Wing Chun Boxing

[LFJ]

I think it's important to keep the palm up shape, to hook incoming punches between the back of your hand and your wrist so you can twist into a grab/fook or sink it down and expose their flank.

What does your wslvt have to say about that?

I would say taan-sau is not a block and that fuk-sau is not a grab.

They aren't shapes for applications.

They are both training tools for developing striking ideas with dual offensive and defensive functions.

The important part is the elbow, as the hand can be a fist or palm as needed.

People look at the hand shapes in the training tools without information, and wonder how they can be used.

This mostly leads to arm-chasing techniques, as the striking concepts are lost.

 

[Martial D]

I would say taan-sau is not a block and that fuk-sau is not a grab.

They aren't shapes for applications.

They are both training tools for developing striking ideas with dual offensive and defensive functions.

The important part is the elbow, as the hand can be a fist or palm as needed.

People look at the hand shapes in the training tools without information, and wonder how they can be used.

This mostly leads to arm-chasing techniques, as the striking concepts are lost.

"without information"
See, this is why people don't like you. You are so arrogant it must hurt....

Or wait no, everything that isn't what you have been taught is made up, or incorrect, or incomplete.

Kick rocks.

 

[KPM]

....or to put it another way, here are a couple of possible reactions to you presenting different ideas which may not mesh with what somebody else does:



1. Oh, well that's not how we do it, but it's an interesting idea. I do have some concerns about it though, such as....

2. That's wrong. You are obviously an ignorant buffoon. Allow me to enlighten you as to the error of your ways....



--Personally, I favor the first mode. It makes for more pleasant conversations, and sometimes I learn stuff from unexpected sources.

Well said! And I find it interesting that T Ray "liked" your post as well, given that he has "agreed" with LFJ nearly EVERY time he has been posting with your #2 above!

 

[KPM]

You can, but since taan means to spread out, if you "spread inward" you are not using the taan concept.

----Only by YOUR definition!

Up to you to do what you want, but if you call it taan, you're just wrong by definition.

----Only by YOUR definition!

If it "deflects across" then it's arm-chasing.

----Only by YOUR definition!

Moving your left arm to the right, or vice versa, closes space between your arm and the centerline.

---Not if you are pivoting at the time!


Ignoring the concept (rather not knowing it)... Exactly my point.

---Once you again, you are sounding like a complete idiot.



You are castrating the concept completely to get what you're doing. You even admit this.

----I admitted no such thing. As per your usual....you are going out of your way just to argue.


A.k.a. arm-chasing.

----Only by YOUR definition! Did you read Geezer's post?

----Need I say it again? You prove over and over that you judge everything by your own understanding of VT and think anything that differs is "broken" or "incomplete" or "wrong"!!! Sorry, but you don't get to define EVERY version of Wing Chun! You need to get over yourself!!!

 

[LFJ]

"without information"
See, this is why people don't like you. You are so arrogant it must hurt....

Or wait no, everything that isn't what you have been taught is made up, or incorrect, or incomplete.

Kick rocks.

You asked. I answered.

 

[LFJ]

----Only by YOUR definition!

I don't have a definition.

It is the definition of the Chinese word.

---Not if you are pivoting at the time!

How is pivoting to move your center away while "deflecting across" not arm-chasing?!

That is the worst case of arm-chasing! You are chasing nothing but the arm, and doing it with your whole body.

You are castrating the concept completely to get what you're doing. You even admit this.

----I admitted no such thing.

You just said you get to your application by "ignoring" the concept.

 

[LFJ]

Well said! And I find it interesting that T Ray "liked" your post as well, given that he has "agreed" with LFJ nearly EVERY time he has been posting with your #2 above!

What I'm saying follows the #1 template.

1. Oh, well that's not how we do it, but it's an interesting idea. I do have some concerns about it though, such as....

....the fact that you're directly contradicting the definition of the Chinese term you're using. It's up to you to do what you want. Hopefully it works for you, but if you call it taan that is problematic, because it means the exact opposite of what you're doing.

 

[KPM]

What I'm saying follows the #1 template.

1. Oh, well that's not how we do it, but it's an interesting idea. I do have some concerns about it though, such as....

....the fact that you're directly contradicting the definition of the Chinese term you're using. It's up to you to do what you want. Hopefully it works for you, but if you call it taan that is problematic, because it means the exact opposite of what you're doing.

Total and complete BS!!!! Dude up to now you have laughed at multiple posts I've made and told me I was wrong about what I was saying.....including when I posted video of an adapted Bong-Lop Da drill. So how can you now deny you have been following Geezer's #2??? Do you completely lack insight? Or are you just a total XXXXXX????

 

[KPM]

It is the definition of the Chinese word.

---A general Chinese word that has been adapted to a specific martial arts movement. How "literal" someone follows the exact meaning of the word may vary in different lineages, as with many of the terms now used. "Gan Sau" is often translated as "cultivating hand." Are you actually "cultivating" anything with a Gan Sau??


How is pivoting to move your center away while "deflecting across" not arm-chasing?!

----You are in close with the inside of your left forearm in contact with the outside of the opponent's right forearm. He directs his energy towards you and you pivot as you deflect inward with a Tan to extend him slightly past you and then follow up immediately with an Fak Sau sweeping strike to the throat. The inward rolling motion with the Tan is just enough to deflect his strike while encouraging him to continue his forward momentum to run right into your sweeping strike to the throat. Pak Sau is no good because you are already contacting forearm to forearm. Fook Sau could work, but doesn't set up the fast sweeping strike to the throat nearly as well. This is a very fast "pivot, roll, strike." Something from Pin Sun that works very well. But I'm sure you've never seen it.



You just said you get to your application by "ignoring" the concept.

---Geez! You ARE dense! I noted one could see a punch in the Tan Sau. You argued that the punch violated the "concept" of the Tan and so was invalid. I pointed out that I wasn't using the "concept" of the Tan but rather the shape and minor alteration in movement of the Tan found in the form, and that it would no longer be a Tan (because a Tan is a defense) but is a punch that resembles a Tan. Why is that so hard for you to follow?? It does not mean that I don't understand the "concept" or the "use" of the Tan. It means that I am a bit more open-minded than you and much less dogmatic!

 

[drop bear]

So your not only a dumbass?

You are a racist army boy. Turn the 12 year old mode off boy, oh wait that's not possible since you are 12.

Can a mod or admin please stop this dumbass? Thank you

I think in context that is probably not so racist.

 

[LFJ]

---A general Chinese word that has been adapted to a specific martial arts movement. How "literal" someone follows the exact meaning of the word may vary in different lineages, as with many of the terms now used.

No. There's no adapting that can change that the word means to spread out or open.

If you want just "to spread" in general, there are other words.

"Gan Sau" is often translated as "cultivating hand." Are you actually "cultivating" anything with a Gan Sau??

It means to cultivate as in to plow. It describes the action of using a type of hoe to till the soil by hand.

It's the same action. Visually descriptive. It fits perfectly.

----You are in close with the inside of your left forearm in contact with the outside of the opponent's right forearm

I would not need to turn myself away with them and need another step before striking. You are not being simple, direct, or efficient.

I pointed out that I wasn't using the "concept" of the Tan but rather the shape and minor alteration in movement of the Tan found in the form, and that it would no longer be a Tan

Like I said, castrating the concept. You used the word "ignore".

It does not mean that I don't understand the "concept" or the "use" of the Tan. It means that I am a bit more open-minded than you and much less dogmatic!

It's "open-minded" to chuck out the concepts from a concept-based system and just use the shapes for individual techniques?

You may as well just go do boxing that already has those techniques. Why waste your time trying to turn your WC forms into WB?

 

[LFJ]

You are a racist

Islam is not a race, and you shouldn't name-call. It violates forum rules.

 

[Nobody Important]

 

[KPM]

No. There's no adapting that can change that the word means to spread out or open.

---And the example I gave "opens" or creates an opening for that Fak Sau sweeping strike. Just as in my Bong-Lop Da example the backhand strike creating an opening for the punch to the solar plexus. It also "spread out", just in a different direction. But evidently your VT doesn't have this concept of "setting up" or "creating an opening" using more than one action. You consider anything like that to be "arm chasing." But it is a very important concept in Boxing.


It means to cultivate as in to plow. It describes the action of using a type of hoe to till the soil by hand.

---So you take one word "Tan" as literal as possible, but not another word??


It's the same action. Visually descriptive. It fits perfectly.

---But you are not using the literal meaning as you do with Tan. So it seems to me there is some inherent flexibility in the way people use Wing Chun terminology.




I would not need to turn myself away with them and need another step before striking. You are not being simple, direct, or efficient.

---Its not "turning away from them." Its turning towards them. And like I said above, obviously your uber special VT lacks the concept of setting up or creating an opening and just seeks to "blast" straight in. And that matches most of the PB clips we have seen.



Like I said, castrating the concept. You used the word "ignore".

---Because its a punch, not a Tan Sau! So why would it follow the Tan concept??? Geez! Use your brain!


It's "open-minded" to chuck out the concepts from a concept-based system and just use the shapes for individual techniques?

---In this particular instance, yes. Wing Chun as I have come to understand it contains both concepts and techniques. The concepts drive the use of the techniques. But the specific techniques are what make Wing Chun identifiable as Wing Chun. Both are important. But evidently your uber special VT has no applications and no techniques.....even though you use Tan, Bong, Fook like everyone else!


You may as well just go do boxing that already has those techniques. Why waste your time trying to turn your WC forms into WB?

---I am doing boxing that has those techniques. Before you started this ridiculous argument, I pointed out that these techniques could also be seen in certain actions in the forms. This was to show that Wing Chun and Boxing are compatible and already share certain things. Like I said, I didn't make up this idea that the Tan action or the Bong action could be seen as a punch. Plenty of people use them that way. And I'm not turning the WC forms into WB. I haven't changed the SNT form at all. The other forms I use are both and neither. They are their own thing.....Wing Chun Boxing.

 

[LFJ]

---And the example I gave "opens" or creates an opening for that Fak Sau sweeping strike. Just as in my Bong-Lop Da example the backhand strike creating an opening for the punch to the solar plexus.

That's not what open means in the defintion of taan. It is to spread or open outward (with reference to itself), not create an "opening".

It also "spread out", just in a different direction.

Yeah, in! That's not spreading out.

But evidently your VT doesn't have this concept of "setting up" or "creating an opening" using more than one action.

Correct. It's more direct and efficient.

You consider anything like that to be "arm chasing." But it is a very important concept in Boxing.

I consider chasing arms as arm-chasing, not just setting up strikes.

---So you take one word "Tan" as literal as possible, but not another word??

It's the intended meaning. There's no other way to take "spread out". If you take it as "spread in" you're just not making sense and should use another word.

---But you are not using the literal meaning as you do with Tan. So it seems to me there is some inherent flexibility in the way people use Wing Chun terminology.

No. There's no other way to take taan and not be wrong.

---Its not "turning away from them." Its turning towards them.

So, you were facing away to begin with?

Your application assumes both opponents are one-armed.

Where's the guy's other arm? You guess the one-armed man would have no guard hand blocking your path?

And where's your other arm? Why not use both arms together to strike immediately while turning the guy and maintaining your own facing?

That would be the more direct and efficient method.

Like I said, castrating the concept. You used the word "ignore".

---Because its a punch, not a Tan Sau! So why would it follow the Tan concept???

Right. So, you're admitting you have to ignore the concept in order to get your punch out of the shape.

Wing Chun as I have come to understand it contains both concepts and techniques. The concepts drive the use of the of the techniques.

But, you just said you get this technique by ignoring the concept.

you use Tan, Bong, Fook like everyone else!

I do not use them like everyone else.

I pointed out that these techniques could also be seen in certain actions in the forms. This was to show that Wing Chun and Boxing are compatible and already share certain things.

But, you just said to get this technique you have to ignore the concept.

Which means they are only compatible if you castrate the conceptual-base that makes WC, and try to see WB in the shapes.

Then suddenly they "share things".

You should just box.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^ Trying to discuss anything with you is like arguing with a post. I've got better things to do right now. I'll just say this......stop comparing everything to your understanding of WSLVT in order to say that everyone else is "wrong" or "broken" or "incomplete." WSLVT does not define all other versions of Wing Chun! And don't act all innocent and say that you don't do this, because you do!!! Admit that others can just be "different", and that there is nothing wrong with this. Stop being such a XXXX.

 

[geezer]

@LFJ and KPM --have you guys ever considered that if you weren't so busy arguing and really listened to each other, you could actually help each other to a higher level of understanding. For example, if tan specifically means to spread-out or open, then KPM could incorporate that info and call that tan-shaped inward-deflecting movement he uses something like "reverse tan-sau". It might have no place in WSL-VT, but if it works in KPM's Boxing-WC blend, then good for him ...and it would be a more accurate use of the term.

Another example would be LFJ accusing KPM of chasing hands when he advocates using this "reverse tan" or inward deflection along with a turn to get an angle. Maybe he is chasing hands. Or maybe he is deflecting and angling his body to get a clear line to attack center. VT/WC guys and boxers all use angling that way. So instead of slapping him with what amounts to a VT/WC insult, i.e. accusing him of "chasing hands", how about just asking, "Wouldn't that be chasing hands"? I guarantee you will get a better response.

Honestly, LFJ, it's not what you say that's the problem. It's how you say it. You really do phrase your opinions in a very contentious manner. And, predictably, KPM responds in kind. It's really kinda embarrassing.

Oh, and BTW, LFJ thanks for that clarification of the term gaun sau. In the VT I train, it functions very much like a plow. In fact I frequently use that example, but I had no idea that the plow reference was actually implicit in the meaning of the term. That was very helpful.

 

[LFJ]

stop comparing everything to your understanding of WSLVT in order to say that everyone else is "wrong" or "broken" or "incomplete." WSLVT does not define all other versions of Wing Chun! And don't act all innocent and say that you don't do this, because you do!!!

I've been comparing what you do to the meaning of the word you use.

The definition is what it is independent of any lineage.

Admit that others can just be "different", and that there is nothing wrong with this.

I didn't say there is anything "wrong" with what you do. It's up to you to say what's "right" or "wrong" for you.

But, your use of the term is objectively incorrect. Just so you know. It's like pointing up and saying "look down there!"

If you use another term, then I can say nothing about it, except give technical critiques you don't have to agree with.

 

[LFJ]

maybe he is deflecting and angling his body to get a clear line to attack center. VT/WC guys and boxers all use angling that way.

We never rotate from target to redirect attacks. We only turn to face our target.

In the described scenario, there's no reason to shift and move the arm across, then come back with the same arm.

Just maintain facing and jat-da immediately. Accomplishes the same thing, disrupting their balance and facing while counterstriking, but more directly and efficiently, without compromising your own facing.

And with better percentage and follow-up potential, being that the opponent's guard hand can more easily intercept a horizontal chop without much adjustment or precision, whereas they'd have to cross center to parry a straight punch, but already facing with both arms you'd be poised to take advantage of that.

 

[KPM]

We never rotate from target to redirect attacks. We only turn to face our target.

In the described scenario, there's no reason to shift and move the arm across, then come back with the same arm.

Just maintain facing and jat-da immediately. Accomplishes the same thing, disrupting their balance and facing while counterstriking, but more directly and efficiently, without compromising your own facing.

And with better percentage and follow-up potential, being that the opponent's guard hand can more easily intercept a horizontal chop without much adjustment or precision, whereas they'd have to cross center to parry a straight punch, but already facing with both arms you'd be poised to take advantage of that.

See, you just did it! You used your reference point of how things are done in WSLVT to say that the way Pin Sun Wing Chun might do it is somehow wrong. You didn't say it that way, but it is implicit in how you just wrote your post. You have such a smug and superior attitude that you just can't seem to avoid it.