you want value. I want value. To me my time is worth a heck of a lot more to me than you.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Point is, the future of the system relies on keeping stupid people and ideas from ruining it.



Systems rarely survive without the need for revision. Of course that does not mean that any revision is needed, perhaps a tweek here and there. So what is more stupid, blindly sticking to a system that clearly a need was felt for revision, or just to a system that incorporates nothing more than tradition? Tradition is fine and I don't have a problem with that, but by you're estimation everybody that wants to experiment is stupid?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> As such how do you face such a situation if you neglect to train anything related to facing directly towards your opponent?
> ...
> 
> What you are saying then is that you have a way to move that can never be nullified by an opponent having better movement than you?



Of course not. I was previously talking about the strategy of occupying center with _man/wu_ and purposefully moving straight into a head-on collision aiming to wedge things out with a punch or whatever.



> All anger, confusion or whatnot people feel could simply be avoided if you learned to write the truth, truth being that in your point of view it does not seem effective. Stay away from words stating that things are a certain way and instead tell people how you look at it.



(I'm not responsible for anyone else's emotional responses and I'm not gonna hold anyone's hand while they interact with people on a forum. You can't claim to be a fighter and act like a man-child on the internet.)

I never once said the word "ineffective", just indirect and inefficient, and therefore not VT thinking. 

However, I do doubt many things, don't believe many things that have been proven ineffective, but as WSL used to say at public seminars when showing that mainstream stuff, "maybe YOU can do it". So it's all good if that's what people want for themselves.

Also, clearly, something like the "whipping punch" has been proven, knocking out professional fighters in the cage. It's effective. But that it's indirect is objective reality. It's a simple fact. That means it's working on something other than VT principles, which may be fine for some. I value directness and efficiency though, so I use a different strategy and set of tactics. To each their own.


----------



## LFJ

Transk53 said:


> Systems rarely survive without the need for revision. Of course that does not mean that any revision is needed, perhaps a tweek here and there. So what is more stupid, blindly sticking to a system that clearly a need was felt for revision, or just to a system that incorporates nothing more than tradition?



I agree, but I do neither of these. Personally, as it is, I don't believe the system I train needs any revision, but if a more efficient method came along, I'd be adopting it. I'm openminded, just a skeptic too.



> Tradition is fine and I don't have a problem with that, but by you're estimation everybody that wants to experiment is stupid?



I would be the stupid one to believe such a thing.

There are just some stubborn people who don't care about practicality and hold very stupid ideas. Both these people and there ideas are what I'd like to keep away from the system.


----------



## KPM

Deleted because unconstructive.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Thing is, I don't want to give KPM a full, free tutorial on a public forum. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a dishonest parasite, and as PB once said in an interview when asked his wish for the future of the style, we hope to keep stupid people away from system.


 
So now you are calling me a parasite and stupid as well as a liar and a coward???      Your shoes are squishing just like Guy's!!!  I still think you don't know as much as you think you know.  That's why you are hesitant to explain any further.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> (I'm not responsible for anyone else's emotional responses and I'm not gonna hold anyone's hand while they interact with people on a forum. You can't claim to be a fighter and act like a man-child on the internet.)
> 
> .


 
Which is just double-speak for "I can act like an a55 if I want to."   That's a bogus excuse.  This is a community where we all interact as equals.  You are expected to behave yourself and interact politely.  Not doing so and having the attitude you have displayed on multiple occasions was the death of that "other" forum.  Play nice or don't play at all.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> There are just some stubborn people who don't care about practicality and hold very stupid ideas. Both these people and there ideas are what I'd like to keep away from the system.



Poppycock. What is not practicle with Wing Chun. I have asked twice already, but you seem to like being evasive. Could you at least elabrote on their very stupid ideas. Or is just another case where "I am right, everybody else is wrong" type thing?


----------



## LFJ

Transk53 said:


> Poppycock. What is not practicle with Wing Chun. I have asked twice already, but you seem to like being evasive. Could you at least elabrote on their very stupid ideas. Or is just another case where "I am right, everybody else is wrong" type thing?



Sorry, I must have missed your question...? Where did you ask?

What do you want, an example? Okay. Walking into a round punch with a _taan-sau_ is a stupid idea. 

Why? Because it doesn't work and will get you knocked out against anyone with half a clue what they're doing. 

Many can attest to its failure in free sparring or fighting. Some on this forum and others already have. Experiments have been done with a line up of ten guys (wearing headgear) trying it against serious punchers and it had a 100% failure rate.

Those who get it to "work" are just practicing it in class against people throwing retarded punches.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Sorry, I must have missed your question...? Where did you ask?
> 
> What do you want, an example? Okay. *Walking into a round punch with a taan-sau is a stupid idea.*
> 
> Why? Because it doesn't work and will get you knocked out against anyone with half a clue what they're doing.
> 
> Many can attest to its failure in free sparring or fighting. Some on this forum and others already have. Experiments have been done with a line up of ten guys (wearing headgear) trying it against serious punchers and it had a 100% failure rate.
> 
> Those who get it to "work" are just practicing it in class against people throwing retarded punches.


 
Yes that would be a little silly, like allowing any kind of punch with a flawed move. Never agreed with practising a round or defending against. Against the average street thug if you will, they may do that.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> What do you want, an example? Okay. Walking into a round punch with a _taan-sau_ is a stupid idea.



Not sure where this statement came from, who has said anything of this sort? Is it even relevant to the discussion?
EDIT: I am actually asking in honesty where this was written because I did not see such comment, or at least remember.

If noone said it then chain punching a police office is also stupid. Pretty sure someone has done it though, sadly.


----------



## Transk53

Phobius said:


> Not sure where this statement came from, who has said anything of this sort? Is it even relevant to the discussion?
> EDIT: I am actually asking in honesty where this was written because I did not see such comment, or at least remember.
> 
> If noone said it then chain punching a police office is also stupid. Pretty sure someone has done it though, sadly.


 
It would not have been Phobius. I was just curious about what is deemed a stupid idea in LFJ's world.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Not sure where this statement came from, who has said anything of this sort? Is it even relevant to the discussion?



This topic is about WSL and _taan-sau_. There are some in the lineage who teach this idea, unfortunately. Relevant, I think.

In this thread, the idea of having an outstretched arm for "an extra little bit of insurance and protection" as you enter on a round punch was suggested as being a good idea. 

The following was said, by you know who.



> This is very much the "Choy Lit Fut vs. Wing Chun" scenario that was classic in the HK during Ip Man's heyday.
> 
> So...the Tan Sau hand is up as a cover as he goes in for the punch. If it engages the opponent's attack...that's good. If it doesn't...that's Ok as well. But the Wing Chun guy has given himself an extra little bit of insurance and protection from getting hit.


----------



## Phobius

Got it, thanks for answering. As long as it wasn't me going against my own beliefs.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> The following was said, by you know who.


 
I said nothing about "walking into" a round punch.  The statement you quoted says nothing about footwork or angling or set up.    Stop putting words my mouth to suit your own agenda.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> I said nothing about "walking into" a round punch.  The statement you quoted says nothing about footwork or angling or set up.    Stop putting words my mouth to suit your own agenda.



Well condsidering other places where you have posted, I would be flabbergasted that you would suggest such a thing, and a round punch.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...I think he's a *dishonest parasite*, and as PB once said in an interview when asked his wish for the future of the style, we hope to *keep stupid people away* from system.



OK, *this* is not acceptable behavior. If you can't play nice, play somewhere else. Gentlemen, we can do better. If not, I for one, will _continue_ reporting to Admin. until we restore this forum to the polite, productive place for conversation that it used to be.


----------



## JPinAZ

My last thoughts on the matter:



geezer said:


> Yeah, for a while having some contrarian input seemed to liven things up, and the parties made some good points from time to time, or at least I thought so. But lately their input has become insulting and destructive IMO, and I'd really hate to see this forum wither away like that _other one_. I don't put anybody on "ignore" and I recommend others don't either. Instead, read, keep your cool, and _report _anything that violates our forum rules to Admin. Let's all work maintain a good, fun and productive WC forum.



Lately? LOL It's been that way for quite some time, it's just gotten a lot worse recently and reminds of exactly why KFO (yeah I said it) is dead.
I won't lose any sleep over not seeing their negative posts anymore and they can no longer see or reply to mine. And while I appreciate what you're saying, this is _much _easier and there is nothing to report.

Ok moving on..


----------



## Transk53

geezer said:


> OK, *this* is not acceptable behavior. If you can't play nice, play somewhere else. Gentlemen, we can do better. If not, I for one, will _continue_ reporting to Admin. until we restore this forum to the polite, productive place for conversation that it used to be.



Why does every WC thread have descend into a lineage spat anyway.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I said nothing about "walking into" a round punch.  The statement you quoted says nothing about footwork or angling or set up.    Stop putting words my mouth to suit your own agenda.



“if it engages the opponents attack" i.e. inappropriate tan is up and out and you are approaching from where you can be punched. You are actually more likely to be clocked on the chin doing this than not. Why not just leave your hand by your face where it can be of some use?


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Why does every WC thread have descend into a lineage spat anyway.



People too easily offended?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> People too easily offended?


 
No.  I think its more likely people whose mothers never taught them how to be polite and tactful in social interactions.


----------



## guy b.

JPinAZ said:


> My last thoughts on the matter



I can see you reply to your posts thanks. I usually don't bother because they lack any meaningful content. Please stop drama queening your exit. Bye


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> People too easily offended?



Nope. More of a case of people giving offence too much.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> No.  I think its more likely people whose mothers never taught them how to be polite and tactful in social interactions.



It looks more like people who are adult babies having tantrums because reality does not conform to wishes


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> “ you are approaching from where you can be punched.


 
I've got news for you guy.  If you are close enough to punch the opponent, the opponent is close enough to punch you!!!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> It looks more like people who are adult babies having tantrums because reality does not conform to wishes


 
And you prove my point!


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> It looks more like people who are adult babies having tantrums because reality does not conform to wishes



Well said. You reflect yourself quite nicely


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> And you prove my point!



Not impolite. Factual


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I've got news for you guy.  If you are close enough to punch the opponent, the opponent is close enough to punch you!!!



Depends. Walking in with tan out makes you a walking punch bag though


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> Depends. Walking in with tan out makes you a walking punch bag though



Being a douche would make one a punching bag. Walking funny shouldn't.

And the insults are hailing in, I want no part of personal insults so can we all act like adults.


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> Depends. Walking in with tan out makes you a walking punch bag though



No! You are picking a singular element to you're argument. Hey those who know how to fight would not rely on anything. I believe that is what KPM is alluding to. Look I love Wing Chun, but still taking possibilities of adding a bit. There is nothing wrong with that, and does not make stupid. On the contrary, I would rather look in on Wing Chun, than being known as a practioner. My golly, does lineage become so important, that it overides common thought. Maybe to you that adhere to a narrow frame of reference of what is the ultimate style, I don't share that. What I do really want the most, is a Wing Chun forum without prejudice. I have probably irked a fair good people, but the Wing Chun forum should not be about who has superior this and that, but about Wing Chun. Sorry rant over, but you know??


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I said nothing about "walking into" a round punch.  The statement you quoted says nothing about footwork or angling or set up.    Stop putting words my mouth to suit your own agenda.



You're right. Your idea was even (PC edit: less intelligent).

Let's look at why:



> This is very much the "Choy Lit Fut vs. Wing Chun" scenario that was classic in the HK during Ip Man's heyday.
> 
> So...the Tan Sau hand is up as a cover as he goes in for the punch. If it engages the opponent's attack...that's good. If it doesn't...that's Ok as well. But the Wing Chun guy has given himself an extra little bit of insurance and protection from getting hit.



So, you're fighting a CLF guy who will be predictably throwing big bombs from all kinds of unpredictable angles. 

You "go in for the punch", meaning forward footwork, extending your other arm in _taan-sau_ as cover. And you think "if it engages the opponent's attack" that you don't even know is coming or from where, it's going to be able to stop it...

At least the other method is going in with the intent to shut down a punch they see coming, and not just extending their arm away from their face as "cover" against an unknown attack that could be coming from any angle.

Even that idea is already (PC edit: unintelligent) and won't work. It's made up by people practicing it in drills against (PC edit: subnormal) punches. What you suggest sounds like you've never worked with a live partner on anything before!


----------



## Phobius

LFJ, above post was not friendly despite the edits. Actually even by doing the edits it became slightly more offensive, maybe?

You are not even informative.

This I believe is a proper reply:
KPM, walking into an opponent with your taan sau extended without contact could in my view cause you problems.
Firstly how do you prevent yourself from losing one arm against your opponent being stuck in a taan sau position? Your opponent being a trained fighter will not charge in with his fist straight into your blocking taan. In such a case would that taan not serve better as a punch, since if the way is free you should attack?

Secondly, an extended taan sau against a powerful hit will most likely unless you are larger than your opponent cause your arm to collapse. This can be neglected I believe if your body is behind the punch but how do you prevent such a clash?

Now KPM is offered a chance to either;
A. Explain how he means, and see what points I wish for him to validate.
B. Understand my point of view and comment on it.
C. Hurl insults at me.

Most likely since I offer him a helping hand, he will be willing to continue the discussion and as such there might be some points I never considered.


Now this is what I do not do:
KPM you are so wrong! Doing it like that will get you punched for sure, and you can't fight for sure if you do not know why that is. You clearly have not tried this against anyone whatsoever and have no idea what you are talking about.

Now KPM is offered a chance to either;
A. Insult me.
B. Ignore me.
C. Argue about how I am wrong and stupid.

This is what I mean with your approach is not in any way beneficial to the forum or the discussion at its core. In order for me to learn something a friendlier approach seems to get me that information I need more often than not. Of course there are always trolls out there even in WC world that simply wants to claim their superiority without having anything to back up their words. But we here are all better than that. Or at least we all should be.


----------



## LFJ

Well, hey... If an adult can't accept brutal honesty in written form on a freaking internet forum, they should stick to learning kung-fu-online and training with their wooden dummy on their back porch pretending to be a fighter, because they aren't going to like it any better when reality hits them in the face.

I'll let him have the last word to wrap this thread up, because I can't stand that weak man-child personality much more. Y'all have fun.


----------



## Phobius

Brutal honesty on a forum is an illusion. Such a thing only exist in the head of the person who participates.

It is a shame you are leaving, I really wanted you to start becoming informative as to why you hold certain convictions. Rather than just stating your convictions over and over again. We already know what they are but you never told us how and why. Yes, I am curious and think you have some information of interest. Getting you to share anything is a pain in the butt however so far, sorry if I am being intrusive in trying to help you get those points out in the open.

Anyways the forum is a place where everyone is free to leave. But we should not call someone who constantly argues back on a forum to be weak, a weak person would never get us frustrated.

EDIT: Noone calls the person easily offended at a club, and instantly raises his fists, for weak. We call such a person many other things but not weak.

EDIT: I am also not stating you are never informative, the information I seek now is that as soon as discussion went to your approach being better, all information of your approach was kept silent. You have not shared that one bit.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Well, hey... If an adult can't accept brutal honesty in written form on a freaking internet forum, they should stick to learning kung-fu-online and training with their wooden dummy on their back porch pretending to be a fighter, because they aren't going to like it any better when reality hits them in the face.
> 
> I'll let him have the last word to wrap this thread up, because I can't stand that weak man-child personality much more. Y'all have fun.


 
You're leaving!??  I hate to say it....but we are all better for it!  Because if an adult can't figure out how to behave properly in social settings to avoid ticking everyone off, then they should avoid social settings.  You must be that guy that everyone hates in class but has to tolerate because Sifu won't say anything.  We all know the type....the "know-it-all" that wants to correct everyone else and play Sifu when he is just a junior guy in class.  You know, the guy that only half-way pays attention to the lesson because he thinks he knows it already.   You know, the guy that has to speak up and interject into every conversation to correct people in class.  You know, they guy that thinks he knows more than he does, and everyone else realizes it but him!


----------



## KPM

KPM, walking into an opponent with your taan sau extended without contact could in my view cause you problems.

---Agreed!  And I wouldn't walk into an opponent with my Tan Sau extended!

Firstly how do you prevent yourself from losing one arm against your opponent being stuck in a taan sau position? Your opponent being a trained fighter will not charge in with his fist straight into your blocking taan.

---Of course he wouldn't!   Remember, this was LFJ's picture that was posted as an example, not mine.  He called it "inefficient" and "indirect" and I was simply trying to explain a situation where it wouldn't be "inefficient" and "indirect."  And that situation would be against someone throwing a wide punch...like a untrained person throwing a haymaker, or a Choy Lit Fut person throwing a "Pow" (at least I think that's what's called?)  The two people may have already engaged once and are "in range."  One of them steps back for whatever reason to "reset."  The Wing Chun guy is ready to move back in and has his hands up.  As he steps forward to punch (because he is already in range)...perhaps with some angling on his footwork....he sees that wide punch coming in his peripheral vision so his rear hand automatically comes up to cover it AS he is punching.  If his punch connects before the opponent's strike meets his Tan, it may never even make contact because he has stopped the person in progress....or it may continue swinging because it already has momentum and the Tan Sau keeps it from making even trivial contact....or the opponent may step back and angle just enough that your punch is not as effectively as you would have hoped and the opponent's strike is still coming with force.  But because your Tan is up you are covered.  Or....he may back off just enough and covert his wide high punch to a lower punch in route and you simply switch your Tan to a Gan and continue moving in with your punch.   As has already been pointed out, real fighting is a fluid situation and you have to be prepared for the unexpected.  And you can see, I'm not saying to just extend that Tan out while punching "just in case".  I'm saying he saw that a punch was coming at the same time that he moved in for his own punch and the Tan came up  automatically to cover him.  Because despite any footwork or angling, if you are close enough to hit the opponent...the opponent is close enough to hit you!   Another choice would be to Pak in with the lead hand to pin his arm and break his structure as you punched with your rear hand.  This would disrupt his balance and structure enough to render that wide punch insignificant.  There are always options!

---But our Wing Chun guy is covering himself or defending against a wide punch that he does not have contact with and therefore does not have control over.  And he is doing that AS he is striking with the lead hand.   His rear hand is not back passively as the other is punching.  His rear hand is "in play" defending WHILE he punches.   To me this is "direct" and "efficient."   Even if I used footwork and angling so that I had the advantage and made it more difficult for the opponent to land that wide punch, I would still have the rear hand in play to protect me.   NOT extended as a Tan Sau necessarily.  But it may very well convert to a Tan Sau....or a Biu Sau...or a Gan Sau as the situation dictates.


 In such a case would that taan not serve better as a punch, since if the way is free you should attack?

---The lead hand is already punching!  You can't punch with both hands at once very well!    Now, the very next beat after the Tan Da has struck the opponent and stopped that wide punch may very well be another step into the opponent with a punch from the "Tan" hand! 


---Another question was asked:  "why wouldn't you keep the rear hand close to the face for protection?"  Well, as I pointed out, I would!  I'm wouldn't close in with an extended Tan just for the heck of it!  The Tan only goes out because a wide punch was detected AS the Wing Chun guy was punching.   So the better question would be..."why wouldn't you KEEP your rear hand close to your face for protection?"  Ever try to defend against a hard wide punch with just a cover ....like a boxer does....without gloves?  That can be just as risky as using the Tan.  As you note below, a powerful hit that can collapse a Tan could certainly blast through a high cover.  And a collapsing high cover is much closer to your face than a collapsing Tan!



Secondly, an extended taan sau against a powerful hit will most likely unless you are larger than your opponent cause your arm to collapse. This can be neglected I believe if your body is behind the punch but how do you prevent such a clash?

---This is true!  And in this situation I think I would likely use a Biu Sau rather than a Tan Sau.  But remember, this was LFJ's picture, not mine!  And sometimes things just don't go as planned.  Maybe a Biu Sau would be a better choice, but the "brain fart" factor kicks in and you end up doing a Tan Sau.  That does not mean it is "inefficient" or "indirect."   And....our Wing Chun guy could have chosen a better angle....one that would take some of the power out of that wide punch.


----------



## Transk53

Suppose there is a fine line between trolling and being a troll hunter as it were. It is really annoying that members like LFJ start threads, or just reply with the intent of peeing members off. I was tempted to mention Mothercare (it was a shop for pre and toddler and up clothes and stuff), but that would meant trolling as well.

Like to add that I have started threads especially asking that it is kept to discussion only, but alas there was always one to grease up the guns. Perhaps with the multitude Ip Man films have created a decisive element to anybody wanting to take up the art, which has manifested with certain people thinking that Pan Nam is superior to WT and what not. Perhaps there is some rivalry. That is fine, but being so close minded is completely stupid IMHO. I post for the purpose of learning. Yes I pee people off sometimes, but there is no malice intended, and I apologise. Is LFJ big enough to do that, from above post no.

Anyway I guess that is the difference with the likes of KPM having trained other arts, against the likes of LFJ training one art. That is not a problem either, the problem is constantly regurgitating the same point about Tan Sau. If the OP point does not work, then one recovers and tries for another opening. That opening does not to explained per se. That for me was the intent of the post. I could be wrong here obviously, but if Wing Chun failed in that instant, then adapt. Perhaps LFJ should try some sparring himself or her. Sparring is not drilling, sparring is what it is, albeit a very quick forum for ideas. Also a verbal spar is not trolling, but a same exchange of ideas and points. Not for the closed minded.


----------



## LFJ

Transk53 said:


> Anyway I guess that is the difference with the likes of KPM having trained other arts, against the likes of LFJ training one art.



Who told you I train one art? I train/ have trained a number of TCMAs across Mainland China.



> Perhaps LFJ should try some sparring himself or her.



You read KPM's last post about scenarios where he'd stop CLF bombs with a magic punch, or reactively throw up a _taan-sau_ mid attack when he sees something in his peripheral, and then still be quick enough to change it to _gaang-sau _to chase the opponent's hand all around.._. _and you think I need to try some sparring? LMFAO!



As was said earlier, serious people will seek out more intelligent methods.

There's a private message function if anyone else wants to talk to me.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Who told you I train one art? I train/ have trained a number of TCMAs across Mainland China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You read KPM's last post about scenarios where he'd stop CLF bombs with a magic punch, or reactively throw up a _taan-sau_ mid attack when he sees something in his peripheral, and then still be quick enough to change it to _gaang-sau _to chase the opponent's hand all around.._. _and you think I need to try some sparring? LMFAO!
> 
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, serious people will seek out more intelligent methods.
> 
> There's a private message function if anyone else wants to talk to me.



That does not mean ****. The art of fighting is reserved for those that know how. Get over yourself. Linage means ****. Intelligent methods, you clearly do not get what that means. You are addressing people that have been in the mix. Just stick to Mothercare before you get hurt


----------



## VT_Vectis

LFJ said:


> Who told you I train one art? I train/ have trained a number of TCMAs across Mainland China.
> 
> 
> 
> You read KPM's last post about scenarios where he'd stop CLF bombs with a magic punch, or reactively throw up a _taan-sau_ mid attack when he sees something in his peripheral, and then still be quick enough to change it to _gaang-sau _to chase the opponent's hand all around.._. _and you think I need to try some sparring? LMFAO!
> 
> 
> 
> As was said earlier, serious people will seek out more intelligent methods.
> 
> There's a private message function if anyone else wants to talk to me.



Mate your posts aren't doing wsl lineage any favours. WSL stayed out of politics and let his personal VT speak for its self. I suggest you do the same or risk sounding like the followers of a certain "traditional" student of Ip Man who resides in Australia. 

Like the man said, there are no secrets to wsl VT;  just keep it Simple, Efficient, and Direct.


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> That does not mean ****. The art of fighting is reserved for those that know how. Get over yourself. Linage means ****. Intelligent methods, you clearly do not get what that means. You are addressing people that have been in the mix. Just stick to Mothercare before you get hurt



I think KPM may have (PC edit: unintentionally and entirely innocently misled) you? 

Please consider the possibility that Jackie Chan style reactive blocking to incoming strikes with hands far from your chin is not the most realistic approach

On a more serious note, LFJ made no lineage claims, he merely stated that he cross trains when you accused him of not doing so for some reason.


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> I think KPM may have (PC edit: unintentionally and entirely innocently misled) you?
> 
> Please consider the possibility that Jackie Chan style reactive blocking to incoming strikes with hands far from your chin is not the most realistic approach
> 
> On a more serious note, LFJ made no lineage claims, he merely stated that he cross trains when you accused him of not doing so for some reason.



You are barking up the wrong tree here matey. I did wonder when you would pipe up. Suffice to say, be a bit more intelligent and come at me with something more than Jackie Chan. That is just pathetic, and disrespectful to the answers given to LFJ by members.


----------



## KPM

At about 1:40 there are some Tan Da's being done as part of "circle training."  This is Duncan Leung's "Applied Wing Chun" which I'm sure is very different from WSLVT.  This is not sparring, but if you watch the whole thing you can see that these guys train with plenty of realistic intensity.  "Covering" is one of the key features that Duncan Leung emphasizes.  You can see that in the circle training.  I'm not part of Duncan Leung's lineage, but I have trained it this way at times.  I'm sure Larry and his boys would laugh in your face if you told them that Tan Da was "inefficient" and "indirect" and accused them of never really trying it in sparring.


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> You are barking up the wrong tree here matey. I did wonder when you would pipe up. Suffice to say, be a bit more intelligent and come at me with something more than Jackie Chan. That is just pathetic, and disrespectful to the answers given to LFJ by members.



Ok, remove "Jackie Chan style" from the above reply. Please respond and don't call me matey. Thanks


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> At about 1:40 there are some Tan Da's being done as part of "circle training."  This is Duncan Leung's "Applied Wing Chun" which I'm sure is very different from WSLVT.  This is not sparring, but if you watch the whole thing you can see that these guys train with plenty of realistic intensity.  "Covering" is one of the key features that Duncan Leung emphasizes.  You can see that in the circle training.  I'm not part of Duncan Leung's lineage, but I have trained it this way at times.  I'm sure Larry and his boys would laugh in your face if you told them that Tan Da was "inefficient" and "indirect" and accused them of never really trying it in sparring.



This is pre-arranged attacks and half speed 1 or 2 step sparring. It is (PC edit unlikely to be effective) because it bears no relation to the reality of actual fighting. It is a comfortable abstraction.


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> Ok, remove "Jackie Chan style" from the above reply. Please respond and don't call me matey. Thanks



Whatever man, you have a nice night being whatever lol.


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Whatever man, you have a nice night being whatever lol.



You sound like a  (PC edit: person of below average intelligence (no disrespect intended, society is a rainbow of differently gifted individuals). Enjoy your day at whatever level you can fully appreciate it).


----------



## guy b.

VT_Vectis said:


> Mate your posts aren't doing wsl lineage any favours. WSL stayed out of politics and let his personal VT speak for its self. I suggest you do the same or risk sounding like the followers of a certain "traditional" student of Ip Man who resides in Australia.
> 
> Like the man said, there are no secrets to wsl VT;  just keep it Simple, Efficient, and Direct.



Where is Vectis?


----------



## dudewingchun

Guy b seems to think there is only 1 way to fight. Any other way is wrong. No point continuing arguing with him and LFJ , just a waste of time.


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> You sound like a  (PC edit: person of below average intelligence (no disrespect intended, society is a rainbow of differently gifted individuals). Enjoy your day at whatever level you can fully appreciate it).



Ooh, you do have a pair then. Mmm, insulting peoples intelligence. Dear oh dear, that matey, is just so wrong. Anyway be a good dear and have you're nappy change.


----------



## Transk53

dudewingchun said:


> Guy b seems to think there is only 1 way to fight. Any other way is wrong. No point continuing arguing with him and LFJ , just a waste of time.



He is about to change his nappy.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Choy Lit Fut person throwing a "Pow"



Only people that understand CLF as you (PC edit: sometimes appear to) understand wing chun would seek to do this. That motion is done for a specific reason, probably not what you think.

Anyway:



KPM said:


> As he steps forward to punch (because he is already in range)...perhaps with some angling on his footwork....he sees that wide punch coming in his peripheral vision so his rear hand automatically comes up to cover it AS he is punching. If his punch connects before the opponent's strike meets his Tan, it may never even make contact because he has stopped the person in progress....or it may continue swinging because it already has momentum and the Tan Sau keeps it from making even trivial contact....or the opponent may step back and angle just enough that your punch is not as effectively as you would have hoped and the opponent's strike is still coming with force. But because your Tan is up you are covered. Or....he may back off just enough and covert his wide high punch to a lower punch in route and you simply switch your Tan to a Gan and continue moving in with your punch.



This is (PC edit: a scenario somewhat more likely to be played out in fiction than reality). The chance of you putting out a tan in time to react to an incoming hook is (PC edit: very small). The chance of you converting that tan to anything else en route is (PC edit: very very small). You are (PC edit; in my opinion only) more likely to (PC edit; find success in an extremely stacked odds game of chance) than pull this off in a non pre-planned situation.



KPM said:


> Another question was asked: "why wouldn't you keep the rear hand close to the face for protection?" Well, as I pointed out, I would! I'm wouldn't close inwith an extended Tan just for the heck of it! The Tan only goes out because a wide punch was detected AS the Wing Chun guy was punching. So the better question would be..."why wouldn't you KEEP your rear hand close to your face for protection?" Ever try to defend against a hard wide punch with just a cover ....like a boxer does....without gloves?



Well yes I have. I regularly spar without gloves. The best cover for a hook punch is a wu modification close to the head. It is fundamentally unsound to block incoming blows out away from the target in my experience.



> That can be just as risky as using the Tan. As you note below, a powerful hit that can collapse a Tan could certainly blast through a high cover. And a collapsing high cover is much closer to your face than a collapsing Tan!



With all due respect for your undoubtedly well tested approach, covering your head (small radius) is easier than covering an arms length circle (large radius).


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Mmm,



Feel free to reply to my post. If you continue to troll the thread then I am sure that Geezer will have you reported to the moderators and banned. He is fair like that. Thanks


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> Feel free to reply to my post. If you continue to troll the thread then I am sure that Geezer will have you reported to the moderators and banned. He is fair like that. Thanks



Geezer would have no need too. If the need was there, it would be crossing the line. Suggesting you need to change you're nappy is not. Anyway you have a great night


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> ....I am sure that Geezer will have you reported to the moderators and banned.


----------



## guy b.

Interesting response


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Well yes I have. I regularly spar without gloves. The best cover for a hook punch is a wu modification close to the head. It is fundamentally unsound to block incoming blows out away from the target in my experience.
> 
> .



Ok.  You want everyone to believe that you are such an awesome fighter, experienced, expert and all that.  How about putting your "money where your mouth is" and posting up some video of yourself doing some hard sparring with your WSLVT?   Or ANYONE doing some hard sparring with WSLVT for that matter!!


----------



## geezer

Hey Keith, wasn't that whole bare knuckle argument old stuff something that Guy began over on the "other forum" (R.I.P.), and then brought over here when Guy and KPM first joined MartialTalk? If so, please don't bring it up again just to beat a dead horse.... although I suppose that would tenderize the meat at least. But it was enough of a pain the first time through. May I recommend sticking with the "virtual ignore" option and moving on. That's what I'm trying to do. 

BTW, have you visited the new thread on "Efficiency in WC". I'd enjoy any input you could give.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Hey Keith, wasn't that whole bare knuckle argument old stuff something that Guy began over on the "other forum" (R.I.P.), and then brought over here when Guy and KPM first joined MartialTalk?.



I don't know.  Was Guy one of the rapid WSL/PB guys over at the "other" forum?  I've slept since then!    I'm not trying to revive any old discussions at all.  I just think if Guy is going to be telling everyone they are doing it wrong and he knows so much better, it isn't unreasonable to ask him to provide a video of himself showing us all how Wing Chun is really supposed to work in fighting!  He keeps commenting to disparage what people say by telling us it wouldn't work in hard sparring, and we don't even know if he can spar!  He makes light of the Applied Wing Chun video, even though it shows some guys training a lot harder and with more intensity than most!  So let's see what he's got!  That only seems right, doesn't it?


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> I don't know.  Was Guy one of the rapid WSL/PB guys over at the "other" forum?  I've slept since then!    I'm not trying to revive any old discussions at all.  I just think if Guy is going to be telling everyone they are doing it wrong and he knows so much better, it isn't unreasonable to ask him to provide a video of himself showing us all how Wing Chun is really supposed to work in fighting!  He keeps commenting to disparage what people say by telling us it wouldn't work in hard sparring, and we don't even know if he can spar!  He makes light of the Applied Wing Chun video, even though it shows some guys training a lot harder and with more intensity than most!  So let's see what he's got!  That only seems right, doesn't it?



Or he could just go away?


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Or he could just go away?



That too!  Do you think if everyone ignored him that would happen?


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> That too!  Do you think if everyone ignored him that would happen?


If everybody actually put him in ignore... how would we know? ...why would we care?


----------



## Transk53

geezer said:


> If everybody actually put him in ignore... how would we know? ...why would we care?



Well no. Oh but it would be fun sparring no


----------



## dudewingchun

I would like to see him post a video. It isnt that hard. Dont really care about this argument but would like to see a decent video of wing chun sparring.


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Well no. Oh but it would be fun sparring no



You can come and spar if you like


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> I would like to see him post a video. It isnt that hard. Dont really care about this argument but would like to see a decent video of wing chun sparring.



I will post a video of sparring after everyone else does.


----------



## Phobius

No you wont, and you know it.

Or as me, I dont post videos on me period. Sort of a privacy freak. But all respect to those that do.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> No you wont, and you know it.
> 
> Or as me, I dont post videos on me period. Sort of a privacy freak. But all respect to those that do.



Why feed dishonest people with information? There are many ways to get hold of video material and more importantly to physically experience WSL's VT if that is what you wish to do. It isn't owed to you by anyone.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Why feed dishonest people with information? There are many ways to get hold of video material and more importantly to physically experience WSL's VT if that is what you wish to do. It isn't owed to you by anyone.



Yep.  That's the response I expected!   And you call me a coward????   

Watching you doing some hard sparring with your WSLVT isn't going to reveal any deep dark secrets to anyone.   But it may help prove that you might know what you are  talking about.   You are the one that keeps telling people things won't work in sparring and accusing others of not sparring with their stuff.  No one is expected to put up videos of themselves.  But the guy that keeps harping on testing things in sparring should be the first one willing to put up videos of himself showing that he can what he says.  If he isn't willing to do that, then he needs to stop telling everyone else that their Wing Chun doesn't work.  That only seems fair to me. 

But that is the response I expected from you.   All talk and no do. And throw out all kinds of excuses why.  Pretty typical.


----------



## wckf92

This dude, on the most recent cover of WCI...apparently learned from WSL for 4 yrs.
Is this an example of Tan or...? Or, perhaps like WSL, he is just doing that for the magazine cover photo?
It looks like he starts from a gum sao position. Or perhaps he is just demo'ing some movement from his forms....


----------



## wckf92

at :40 sec mark... and about the :50 sec mark... are those Tan da's?


----------



## LFJ

Pic: You guys should really stop guessing about what's on a picture and why, and go learn from these people or those who've studied with them to find out what they teach.

Video: Not even WSLVT... Doesn't matter.


----------



## wckf92

oops...my bad...it popped up on a search of wsl ving tsun.


----------



## wckf92

Here is a WSL video...


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Yep.  That's the response I expected!   And you call me a coward????
> 
> Watching you doing some hard sparring with your WSLVT isn't going to reveal any deep dark secrets to anyone.



On the contrary, it would reveal what WSL VT looks like in use. I have to wish to reveal this information to people who wish to cause harm to WSL VT or to people who are dishonest, disingenuous or untruthful. 



> But it may help prove that you might know what you are  talking about.   You are the one that keeps telling people things won't work in sparring and accusing others of not sparring with their stuff.



I don't mind if you think I know what I am talking about or not. Any posts I make containing information are intended for those who are honestly curious about WSL VT



> No one is expected to put up videos of themselves.  But the guy that keeps harping on testing things in sparring should be the first one willing to put up videos of himself showing that he can what he says



Take it or leave it, up to you



> If he isn't willing to do that, then he needs to stop telling everyone else that their Wing Chun doesn't work.  That only seems fair to me.



You are responsible for what you write on the forum and I am responsible for what I write. You are not responsible for what I write. 



> But that is the response I expected from you.   All talk and no do. And throw out all kinds of excuses why.  Pretty typical.



I don't wish to give information to you because you are not an honest person. Sorry. This is only my opinion of you as an individual and doesn't apply to other people


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Here is a WSL video...



DP seminar stuff.

_Taan-sau_ to round punch doesn't work.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> DP seminar stuff.
> 
> _Taan-sau_ to round punch doesn't work.



Ah. Ok. Same here as well? (around :45 and :52)...


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> Ah. Ok. Same here as well? (around :45 and :52)...



Why would another example change anything?


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> Why would another example change anything?



I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying these guys are also DP seminar students?


----------



## LFJ

Not likely DP students. Not sure of their lineage, but it doesn't look much like pure WSLVT to me. There are some in Eastern Europe who go to seminars or to learn privately then go back and incorporate a bit into what they already do which creates a strange looking style.


----------



## Danny T

LFJ said:


> DP seminar stuff.
> 
> _Taan-sau_ to round punch doesn't work.


This ^^^^
I agree... for me.
On a straight punch when on the inside Tan can work well (or on the outside also) but in my case on a powerful curving punch I wouldn't use Tan. I've been hit too many times by power punchers in that scenario. Not for me.


----------



## geezer

wckf92 said:


> I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying these guys are also DP seminar students?



_wckf92:_ Both LFJ and Guy B have made their position on Tan-da abundantly clear. Whatever other groups may show, including some WSL groups, or even old videos and pictures of WSL himself,_ they_ do not apply tan-da literally in_ their  _WSL VT. And certainly not for stepping into round punches! I believe LFJ has explained about a zillion times that, in his VT (PB branch of WSL VT), _tan sau _is interpreted more _abstractly_ and serves to train proper elbow position for a more efficient response that does not depend upon using both arms to counter one.

Maybe this will help?  Here's what a quick google search brought up for "abstract":
Google

Now others may not agree, but I believe these guys are being honest in describing what they do. I may do things differently myself. But I'm not going to argue endlessly about their system about which I am ignorant. If I get the chance to meet one of them, maybe they can show me what they do and clear up the issue.

Like I said before... time to move on .


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> You can come and spar if you like



I would if you lived near me. Why cant you put a video of you sparring , kind of goes against everything you have been saying. Just cover your face or something to keep your privacy.
Oh or do you just not want us to see how proper  WSLVT looks like. I just want to see someone use wing chun good in sparring.


----------



## geezer

Just a thought to share with_ everybody_ before I have to sign off. What ever happened to listening to other's opinions,  and agreeing or disagreeing, discussing, debating, and then just _accepting_ that others have their own ideas? ...and, you know, _THAT'S OK! 


_
Sorry guys. Maybe my inner hippie just wants a group hug. See y'all later.


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> Just a thought to share with_ everybody_ before I have to sign off. What ever happened to listening to other's opinions,  and agreeing or disagreeing, discussing, debating, and then just _accepting_ that others have their own ideas? ...and, you know, _THAT'S OK!
> 
> 
> _
> Sorry guys. Maybe my inner hippie just wants a group hug. See y'all later.



Unfortunately one of two things happen geezer.
1. Argument is wanted.
2. One of the parties is unwilling to accept the opinions of another and is driven to prove that opinion is incorrect.

I can agree to disagree and accept others have differing opinions often because of different perspectives and experiences. That is their truth. Great. It certainly is hard to hold a discussion with those who won't accept that I have a different experience. I am simply wrong or misguided.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> _wckf92:_ Both LFJ and Guy B have made their position on Tan-da abundantly clear. Whatever other groups may show, including some WSL groups, or even old videos and pictures of WSL himself,_ they_ do not apply tan-da literally in_ their  _WSL VT. And certainly not for stepping into round punches! I believe LFJ has explained about a zillion times that, in his VT (PB branch of WSL VT), _tan sau _is interpreted more _abstractly_ and serves to train proper elbow position for a more efficient response that does not depend upon using both arms to counter one.
> 
> Maybe this will help?  Here's what a quick google search brought up for "abstract":
> Google
> 
> Now others may not agree, but I believe these guys are being honest in describing what they do. I may do things differently myself. But I'm not going to argue endlessly about their system about which I am ignorant. If I get the chance to meet one of them, maybe they can show me what they do and clear up the issue.
> 
> Like I said before... time to move on .



Good post


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> I would if you lived near me. Why cant you put a video of you sparring , kind of goes against everything you have been saying. Just cover your face or something to keep your privacy.
> Oh or do you just not want us to see how proper  WSLVT looks like. I just want to see someone use wing chun good in sparring.



Alan has plenty of videos.


----------



## guy b.

Danny T said:


> Unfortunately one of two things happen geezer.
> 1. Argument is wanted.
> 2. One of the parties is unwilling to accept the opinions of another and is driven to prove that opinion is incorrect.
> 
> I can agree to disagree and accept others have differing opinions often because of different perspectives and experiences. That is their truth. Great. It certainly is hard to hold a discussion with those who won't accept that I have a different experience. I am simply wrong or misguided.



I have never felt I have any problem with you doing things differently


----------



## Danny T

guy b. said:


> I have never felt I have any problem with you doing things differently


Didn't say you did and that wasn't my intent.
But in discussions that become arguments one of the above two things are prevalent.


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> _wckf92:_ Both LFJ and Guy B have made their position on Tan-da abundantly clear. Whatever other groups may show, including some WSL groups, or even old videos and pictures of WSL himself,_ they_ do not apply tan-da literally in_ their  _WSL VT. And certainly not for stepping into round punches! I believe LFJ has explained about a zillion times that, in his VT (PB branch of WSL VT), _tan sau _is interpreted more _abstractly_ and serves to train proper elbow position for a more efficient response that does not depend upon using both arms to counter one.
> 
> Maybe this will help?  Here's what a quick google search brought up for "abstract":
> Google
> 
> Now others may not agree, but I believe these guys are being honest in describing what they do. I may do things differently myself. But I'm not going to argue endlessly about their system about which I am ignorant. If I get the chance to meet one of them, maybe they can show me what they do and clear up the issue.
> 
> Like I said before... time to move on .



Yup...wasn't arguing endlessly....just posted some examples of some WSL guys doing a tan sau. No biggie.


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> Alan has plenty of videos.



Alan has nothing to do with this at all. I have watched his videos heaps and actually sparrred with him in person so I know for a fact he is good. I dont care if you dont agree with CSL way of thinking/fighting but you are going on and on about this certain aspect of WSLVT but refuse to even show 1 second of it. You are just acting like a kid now. Not going to bother as you arent going to post one ever it seems. I thought you were the type of person who was no nonsense.

Dont see why you cant just film one sparring session or even just a compliant version to show your ideas. Or is it so secret you dont want to show us plebs ? I have nothing against guy b or LFJ I just want to see what they are talking about because I dont fully understand what they mean with there Tan idea/application.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> Dont see why you cant just film one sparring session or even just a compliant version to show your ideas.



I don't wish to damage the system. If you wish to see or experience it then there are ways for you to do so.



> I have nothing against guy b or LFJ I just want to see what they are talking about because I dont fully understand what they mean with there Tan idea/application.



Ask away. It is easily explained.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> Alan has nothing to do with this at all. I have watched his videos heaps and actually sparrred with him in person so I know for a fact he is good.



Well then your desire to see good wing chun sparring has been satisfied. What more do you want?



dudewingchun said:


> I dont care if you dont agree with CSL way of thinking/fighting but you are going on and on about this certain aspect of WSLVT but refuse to even show 1 second of it.



This aspect has been explained pretty comprehensively I would say. Which bit are you not understanding?



dudewingchun said:


> You are just acting like a kid now. Not going to bother as you arent going to post one ever it seems. I thought you were the type of person who was no nonsense.



I think you need to persevere more. I don't feel bad when people call me names


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> I don't wish to damage the system. If you wish to see or experience it then there are ways for you to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask away. It is easily explained.


Not where I live. I have been trying to imagine what you guys are talking about. But in my memory of fighting experiences I dont see how it works, maybe I am misunderstanding and visualizing it wrong, I dont know. I do not live near a " good , non seminar student" WSL according to your standards so how I am suppose to go see a teacher to get it explained ? Fair enough though if you do not want certain people seeing it. Just send me a pm with a private link and I wont share


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> Well then your desire to see good wing chun sparring has been satisfied. What more do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> This aspect has been explained pretty comprehensively I would say. Which bit are you not understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to persevere more. I don't feel bad when people call me names



You are right but I want to see this WSL stuff since its caused such a commotion. 

What. You are acting like a kid telling me to just watch Alans videos. Just stating what I think. Calling people names over a forum is a bit silly. So is arguing over techniques.
So is making it out like you have the best stuff and everyone elses is " inefficient , not vt thinking" then refusing to show anyone because you are worried its going to damage the system ? I dont understand what the big deal is of just making a video example ?


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> I dont understand what the big deal is of just making a video example ?



People on the forum. It would be pretty stupid of me to post a clip here.


----------



## Transk53

dudewingchun said:


> You are right but I want to see this WSL stuff since its caused such a commotion.
> 
> What. You are acting like a kid telling me to just watch Alans videos. Just stating what I think. Calling people names over a forum is a bit silly. So is arguing over techniques.
> So is making it out like you have the best stuff and everyone elses is " inefficient , not vt thinking" then refusing to show anyone because you are worried its going to damage the system ? I dont understand what the big deal is of just making a video example ?



Yep. I kind of wonder if Guy b is related to Hendrick. Anyway you are wasting you're time, Trolls don't listen, however some dun can be gleaned from that fact.

Suppose now Guy b will come with some embarrassing sarcastic response, that won't make sense. I like Trolls in the Witcher 3, they grasshoppers look like geniuses


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Yep. I kind of wonder if Guy b is related to Hendrick. Anyway you are wasting you're time, Trolls don't listen, however some dun can be gleaned from that fact.
> 
> Suppose now Guy b will come with some embarrassing sarcastic response, that won't make sense. I like Trolls in the Witcher 3, they grasshoppers look like geniuses



I'm not proposing some mystical/theoretical nonsense or demanding that you accept it. I am merely describing WSL VT. You can take it or leave it. 

Come and spar if you like.


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> I kind of wonder if Guy b is related to Hendrick.



Henrick's theories are part of CSL wing chun aren't they?


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> I'm not proposing some mystical/theoretical nonsense or demanding that you accept it. I am merely describing WSL VT. You can take it or leave it.
> 
> Come and spar if you like.



Oh dear, you really are that deluded. You do not offer opinions, but critiques. Nothing else you say, or have said, can be taken with nothing more than a pinch of salt.

As for sparring, and don't take this wrong way, I would have to decline on you're obvious, but not aggressive terms. As far as I am concerned, you're offer is hollow. Why would I want to affirm you're tenacity towards you're agenda. I could not care a hoot about how you feel being slighted by EVERYBODY, about how the so called opinions are conveyed.


----------



## geezer

Guy B, I'm an old guy, don't spar too much, and am crap with technology so I don't make videos. Just as well. I'd probably embarrass myself. But you are a young fellow who, by your own account, engages in regular bare knuckle sparring and probably knows how to post videos with no trouble. 

So why not post something here or up in the "Members in motion" forum? Most people would be supportive and it would be very informative.


----------



## Transk53

geezer said:


> Guy B, I'm an old guy, don't spar too much, and am crap with technology so I don't make videos. Just as well. I'd probably embarrass myself. But you are a young fellow who, by your own account, engages in regular bare knuckle sparring and probably knows how to post videos with no trouble.
> 
> So why not post something here or up in the "Members in motion" forum? Most people would be supportive and it would be very informative.



For the record I agree with you Geezer. But youth today, won't understand subtle.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> People on the forum. It would be pretty stupid of me to post a clip here.



No.  I don't think that's it at all.  I think you are afraid to show yourself.  You are afraid people will be just as critical of you as you have been of them.  And you called ME a coward!


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Oh dear, you really are that deluded. You do not offer opinions, but critiques. Nothing else you say, or have said, can be taken with nothing more than a pinch of salt.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, you're offer is hollow. Why would I want to affirm you're tenacity towards you're agenda. I could not care a hoot about how you feel being slighted by EVERYBODY, about how the so called opinions are conveyed.



It is quite hard to understand what you are trying to say. Is English your second language?



> As for sparring, and don't take this wrong way, I would have to decline on you're obvious, but not aggressive terms.



I thought you wanted to spar?


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> Guy B, I'm an old guy, don't spar too much, and am crap with technology so I don't make videos. Just as well. I'd probably embarrass myself. But you are a young fellow who, by your own account, engages in regular bare knuckle sparring and probably knows how to post videos with no trouble.
> 
> So why not post something here or up in the "Members in motion" forum? Most people would be supportive and it would be very informative.



PB says better to keep stupid people away from the system. I believe that enough has been said for any interested person.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> No.  I don't think that's it at all.  I think you are afraid to show yourself.  You are afraid people will be just as critical of you as you have been of them.  And you called ME a coward!



It was your dishonesty that I commented about, not a video clip. People are free to PM


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> PB says better to keep stupid people away from the system. I believe that enough has been said for any interested person.


 
 Sounds to me like you guys are more afraid of critical examination and skepticism.  Any threat to the "True Believer" status is a problem!  No one here is stupid.  But many of us are skeptical.  You talk a big talk but are unwilling to back it up.  Pretty typical for talkers.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> It was your dishonesty that I commented about, not a video clip. People are free to PM



I don't believe you.  I think you are afraid and are dodging the issue.  Seems to me that you are the one being dishonest here.  Put up or shut up.  Simple as that.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Sounds to me like you guys are more afraid of critical examination and skepticism.  Any threat to the "True Believer" status is a problem!  No one here is stupid.  But many of us are skeptical.  You talk a big talk but are unwilling to back it up.  Pretty typical for talkers.



I'm happy to back it up


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> Sounds to me like you guys are more afraid of critical examination and skepticism.  Any threat to the "True Believer" status is a problem!  No one here is stupid.  But many of us are skeptical.  You talk a big talk but are unwilling to back it up.  Pretty typical for talkers.



Well, perhaps they are reflecting back to the Gledhill / Obasi chi sau vid?  That didn't go so well if I recall. I think I read somewhere that even PB wasn't pleased(?).


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I don't believe you.  I think you are afraid and are dodging the issue.  Seems to me that you are the one being dishonest here.  Put up or shut up.  Simple as that.



Please stop trolling or I'm sure someone like geezer will report you to the moderators


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I'm happy to back it up



Ok talker.  Then let's see your sparring video!  Simple as that!  Put up or shut up.


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> Well, perhaps they are reflecting back to the Gledhill / Obasi chi sau vid?  That didn't go so well if I recall. I think I read somewhere that even PB wasn't pleased(?).



Exactly!  Another big talker that didn't come through when the chips were down!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Please stop trolling or I'm sure someone like geezer will report you to the moderators



 No one is trolling here mate!  The discussion has obviously shifted to why you are afraid to post a video.  Put up or shut up.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Ok talker.  Then let's see your sparring video!  Simple as that!  Put up or shut up.



You equate posting a video clip to 'putting up'? Lol


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> No one is trolling here mate!  The discussion has obviously shifted to why you are afraid to post a video.  Put up or shut up.



You are quite obviously trolling. Luckily I am not an emotional person


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> You are quite obviously trolling. Luckily I am not an emotional person



I don't think I'm the only one that is tired off all your "talk, talk, talk" and running other people down.  So put up or shut up!  Show us a video of you sparring well with your WSLVT and maybe we will start to believe you are worth listening to.  Stop making excuses.  Put or shut up!


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I don't think I'm the only one that is tired off all your "talk, talk, talk" and running other people down.  So put up or shut up!  Show us a video of you sparring well with your WSLVT and maybe we will start to believe you are worth listening to.  Stop making excuses.  Put or shut up!



I am not posting here for your benefit. Please don't read if you don't like. 

Any honest person is free to experience for themselves. Much better than any video clip


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I am not posting here for your benefit. Please don't read if you don't like.
> 
> Any honest person is free to experience for themselves. Much better than any video clip



What are you afraid of?  Put up or shut up!


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> What are you afraid of?  Put up or shut up!



With respect, you seem slightly emotionally unbalanced over the fact that you can't make it so by shouting. Are you ok?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> With respect, you seem slightly emotionally unbalanced over the fact that you can't make it so by shouting. Are you ok?



Stop making excuses.  And you called ME a coward!  You said I was dishonest.  Well, you are revealing YOUR true colors here!   You are obviously afraid to show yourself and your WSLVT.  You are obviously afraid to open yourself to possible criticism.  And you are dishonest by saying it is because of some silly "stupid people" rule.  Put or shut up!  Enough said!


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Stop making excuses.  And you called ME a coward!  You said I was dishonest.  Well, you are revealing YOUR true colors here!   You are obviously afraid to show yourself and your WSLVT.  You are obviously afraid to open yourself to possible criticism.  And you are dishonest by saying it is because of some silly "stupid people" rule.  Put or shut up!  Enough said!



Please take some deep breaths and relax


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Please take some deep breaths and relax



More talk.  Talk. Talk. Talk.  Put up or shut up.  Simple as that.


----------



## guy b.

Well I'm not going to stop typing messages on the forum, and I'm not going to teach you by video unless you pay me to. 

I am happy to put up if you demand it, but I don't really want to fight with you either because I would feel bad about it. 

Will you be ok?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Well I'm not going to stop typing messages on the forum, and I'm not going to teach you by video unless you pay me to.
> 
> I am happy to put up if you demand it, but I don't really want to fight with you either because I would feel bad about it.
> 
> Will you be ok?



You're still making excuses.  Put up or shut up.  Talker.


----------



## guy b.

Just stating my position, which isn't going to change. Will you be ok? I am now worried about your emotional state


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Just stating my position, which isn't going to change. Will you be ok? I am now worried about your emotional state



 You are still avoiding the issue by trying to be cute.  Typical of a talker.  It should be pretty clear to everyone now that YOU are the coward and are being dishonest with us and maybe even with yourself.   So keep this exchange in mind the next time you tell someone in the forum that their Wing Chun is substandard and doesn't work because it doesn't work in sparring.  Because YOU are unwilling to show that your Wing Chun actually does work in sparring.  So you have no room to talk.  So just keep on being cute.  But you have revealed yourself now.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You are still avoiding the issue by trying to be cute.  Typical of a talker.  It should be pretty clear to everyone now that YOU are the coward and are being dishonest with us and maybe even with yourself.   So keep this exchange in mind the next time you tell someone in the forum that their Wing Chun is substandard and doesn't work because it doesn't work in sparring.  Because YOU are unwilling to show that your Wing Chun actually does work in sparring.  So you have no room to talk.  So just keep on being cute.  But you have revealed yourself now.



It is great of you to try and set forum rules. Do they apply to everyone or just to me? Do you also have to post video?

Please try not to flip out again in future, it it really worrying to see


----------



## geezer

Will you guys cut it out already! We are not in fifth grade! On one level, your back-and-forth is so infantile, it is actually kinda funny, ...but at another level it makes us _all _look incredibly *stupid.* 

Speaking of which, I actually quite like that quote attributed to PB about_ keeping stupid people away from his system_. On the flip-side, if you both keep it up, not only will none of us ever be welcome in a PB-WSL VT school, Guy could get his backside booted out for engaging in really stupid juvenile banter with equally stupid sounding antagonists. 

Now about posting videos. I don't see why anybody should feel compelled to post a video if they don't feel like it. Danny has said that he doesn't post videos of himself, neither do I, ...or Joy. KPM has posted some stuff. Good for him. But although I'd _like_ to see how Guy and his mates spar, it's no big deal if he prefers to keep that private. And considering the hostility emerging on this forum, can anybody blame him?


----------



## dudewingchun

I just saw Shawn Obasi vs Kevin Gledhill.. What a mess that was. Expected him to get sassed up by the WSL guy but he just pushed him around with his shitty body structure and the WSL guy couldnt do much. 

Guy b and LFJ  thoughts on that video ?


----------



## wckf92

dudewingchun said:


> I just saw Shawn Obasi vs Kevin Gledhill.. What a mess that was. Expected him to get sassed up by the WSL guy but he just pushed him around with his shitty body structure and the WSL guy couldnt do much.
> 
> Guy b and LFJ  thoughts on that video ?



Just some context on that... there were two dudes on another forum that had similar posts, all pro-WSLPBVT, everyone else was 'wrong', etc. They also were not keen on posting video. Then the Gledhill/Obasi vid showed up. After that.....crickets chirping...


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> Just some context on that... there were two dudes on another forum that had similar posts, all pro-WSLPBVT, everyone else was 'wrong', etc. They also were not keen on posting video. Then the Gledhill/Obasi vid showed up. After that.....crickets chirping...



Pretty poor clip


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> Pretty poor clip



I searched him up and it says he started wing chun in '84 and under PB in 2004. That is quite a shocking display for someone whos trained that long in a good lineage against someone like Obasi. I guess it really does depend on the practitioner and not the art.


----------



## geezer

dudewingchun said:


> I just saw Shawn Obasi vs Kevin Gledhill.. What a mess that was. Expected him to get sassed up by the WSL guy but he just pushed him around with his shitty body structure and the WSL guy couldnt do much.
> 
> Guy b and LFJ  thoughts on that video ?



Kevin said it himself in the video. Something like _"That is not our Chi-Sau"._ I take that to mean that chi-sau should be a training drill, not a competitive form of sparring. As much as I enjoyed seeing Kevin get pushed around, he had a point. The whole exercise with Obasi was pretty pointless. And if Kevin hadn't been such an arrogant jerk on that other forum, nobody would have cared about the video.

There's a lesson to be learned here for those who can read between the lines.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> I searched him up and it says he started wing chun in '84 and under PB in 2004. That is quite a shocking display for someone whos trained that long in a good lineage against someone like Obasi. I guess it really does depend on the practitioner and not the art.



There is no magic bullet and people vary in skill

However I heard he was expecting chi sau and didn't get anything like.


----------



## Danny T

Clip? I apologize but I must have missed something. What clip and where?


----------



## geezer

Danny T said:


> Clip? I apologize but I must have missed something. What clip and where?



This:


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> However I heard he was expecting chi sau and didn't get anything like.



True. But with all the smack-talking...you'd think he would have just unleashed the superior skill of PBVT and 'handled' Obasi. Perhaps with some of the highly trained and overly discussed "elbow" training of the PB boys? Perhaps a tan elbow punch might have put Obasi's onslaught into a different reality?


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> This:



This clip might not mean much to Danny if he wasn't present for the years of G.H. and K.G. on that other forum...years of "we are right, you are wrong"...


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> True. But with all the smack-talking...you'd think he would have just unleashed the superior skill of PBVT and 'handled' Obasi. Perhaps with some of the highly trained and overly discussed "elbow" training of the PB boys? Perhaps a tan elbow punch might have put Obasi's onslaught into a different reality?



Personally looking at it I don't think KG ever realises that Obasi has some kind of weird ambush planned and keeps trying to chi sau all the way through.

For me, as a clip of someone supposed to be a professional combat athlete vs KG (who is not young and a seminar student of PB), it doesn't look all that impressive for Obassi


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> This:


Thank you geezer.
Uhh, this is interesting...just what was that supposed to be?
Don't know either of these guys and don't know anything about them. From a just viewing perspective, this appears to be one person (black shorts) making an attempt to play chi sao and the other (light color pants) forcibly trying to impose his will on the other. It is not chi sao (as I know it) nor is it sparring of any type (as I know it).


----------



## dudewingchun

It is pretty horrible on Obasi's behalf. Its like hes stuck half in chi sao and half trying to just push and shove trying to make a point that hes good. Ended up making them both look bad I suppose. I have to admit I dont like Obasi at all, I think he gives wc a bad name. But is embarrassing seeing him roll with " Sifus" and they cant seem to handle pressure from someone who doesnt do what they expect even if it is really low technical skill and just brute force pushing and shoving.. Dont want to act like hes the absolute best but im pretty sure Alan would of completely wiped the floor with Obasi in that situation. A Sifu should be able to handle that even if it wasn't what he expected. Good structure doesn't just disappear when you get pushed by someone who is just physically strong imo


----------



## wckf92

Danny T said:


> Thank you geezer.
> Uhh, this is interesting...just what was that supposed to be?
> Don't know either of these guys and don't know anything about them. From a just viewing perspective, this appears to be one person (black shorts) making an attempt to play chi sao and the other (light color pants) forcibly trying to impose his will on the other. It is not chi sao (as I know it) nor is it sparring of any type (as I know it).



Another interpretation is that the guy in light color pants got sick and tired of the elitist comments from the guy in shorts and decided to call him out on it...?


----------



## wckf92

dudewingchun said:


> It is pretty horrible on Obasi's behalf. Its like hes stuck half in chi sao and half trying to just push and shove trying to make a point that hes good. Ended up making them both look bad I suppose. I have to admit I dont like Obasi at all, I think he gives wc a bad name. But is embarrassing seeing him roll with " Sifus" and they cant seem to handle pressure from someone who doesnt do what the expect even if it is really low technical skill and just brute force pushing and shoving.. Dont want to act like hes the absolute best but im pretty sure Alan would of completely wiped the floor with Obasi in that situation. A Sifu should be able to handle that even if it wasn't what he expected. Good structure doesn't just disappear when you get pushed by someone who is just physically strong imo



IMO, if you are getting "owned" like Gledhill was in that video...he should have switched mindset and realized that Obasi wasn't there to just chi sao. He should have switched to "it's a fight" and escalated his superior PBVT to a degree necessary to shut down Obasi (if he had the skill set to do this)...which, from all his posts...he clearly did.


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> Another interpretation is that the guy in light color pants got sick and tired of the elitist comments from the guy in shorts and decided to call him out on it...?



Was obasi a regular poster on the KFM forum?


----------



## KPM

Will you guys cut it out already! We are not in fifth grade! On one level, your back-and-forth is so infantile, it is actually kinda funny, ...but at another level it makes us _all _look incredibly *stupid.* 

---I realize that Steve.  But I wanted it to be very clear where Guy is actually coming from.   He and LFJ called me all kinds of things, when it is clear now that Guy is much more guilty of these things than I ever was.  It took awhile to make the point.  But I think the point is now made.  Don't you?

And considering the hostility emerging on this forum, can anybody blame him?

---Absolutely! Yes we can blame him, because he has brought any hostility upon himself!  Here is a guy that has told multiple people on multiple occasions that their Wing Chun is no good and that his Wing Chun is the best!  He has told people that what they do doesn't work because it doesn't work in sparring.  He has bragged about sparring regularly bare-knuckle.  So I don't think it is too much to ask him to provide video showing everyone that he actually knows what he is talking about.  Refusing to do that and making excuses and getting all "cute" about it says a lot about his character.  Don't you think?


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> IMO, if you are getting "owned" like Gledhill was in that video...he should have switched mindset and realized that Obasi wasn't there to just chi sao. He should have switched to "it's a fight" and escalated his superior PBVT to a degree necessary to shut down Obasi (if he had the skill set to do this)...which, from all his posts...he clearly did.



I think the reason KG didn't escalate was probably that Obasi wasn't causing any damage and he just assumed a complete spaz trying to chi sau. KG tries to chi sau all the way through the clip and appears puzzled at the end. If you find this to be an example of getting "owned" then I can only suggest you broaden your experience

12512892 212991712372606 408115500 n


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> it is clear now that Guy is much more guilty of these things than I ever was. It took awhile to make the point. But I think the point is now made. Don't you?



I haven't lied about anything and I am happy to have a sparring session with you or your friends. I believe this makes me not a liar and not a coward. 

You on the other hand continue to be both. Stalking me like an insane person on the forum doesn't make me more likely to post videos which will help you cover up your hilariously faulty wing chun. If you want an instructional video then pay for one.


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> I think the reason KG didn't escalate was probably that Obasi wasn't causing any damage and he just assumed a complete spaz trying to chi sau. KG tries to chi sau all the way through the clip and appears puzzled at the end. If you find this to be an example of getting "owned" then I can only suggest you broaden your experience
> 
> 12512892 212991712372606 408115500 n


I was actually about to post that video aswell for contrast. But the one I saw was a different angle ( of the same time and place ?? )






It looks like PB is semi teaching him/ being polite and Shawn is actually trying to learn and not ' win '. The only thing is this seems to be a year before the Kevin Gledhill exchange. 

That video of Shawn Obasi getting rejected from mma tryouts really makes me cringe.. like most of his videos actually.


----------



## geezer

dudewingchun said:


> I was actually about to post that video aswell for contrast. But the one I saw was a different angle ( of the same time and place ?? )



Love it. Even though it's a lesson and not free-flowing nuk-sau, it's absolutely clear that PB owns Obasi. Same thing in the video of Obasi working with Emin. In both cases Obasi didn't dare mess with these guys. On the other hand when working with Kevin G., ....Well I guess he's just not anywhere near that level.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> On the other hand when working with Kevin G., ....



Working with?

What I see is one guy trying to roll while another is in an imaginary fight by himself. 

KG is not fighting back at all because he's not supposed to be fighting.

Personally, I would have stopped the nonsense much sooner, but KG does finally stop and tell him "_this isn't our_ _chi-sau_", which shows what they were supposed to have been doing. SO was just in a fight in his own head.

This is a perfect example of the unproductive mess that is the result of trying to "_chi-sau_" with someone who is not on the same page.

It's supposed to be a mutual drilling format with someone of the same lineage who knows how to work their partner. "Fighting" from that position is retarded. If you want to fight, or compare lineage styles, do it in free fighting.

When you explain how you roll and why, then you can make something productive out of it, as we see between SO and PB.

For anyone who understands what _chi-sau_ is, SO has only shown how clueless and messy he is. KG only looked bad to equally clueless people.


----------



## Phobius

Actually to add, KG could simply have taken a step back and Obasi would have leaned over and tripped most likely. Talk about a non-existent body structure.


----------



## dudewingchun

Phobius said:


> Actually to add, KG could simply have taken a step back and Obasi would have leaned over and tripped most likely. Talk about a non-existent body structure.


 Obasi is a fool imo. He is literally leaning forward at the waist and pushes with his shoulder muscles. Who does he even learn from ?


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> Obasi is a fool imo. He is literally leaning forward at the waist and pushes with his shoulder muscles. Who does he even learn from ?



No one? "Everyone". 

His Youtube name is Wing Chun "Ronin".


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I haven't lied about anything and I am happy to have a sparring session with you or your friends. I believe this makes me not a liar and not a coward.
> 
> You on the other hand continue to be both. Stalking me like an insane person on the forum doesn't make me more likely to post videos which will help you cover up your hilariously faulty wing chun. If you want an instructional video then pay for one.


 
Given that we are separated by an entire ocean, video is the next best thing.  So stop hiding behind excuses and cute talk.  Otherwise it is becoming very clear to everyone here that you are just a talker.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Working with?
> 
> What I see is one guy trying to roll while another is in an imaginary fight by himself.
> 
> KG is not fighting back at all because he's not supposed to be fighting.
> 
> Personally, I would have stopped the nonsense much sooner, but KG does finally stop and tell him "_this isn't our_ _chi-sau_", which shows what they were supposed to have been doing. SO was just in a fight in his own head.
> 
> This is a perfect example of the unproductive mess that is the result of trying to "_chi-sau_" with someone who is not on the same page.
> 
> .


 
That's a BS excuse.   KG knew Obasi's reputation going into that and should have known exactly what to expect.  If he was truly surprised by Obasi's response, then he must have been a complete idiot.   When he realized that Obasi was doing more than just a "friendly roll" he could have cranked up all of that WSL/PB VT awesomeness, but he didn't.  He just let Obasi shove him around.


----------



## LFJ

Whatever.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Given that we are separated by an entire ocean, video is the next best thing.  So stop hiding behind excuses and cute talk.  Otherwise it is becoming very clear to everyone here that you are just a talker.



Please stop stalking me. I'm half expecting to see you lurking in the trees outside my house. 

For the record I am very happy to help people that are not you. Now run along.


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> It is quite hard to understand what you are trying to say. Is English your second language?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you wanted to spar?



Do I sound like I am a Klingon or something. Anyway, in some respect I guess English could be behind speaking Essex lol.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Please stop stalking me. I'm half expecting to see you lurking in the trees outside my house.
> 
> For the record I am very happy to help people that are not you. Now run along.


 
Stop hiding behind the cute comments.  Put up or shut up.


----------



## Phobius

Guys, what if you put half of your effort on this forum into training a bit harder?

And no I am not saying you need to, because none of you have posted any videos on your own skillset. I simply would not know. Just imagine how good you could be had you trained even more.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> . KG only looked bad to equally clueless people.



Call me clueless, but I thought they both looked bad in different ways. Maybe because after following Kevin's posts I was expecting more. Other than that, I agree with what you said above.


----------



## geezer

Phobius said:


> Guys, what if you put half of your effort on this forum into training a bit harder?
> 
> And no I am not saying you need to, because none of you have posted any videos on your own skillset. I simply would not know. Just imagine how good you could be had you trained even more.



Of course you're right, but I've been down with a bad cold and this is my only outlet for the moment...


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Stop hiding behind the cute comments.  Put up or shut up.



For god's sake, Keith give it a rest. By refusing to let things go you end up validating guy's assertions. And, although you may not see it, you're being played. If you let these things get you mad enough, the mods may end up coming after _you_ ...which would be a huge loss to this forum.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Stop hiding behind the cute comments.  Put up or shut up.



Stop stalking me, it's creepy


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Do I sound like I am a Klingon or something. Anyway, in some respect I guess English could be behind speaking Essex lol.



Your English sounds as if it is being spoken by someone with severe brain damage. Like KPM please stop following all over the forum offering to fight me then running away.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> For god's sake, Keith give it a rest. By refusing to let things go you end up validating guy's assertions. And, although you may not see it, you're being played. If you let these things get you mad enough, the mods may end up coming after _you_ ...which would be a huge loss to this forum.



I don't have the time or inclination to play an elaborate game with KPM. Really at this point I just want him to stop interacting with me because it is getting a bit strange


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> I don't have the time or inclination to play an elaborate game with KPM. Really at this point I just want him to stop interacting with me because it is getting a bit strange



You could prove that by stopping first and just ignoring him. LFJ too. It would really improve the climate around here.


----------



## Danny T

guy b. said:


> I don't have the time or inclination to play an elaborate game with KPM. Really at this point I just want him to stop interacting with me because it is getting a bit strange


This is comical.


----------



## JPinAZ

Actually, it's embarrassing. Grown men actually act like this?


----------



## geezer

Transk53 said:


> Do I sound like I am a Klingon or something. Anyway, in some respect I guess English could be behind speaking Essex lol.



How you sound? I have no idea. I only know you through the _written_ word.

When I first started posting, I was told that sometimes I _wrote_ with an English accent... but all the while in my own head it read like the ramblings of a proper redneck, born and raised in Arizona. I chalked it up to watching too many episodes of Red Dwarf back in the 90s.


----------



## geezer

JPinAZ said:


> Actually, it's embarrassing. Grown men actually act like this?



Heck yeah. Kids aren't that dumb!


----------



## KPM

Danny T said:


> This is comical.


 
It is, isn't it???  I find it a bit amusing to watch him squirm now that he has been put on the spot.     But I think I've made my point now.  Everyone sees Guy for what he is.  So I'll stop poking him.


----------



## wckf92

Welcome to page 20!!!


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> It is, isn't it???  I find it a bit amusing to watch him squirm now that he has been put on the spot.     But I think I've made my point now.  Everyone sees Guy for what he is.  So I'll stop poking him.



No. _Both_ you guys came off looking the worse for this bickering. And this comment is just another jab. Seriously, you really ought to put those guys on your ignore list.


----------



## Danny T

KPM said:


> It is, isn't it???  I find it a bit amusing to watch him squirm now that he has been put on the spot.     But I think I've made my point now.  Everyone sees Guy for what he is.  So I'll stop poking him.


And you do so as well.

You just poked him again.
You can't not provoke, he can't not respond & poke back. You in turn can't not respond & poke back.
So it continues. It is Both of You.
No one else cares but the two of you. Others want to discuss and move on. You guys are all about one upping each other.

I love your passion and both of you have some very good perspectives of what you do. I enjoy gaining knowledge of the specifics of those perspectives. It is the constant jabbing of what others do and lack of substance about your perspective that is disappointing. I believe most people are unwilling to have and deep discussion or give more information because of the constant criticisms, belittling, and lack of respect for others' opinions, experiences, and perspectives.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ Point taken.  I'm done.  Thanks!


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> Your English sounds as if it is being spoken by someone with severe brain damage. Like KPM please stop following all over the forum offering to fight me then running away.



Look. I like a bit of banter, but that is just plain offensive. For a start I am not severly brane damage'd, just slightly. To suggest otherwise incarrrate


----------



## Transk53

geezer said:


> How you sound? I have no idea. I only know you through the _written_ word.
> 
> When I first started posting, I was told that sometimes I _wrote_ with an English accent... but all the while in my own head it read like the ramblings of a proper redneck, born and raised in Arizona. I chalked it up to watching too many episodes of Red Dwarf back in the 90s.



Despite not having lived in Essex for a good number of years, I have been asked which bit I hail from. The one thing I did drop, was the regional slang. Like "you know what I saying" sort of thing. Anyway, I sound really deep voiced on the phone and any work recordings. But what I hear is vastly different.


----------



## jks9199

Thread locked pending admin review

jks9199
Administrator


----------

