Tan Sau?

[Jake104]

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

 

[Jake104]

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

 

[Danny T]

...this is a discussion forum.

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

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

 

[Jake104]

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

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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

To be fair, the original questions were concerning matters of fact rather than opinion. The questions were "was anyone else taught that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole?...and do any other lineages teach the idea that the Tan is for training the elbow only?" not "do you think it is correct that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole and that the Tan is for training the elbow only?"

The second of these would be a call for opinions. The first would be a call for factual answers like "Yes. My instructor, Bruce Leroy of the xyz lineage always said that Wing Chun unarmed methods were derived from the Pole." or "No. I've trained under the abc lineage for 15 years and never heard either of those claims."

 

[KPM]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

To be fair, the original questions were concerning matters of fact rather than opinion. The questions were "was anyone else taught that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole?...and do any other lineages teach the idea that the Tan is for training the elbow only?" not "do you think it is correct that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole and that the Tan is for training the elbow only?"

The second of these would be a call for opinions. The first would be a call for factual answers like "Yes. My instructor, Bruce Leroy of the xyz lineage always said that Wing Chun unarmed methods were derived from the Pole." or "No. I've trained under the abc lineage for 15 years and never heard either of those claims."

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

 

[Jake104]

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

 

[Jake104]

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

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

 

[Danny T]

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

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

 

[Phobius]

There is no right or wrong only the consequences.

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

 

[Vajramusti]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

 

[KPM]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

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