Tension

[KPM]

Ok. Rather than just being contrary, actually taking part in the discussion would be nice!

Name one pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands. And keep in mind the definition of "identical"!!!

Name one other lineage that talks about the Tan as being used only to train the elbow and not being used in application itself.

 

[wckf92]

Ok. Rather than just being contrary, actually taking part in the discussion would be nice! .

Just FYI...you don't either. You rarely use the multi-quote function, which sometimes makes your replies ambiguous. But, whatever... you are WC aristocracy...(apparently)

Name one pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands.

Ummm...how's about the Pole punch... (sometimes referred to as a bow and arrow punch). *typically used in long bridge situations where longer ranges are present.

Name one other lineage that talks about the Tan as being used only to train the elbow and not being used in application itself.

Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety.

 

[KPM]

Just FYI...you don't either. You rarely use the multi-quote function, which sometimes makes your replies ambiguous. But, whatever... you are WC aristocracy...(apparently)

----I use this handy little thing where I preface my answer to the comment just above it by using little dashes. But maybe you missed that??


Ummm...how's about the Pole punch... (sometimes referred to as a bow and arrow punch). *typically used in long bridge situations where longer ranges are present.

---The "Pole punch" is about the most worthless Wing Chun technique there is! I have never used, nor seen anyone ever use that as an actual technique in application. Is that the only example you can come up with?

Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety.

----Ok. I'm waiting. The idea was to take part in the discussion by actually responding to questions. Did you miss that as well?

 

[Danny T]

Tan Gwan,
Biu Gwan
Huen Gwan
All are essentially the same as empty hand.

 

[wckf92]

---The "Pole punch" is about the most worthless Wing Chun technique there is! I have never used, nor seen anyone ever use that as an actual technique in application. Is that the only example you can come up with?

Well, you did post: "Name one pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands." ....did you not(?).

So, I named one...guess it didn't live up to your expectations.

 

[KPM]

Tan Gwan,
Biu Gwan
Huen Gwan
All are essentially the same as empty hand.

"Essentially the same" is not the same thing as "identical." Those are all essentially the same thing as standard Olympic fencing moves as well.

 

[KPM]

Well, you did post: "Name one pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands." ....did you not(?).

So, I named one...guess it didn't live up to your expectations.

Look, guy's premise was that the Wing Chun empty hand methods came from the Pole, in fact he said the Pole and the empty hands were "identical." Naming one technique from empty hands that nobody really uses or applies doesn't really support his case. Is that all you can come up with? Are you actually participating in this discussion or just being catty?

 

[Danny T]

"Essentially the same" is not the same thing as "identical." Those are all essentially the same thing as standard Olympic fencing moves as well.

Full Definition of identical

1. 1 : being the same
   
   
2. 2 : to be essentially the same
   
   
3. 3 a : having the same cause or origin <identical infections> b : monozygotic

The WC system has evolved with weapons being added and as to the pole I agree it was added and kept. Not because it was different but because of what it expanded as to skill and abilities of the WC person. Use of the hip structure, use of the body as a unit vs just the arms, use of body rotation as well as body displacement for power generation, expanded understanding of controlling and use of the central line vs the centerline for attacking and defending. I also of the opinion that it WC wasn't a just an empty hand vs empty hand system. There are too many bladed weapon defensive movements, positions, and postures that are essentially the same in other edged weapon oriented systems that are not seen in other non edged weapon systems or styles.

 

[KPM]

The WC system has evolved with weapons being added and as to the pole I agree it was added and kept.

---I agree. I had never heard anyone say that the empty-hand methods were derived from the Pole until Guy said it.

Not because it was different but because of what it expanded as to skill and abilities of the WC person.

---This I agree with as well.

Use of the hip structure, use of the body as a unit vs just the arms, use of body rotation as well as body displacement for power generation, expanded understanding of controlling and use of the central line vs the centerline for attacking and defending.

---I agree with that as well! Those can certainly add to the Wing Chun skills without being "identical." Other things could train this, and arguably more efficiently, but traditional Wing Chun has chosen to keep the Pole for this.

I also of the opinion that it WC wasn't a just an empty hand vs empty hand system. There are too many bladed weapon defensive movements, positions, and postures that are essentially the same in other edged weapon oriented systems that are not seen in other non edged weapon systems or styles.

---That is an interesting premise, which I think we have touched upon before.

 

[dudewingchun]

Just FYI...you don't either. You rarely use the multi-quote function, which sometimes makes your replies ambiguous. But, whatever... you are WC aristocracy...(apparently)

----I use this handy little thing where I preface my answer to the comment just above it by using little dashes. But maybe you missed that??


Ummm...how's about the Pole punch... (sometimes referred to as a bow and arrow punch). *typically used in long bridge situations where longer ranges are present.

---The "Pole punch" is about the most worthless Wing Chun technique there is! I have never used, nor seen anyone ever use that as an actual technique in application. Is that the only example you can come up with?

Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety.

----Ok. I'm waiting. The idea was to take part in the discussion by actually responding to questions. Did you miss that as well?

Im pretty sure Duncan Leungs Wing chun use that punch quite a bit. Seems effective the way the do it. Iv just seen all of Larry saccoias videos and 2 of Duncan Leungs so im no expert just aware of how they do a few things.

 

[guy b.]

Just my .02 but to me, embedded in the pole (among other things) are the ideas of "the hand that hits also cancels" (or whatever); long-bridge WC ideas; kicking ideas; etc. Whether these were seeded in the pole form "from" WC empty hand; or vice versa...who knows.

I would strongly agree about the idea of simultaneous hit and block being pole related, whichever way the exchange flowed.

 

[guy b.]

The Pole shares just as many principles with modern Olympic fencing, and actually more actual techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty hands. Does that mean that Pole and Olympic fencing are the same system?

I agree that there are similarities between luk dim boon gwan in wing chun and western fencing. This is because both are attempting to hit an opponent with the end of a long thin object while also trying not to be hit. However there are exactly analogous techniques using the same principles in empty hand and LDBG which is not the case with either wing chun and fencing or LDBG and fencing. I will quote from a well known article rather than repeating the usual WSL teaching on this matter:

The version of the Luk Dim Boon Gwan form as taught by the late Wong Shun Leung:

1. Fong Lung Cheung - "releasing the dragon spearing-action" - the thrusting/ striking movement in the form which is its major attacking action, comparable to the basic Wing Chun punch.
2. Ping Cheung - "level spearing-action" - the pushing & pulling action of the form, similar to the Lan Sau in the empty-hand forms.
3. Leung Yi - "two moves" - the action that resembles the Jaat Sau and Jaam Sau techniques in the empty-hand forms. It is referred to as Leung Yi because it enables us to both defend and be in a position of attack within one action.
4. Lau Soi - "moving/stirring the water" - the movement that is the pole form's equivalent of the Bong Sau and Gaan Sau actions.
5. Kam Gwan - "covering pole" - the action that follows Lau Soi where the pole covers the opponent's weapon, knocking it downwards. It is akin to an exaggerated Jaat Sau action.
6. Dang Gwan - "ascending pole" - this is the arcing/lifting action done at the start of the pole form, and again towards the end, a Laan Sau-type motion that can be applied offensively or defensively.
7. Che Cheung - "descending spearing-action" - the backward/downward action at the very end of the pole form, used to intercept the opponent's weapon (or the opponent's legs) when the attack comes in on a low line from the rear. It is something of an "emergency" action, used to recover from being poorly positioned due to over-commitment of motion. It can be likened to the Suen Kuen ("chord punch") in the Cham Kiu form.

You continue:

No it doesn't. It only points to the Pole being an independent system from the empty hands. And there are no Pole techniques that are "identical" to the hand methods.

See above

Standing sideways and using only one side makes them quite different. The deeper stances and use of different stances makes the body dynamic different.

The body dynamic is the same from the back foot for one side. This is why training both sides makes sense. Standing sideways is a very superficial difference.

Where is your "back up" Wu Sau hand with the Pole? Where is your trap with one hand while hitting with the other with the Pole?

When you only have one hand there is no backup hand. Pole is one handed wing chun.

Where is your Chi Sau with the Pole?

Don't you drill with the pole?

The Pole shares a lot more with modern fencing's foil and epee techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty-hands.

Only on the most superficial level. If you understand the principles of wing chun then you will see that the empty hands and the pole are the same.

The knives share more with empty-hands than the Pole. You DO have a back-up Wu Sau hand with knives. You DO have a trap with one knife while hitting with the other. You have the equivalent of Tan Sau, Pak Sau, Gan Sau, Kwan Sau, etc with the knives. Sure, you have to adapt things to the knives to avoid cutting your own arms. But the knives are essentially an extension of the hand techniques. This is not true of the Pole.

Again on a superficial level the knives look similar to hands because, well, there are two of them and they are a bit more hand like than a great big pole. But the principles required for knife usage are contradictory to those used in empty hand and pole, and so cannot be said to be analogous or even very similar. The heart of the knives is very different to the empty hand system. I assume this is why it comes last- it is a graft on and is at odds with the rest of the system.

In contact with an opponent and he presses forward on my bridge I can pivot and deflect his force with a Tan while striking with my other hand. I flank the opponent and step into him and press with a Tan and a Palm to turn him and disrupt his base/balance (right out of the dummy form). I can think of lots of applications for the Tan shape.

You seem to be confusing the training wheels with riding the bike.

There is more to Wing Chun than chain punching!

I don't know what chain punching is. Wing chun is certainly not a grappling system.

And that whole idea is unique to WSL lineage. Which makes it a bit different and therefore odd in the world of Wing Chun! ;-) Because I have learned Tan and applications for Tan from 3 different versions of Wing Chun as well as from one version of Weng Chun. The idea that it is ONLY for training the elbow energy is simply....odd!

Some people on this very thread appear not to agree with you.

 

[guy b.]

I agree with your assertion that most of the postures train the elbow and the structures.
The tan shape is used to redirect or disperse force on the thumb side of the arm. Jum structure cannot be used for pressure on the thumb side but the elbow is used the same. As well the Jum structure redirects force on the little finger side of the arm and the tan structure doesn't but again the elbow is used the same. Elbow is extremely important and so too are the different arm structures.

I wouldn't say the elbow use is the same in tan and jum... also while forearm shape will tend to be different for a tanning action than for a jumming one, but it doesn't have to be. For me, training the energy of the elbow is the most important part of these shapes. The hands and forearms show explicitly how the elbow should work, and aid it in doing so. But they are training shapes.

 

[guy b.]

---The "Pole punch" is about the most worthless Wing Chun technique there is! I have never used, nor seen anyone ever use that as an actual technique in application. Is that the only example you can come up with?

The pole punch is about the most explicit neon lit road sign in the entire wing chun system on how the power production mechanics works. You then build it with the pole.

Ok. I'm waiting. The idea was to take part in the discussion by actually responding to questions. Did you miss that as well?

Sorry I have been busy

 

[KPM]

I will quote from a well known article rather than repeating the usual WSL teaching on this matter:

---The way you inserted that list it didn't come out in the quotes. But let me just say that the majority of what you described also has analogous techniques in Olympic Fencing.


See above

----Your "above" list did nothing to prove that the Pole came before the empty-hand and the empty-hand was derived from it. It only shows that there are analogous techniques between the Pole and empty-hand.



The body dynamic is the same from the back foot for one side. This is why training both sides makes sense. Standing sideways is a very superficial difference.

---No it is not. It completely changes how you use the Kwa and how you coordinate power from the legs. Is Hung Ga fighting from a horse stance the same body dynamic as Wing Chun?



When you only have one hand there is no backup hand. Pole is one handed wing chun.

---Which makes it somewhat different than two handed Wing Chun.



Don't you drill with the pole?

---Drilling with the pole is not Chi Sau.



Only on the most superficial level. If you understand the principles of wing chun then you will see that the empty hands and the pole are the same.

---I understand the principles of Wing Chun just fine. And I say that while they share a lot of the principles, the body dynamic is different and the techniques are not identical. While the Pole goes with Wing Chun, the empty-hand methods were not derived from the pole as you seem to think. While Pole training complements the empty-hand training, it can also easily be a "stand alone" system, and the empty-hand methods can also be developed just fine without training the Pole. So while they complement each other well, the Pole and the Empty-hands are not exactly the same.



Again on a superficial level the knives look similar to hands because, well, there are two of them and they are a bit more hand like than a great big pole. But the principles required for knife usage are contradictory to those used in empty hand and pole, and so cannot be said to be analogous or even very similar.

---Please explain how Kwan Sau and Kwan Do are not analgous or similar. Or how Tan Da and Tan Do are not analogous and similar. Or how Gan Sau and Gan Do are not analogous and similar. Or how any of the things in your list above for the Pole aren't also found with the knives. Other than making allowances so you are not cutting yourself with the knives, and using tactics for weapon vs. weapon, please explain why you think the knives and empty-hands are so very different, while at the same time thinking that the Pole and the empty-hands are exactly the same. That really makes not sense at all.




You seem to be confusing the training wheels with riding the bike.

---And you seem to rejecting a whole class of technique that the rest of the Wing Chun world freely makes use of.


Sorry I have been busy

---It is wtx I have been waiting for to answer my question. The question was which lineages other than Wong Shun Leung lineage teach the idea that Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and has no practical application. But please feel free to answer for him. Because I've only seen that from WSL lineage. If others teach that I would truly like to know.

 

[Eric_H]

Not sure how we got to a pole discussion from dynamic tension, but in the HFY line at least we credit the pole for being the genesis of gate theory (live side/dead side). Our long pole is different than YM's though... I personally see more of the 13 spear technique influence in it. The double ended short pole (Dragon Tiger Red Gate Killing Pole if I'm translating it right) is in our system as well, I've heard Yeun Kay Saan lines also had a short pole that they referred to 3 and 1/2 point?

 

[KPM]

Not sure how we got to a pole discussion from dynamic tension, but in the HFY line at least we credit the pole for being the genesis of gate theory (live side/dead side). Our long pole is different than YM's though... I personally see more of the 13 spear technique influence in it. The double ended short pole (Dragon Tiger Red Gate Killing Pole if I'm translating it right) is in our system as well, I've heard Yeun Kay Saan lines also had a short pole that they referred to 3 and 1/2 point?

Not unusual for discussions to cross-over several threads. ;-) It is Pin Sun that has the "3 1/2 point" Pole method. The Pole is only as long as "eyebrow height." The form is very short. But it is not really considered a "double end" Pole method.

 

[Eric_H]

Not unusual for discussions to cross-over several threads. ;-) It is Pin Sun that has the "3 1/2 point" Pole method. The Pole is only as long as "eyebrow height." The form is very short. But it is not really considered a "double end" Pole method.

Ah, Ok. Is there a vid of this anywhere you know? The HFY short pole is also eyebrow height, hoping to compare and contrast the usage of it.

 

[KPM]

No video that I know of. The Pin Sun pole is one of those "closely guarded secrets" for some reason.

 

[Eric_H]

Found the Sum Nung one I was thinking of: