Wong Shun Leung & Tan Sau

[LFJ]

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...

The taan and jam energies are introduced in SNT and systematically developed with a partner from single to double chi-sau, and so on to free fighting where they aren't visible beyond "just punching" to the untrained eye. Takes careful, guided learning. Interested and serious practitioners will go seek it out in person.

I know KPM enjoys online learning, but I'm not here to make a tutorial for him. (Just teasing you, bud. Simmer down!)

 

[KPM]

The taan and jam energies are introduced in SNT and systematically developed with a partner from single to double chi-sau, and so on to free fighting where they aren't visible beyond "just punching" to the untrained eye. Takes careful, guided learning. Interested and serious practitioners will go seek it out in person.

The Wing Chun I have learned uses the Tan and Jum energies in punching...AND uses them as defensive actions in their own right as well. I think most Wing Chun lineages do this. But it sounds like WSLVT lineages may be missing out on the 2nd part?

 

[wckf92]

Some people think there will be prolonged arm contact against punches in a fight.

Well, not sure which people you're referring to...but I don't think they have used that term. I think that is a term you have been using.
Granted, that term is open to debate...

 

[LFJ]

The Wing Chun I have learned uses the Tan and Jum energies in punching...AND uses them as defensive actions in their own right as well. I think most Wing Chun lineages do this. But it sounds like WSLVT lineages may be missing out on the 2nd part?

The taan and jam strikes don't function effectively if they aren't part of an overall strategy including footwork, entry, angling, tactics for sustained onslaught, etc.. A bit of a "gestalt", if you will. I've not seen the total package in other lineages. If any element is missing or substituted with something incompatible, the entire strategy is rendered ineffective.

The "2nd part" you refer to is incompatible, not missing.

Indirect and inefficient. Not VT thinking.

 

[LFJ]

Well, not sure which people you're referring to...but I don't think they have used that term. I think that is a term you have been using.
Granted, that term is open to debate...

The time it would take to do what is suggested against real punches thrown in rapid succession is prolonged, meaning longer than the time there would be for real.

If it's happening faster, it's likely no such thing has actually been done.

 

[KPM]

The taan and jam strikes don't function effectively if they aren't part of an overall strategy including footwork, entry, angling, tactics for sustained onslaught, etc..

---That's a matter of opinion. I think they work just fine without positing some overall strategy for the entire system. I can teach a relative beginner how to make them work fairly well in one lesson.

The "2nd part" you refer to is incompatible, not missing.

----If you think your "overall strategy" has rendered them incompatible, then I will repeat my past comment that WSLVT seems very "one dimensional."

Indirect and inefficient. Not VT thinking.

---Maybe not "WSLVT" thinking. But don't generalize to everyone else.

 

[LFJ]

---That's a matter of opinion. I think they work just fine without positing some overall strategy for the entire system. I can teach a relative beginner how to make them work fairly well in one lesson.

Interesting.

You still haven't said anything that suggests you know what they are. A few posts back you were saying they are mutually exclusive actions from a strike, and now you're a teacher of the same method?

You're suggesting you can create a proficient VT fighter out of a relative beginner in one lesson without even teaching fight strategy? lmao

----If you think your "overall strategy" has rendered them incompatible, then I will repeat my past comment that WSLVT seems very "one dimensional."

Simple and effective, I would say. Not a convoluted mess of contradictory strategies and tactics that just make fighting more difficult.

If that's "one dimensional", it sounds all right to me.

Indirect and inefficient. Not VT thinking.

---Maybe not "WSLVT" thinking. But don't generalize to everyone else.

That's fine. I afford anyone their right to indirect and inefficient methods.

 

[geezer]

Simple and effective, I would say. Not a convoluted mess of contradictory strategies and tactics that just make fighting more difficult.

If that's "one dimensional", it sounds all right to me.

Nope. Your description would still be at least two-dimensional. As in a straight line!

Now, getting to my actual point, LFJ and KPM, why don't you "Shut the heck up!!!

And please, as Chespirito so often said, "Take this in a nice way" (Tomalo por el lado amable). I mean seriously guys, I don't think I've met two individuals who have a harder time communicating. I mean, I often disagree with people but I usually understand what they are saying. Somehow, I'm just not seeing that between you guys.

You both know that's the truth ... So why not just ignore each other and instead talk to any reasonable third party. Like any of the rest of us.

You know there are some of us, like me, who may often lean towards Keith's perspective, and others like T-Ray who favor LFJ's outlook. But LFJ and KPM, you two guys in particular are like oil and water, or worse, like Hillary and Donald. Not much point in even going there. Unless you want to make a Tarantino flick!

Sincerely, your forum-friend, the Geez.

 

[KPM]

You both know that's the truth ... So why not just ignore each other and instead talk to any reasonable third party. Like any of the rest of us.

Oh, I think we communicate fine. Its just that one person has his head in the sand and I don't. One of us is trying to talk common sense, while the other is still stuck in "true believer" land.

But Ok. I'll try talking to my forum-friend and someone that's always proven to be reasonable. When I say a punch can have a Tan energy and a Jum energy, I'm talking about "excluding" punches or "cutting" punches. A punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Tan energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch. Likewise, a punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Jum energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch. They are called "excluding" punches because they "exclude" the opponent's strike from the line as they travel forward to hit. I can teach this to someone in one lesson. Using this doesn't require some high-faluting strategy that runs through-out the whole system. Now that's not to say I am making a "proficient fighter" out of that person in one lesson. Did you think that's what I meant when I wrote that in my prior post?

And I submit to you that this idea and practice is common is most Wing Chun lineages. But most don't refer to them as "Tan punches" or "Jum punches" because this can get confusing when "Tan" and "Jum" are specific things as well.

I also see no problem in using a Tan or Jum as a defensive movement in their own rights. I don't see this as "indirect" or "inefficient" at all. And given that EVERY Wing Chun lineage I know of besides WSLVT uses them, it seems that most Wing Chun people don't seem them as "indirect" or "inefficient" either.

Now Steve, do you disagree with what I am saying? Does anyone here other than the WSLVT people think I am talking anything other than common sense?

 

[guy b.]

And please, as Chespirito so often said, "Take this in a nice way" (Tomalo por el lado amable). I mean seriously guys, I don't think I've met two individuals who have a harder time communicating. I mean, I often disagree with people but I usually understand what they are saying. Somehow, I'm just not seeing that between you guys.

Actually I think I have a harder time communicating with KPM than LFJ does. The patience displayed by LFJ is superhuman.

 

[guy b.]

A punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Tan energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch. Likewise, a punch can cut across the line from the outside inward using a Jum energy and deflect an opponent's strike WHILE going forward as a punch. T

??WTF

I don't think LFJ should coach you out of your wrongness any more. At least Alan Orr is charging you

 

[guy b.]

I also see no problem in using a Tan or Jum as a defensive movement in their own rights. I don't see this as "indirect" or "inefficient" at all. And given that EVERY Wing Chun lineage I know of besides WSLVT uses them, it seems that most Wing Chun people don't seem them as "indirect" or "inefficient" either.

You keep thinking that argument from popularity is worth something, odd

Opponent has 2 arms. You have 2 arms. Other arm is coming at you. Only gamble like that when no other option. Not a first line approach.

 

[KPM]

??WTF

I don't think LFJ should coach you out of your wrongness any more. At least Alan Orr is charging you

And after a comment like that, you still wonder why no one wants to discuss their Wing Chun in any depth with you??!!!

 

[DaveB]

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.

Trying to claim something doesn't work by doing it wrong is near enough the definition of a straw man argument.

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?

But another sure sign of a dogmatic theory based approach is a lack of recognition of the variety of situations and attacks one can face in a violent encounter.

For example, punches that fast and straight are likely only to come from a trained fighter. A low percentage opponent unless you are training for the ring. An angry or adrenalised opponent will throw big shots with total commitment, giving you body weight and recovery time to work with.
Similarly standing grappling presents another set of extended contact opportunities. In short fighting is too chaotic to pick one attack and say that this is what you will encounter. Yes everyone should have an answer to attacks like those in the clip, but other stuff happens too.

That said I totally agree with the need to refine styles into systematic approaches to fighting and I think that ensuring your effectiveness against high level aggressive offence is a must in the modern age.

 

[geezer]

Now Steve, do you disagree with what I am saying? Does anyone here other than the WSLVT people think I am talking anything other than common sense?

Nope. I'm 100% with all that.

 

[geezer]

??WTF

I don't think LFJ should coach you out of your wrongness any more. At least Alan Orr is charging you

I'm confused by this comment. Does this mean that you think KPM is on the right track (perhaps due to Alan Orr) ...or not?

 

[Vajramusti]

WSL. ex-brother in law (not Chinese)- I forget his name at this moment was/is quite good. Has lived in HK,Oz and Germany.
Folks dont seem to mention him much.He wrote some good articles as well.

 

[Bonesetter]

^ Barry Lee. A quiet guy who keeps to himself

 

[LFJ]

I'm confused by this comment. Does this mean that you think KPM is on the right track (perhaps due to Alan Orr) ...or not?

No. Still quite far.

Excluding and including punches, as I've seen in some lineages, are a "bridging" idea where you attempt to occupy the line and "wedge" the opponent out while you punch. Depending on how you contact the opponent's arm you'll need to raise or sink your arm in order to keep them out. This is totally dependent on contact and is puppetry, only, the opponent is the master and you are at their mercy.

An example is in the video below (only one I can find). You'll see as he attempts to wedge the opponent out he is forced to raise his arm up, so much so that he's "punching" to the top of the guy's forehead with his elbow popped way up, or even fanning his elbow in order keep the opponent out. The focus is not actually on delivering a decisive blow, but wrestling for the line. This is the result of missing strategy elements, starting from man/wu misconceptions, and an obsession with "occupying center" at the expense of solid punches with body mass behind them.

As for a cutting punch, referring to the "whipping" punch Alan does, a sweep to the outside is needed to then cut back in toward the opponent. Again, this required detour to the outside in order to cut back in is a workaround for missing elements of strategy.

Can this whipping punch work? Yes, it has been proven in the ring, so props there, but it is indirect, gap-filled Wing Chun. There is nothing necessarily wrong with indirect and inefficient methods, since most MAs are like that, but they aren't functioning according to VT principles which are designed to make fighting easier, not more complicated and harder than it already is.

 

[LFJ]

I can teach this to someone in one lesson. Using this doesn't require some high-faluting strategy that runs through-out the whole system. Now that's not to say I am making a "proficient fighter" out of that person in one lesson. Did you think that's what I meant when I wrote that in my prior post?

That you can teach someone a technique in a dead application drill that they can do "fairly well" doesn't mean it can be used effectively in a fight without knowing strategy.

Without knowing the strategy and the end-goal, you'll have a hard time understanding tactics and how they are to be used effectively. And you'll have to make workarounds, which most Wing Chun does.

You are just dealing in techniques, and that is not how VT is designed to work.

The overall strategy must run throughout the whole system, and be made clear from the beginning, precisely because we are working toward a single end-goal.

If you don't understand that, you aren't seeing the big picture and are stuck in techniques and applications.