Tan Sau?

[Cephalopod]

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

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

 

[Danny T]

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

Yeap.

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

 

[wckf92]

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

Oh yeah!

 

[KPM]

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

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

 

[geezer]

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

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

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

Then, if you continue pressing forward, retracting and converting the punch in the tan-da to an outdoor pak-sau on the upper arm, the pak will free the way for your tan-sau to slide up your opponent's arm and become a chang-sau to the throat ...effectively using the tan-sau position to strike offensively.

What am I missing here?

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

Then, if you continue pressing forward, retracting and converting the punch in the tan-da to an outdoor pak-sau on the upper arm, the pak will free the way for your tan-sau to slide up your opponent's arm and become a chang-sau to the throat ...effectively using the tan-sau position to strike offensively.

What am I missing here?

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

 

[wckf92]

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

 

[Danny T]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

 

[wckf92]

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

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

Drink water...and enjoy your day

 

[Danny T]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

Drink water...and enjoy your day

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

 

[Jake104]

guy b.? wckf92? Any input??

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

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

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