Wong Shun Leung & Tan Sau

[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]

"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]

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

Absolutely he does! You see the pattern as well?

 

[geezer]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

---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]

---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]

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]

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?