Wong Shun Leung & Tan Sau

[LFJ]

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

Okay then. I admit it works as long as we feed unrealistic punches.

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.

If people prefer to aim low and train to defend against untrained people, like KPM's drunk uncle Ed, that's their
prerogative, but it should come as no surprise when what they spend 90% of training time on doesn't work against someone with half a clue what they're doing.

Sure, many things can happen in a fight, but I've not seen any situation where automatically springing punches happen. Have you?

 

[LFJ]

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.

Again with an Appeal to the Majority fallacy? Most Wing Chun is simply gap-filled.

Lemme show you why a taan-da is indirect and inefficient.

Opponent throws a single punch. You use one arm to run wide off line redirecting the punch (indirect), and use a second arm to punch, meaning two arms/actions against one (inefficient).

This is clearly in conflict with fundamental VT principles.

Again, this is a workaround for missing elements of strategy and tactics where none of this should be necessary.

 

[Phobius]

Why are you talking about techniques you don't train yourself?

It is as if WC should tell BJJ guys how to do grappling on the ground. Whatever you are talking about above it is nowhere near what I have been taught in terms of taan-da.

You do not chase arms. Situation differs but if your opponent forces you out of the way, punching harder than you wish to divert/take, you can use taan-da to control and move in. What I see above is no longer a taan-da but a movement going into your opponent with two punches.

Going on the inside like above I would fear the hook even if I do hit him. Still I can not say anything is wrong because I dont know these guys and how they decided to end up in this situation, the picture already depicts a guy out of balance and his opponent on the inside with clear path to continue punching.

Finally a question, would it be considered non WC to punch a guy that did not manage get his hands up to defend himself? After all that would be using two hands against zero, meaning inefficient?

Above can not be inefficient because his opponent has zero hands free to use due to being out of balance. It can however be very unrealistic. But just because a technique is demonstrated as above, does not mean that represents the technique. It represents the guy above demonstrating his version of a technique.

 

[LFJ]

Why are you talking about techniques you don't train yourself?

Addressing everyone, right?

You're from LTWT? I don't even want to open that can of worms, plus you won't approve of me talking about it.

Suffice it to say droves of people, including longtime practitioners and instructors, have switched from that lineage and wouldn't go back if forced at gunpoint. They are actually angry about their stolen time. Says a lot.

Finally a question, would it be considered non WC to punch a guy that did not manage get his hands up to defend himself? After all that would be using two hands against zero, meaning inefficient?

Uncle Ed? That you? Go home. You're drunk.

 

[Phobius]

Addressing everyone, right?

You're from LTWT? I don't even want to open that can of worms, plus you won't approve of me talking about it.

I do not study under Kernspecht. Any holier than thou art does not really belong in this thread, instead try to answer questions in a polite and respectful manner or face the fact that above post was nothing more than trolling.

If you don't feel your post was flawed then adress such an issue directly. Calling me this "uncle Ed" is no more than a childish act and should be beneath your status as a long term student of VT.

 

[LFJ]

Eh? Didn't you just disapprove of me talking about techniques I don't train myself? I can't comment on your method of taan-da then. Whataya want me to do? And your last question was just stupid. You were actually serious...?

 

[Phobius]

My serious question was: How can you talk about a picture where a guy out of balance get punched and say it is not VT? The way is free so he punches. His balance is gone which means even his free arm is under control. So yes it was serious in terms of do you not consider it to be control unless you are actually touching both arms?

And as for your picture it was in my view not clear this is a taan-da. It might have been but not sure that it is anymore.

You said: "Lemme show you why a taan-da is indirect and inefficient."

Then you write about a scenario where you would not use taan-da. Something about chasing an arm. This to me means you are talking about taan-da without using it yourself. This is similar to me talking about BJJ telling them what they do wrong.

I don't mind you talking about why taan-da is wrong. But I want to then read about taan-da. Not some weird scenario.

 

[LFJ]

Post your version of taan-da then and we can discuss it without misrepresentation. Otherwise, don't get all bent out of shape when I talk about a version that may not be how you do it. I've taken a basic taan-da application we can generally see Wing Chun people doing all the time.

 

[Phobius]

I can post a video that more resembles the way we study taan sau. This you can then use to visualize better what I mean with the taan da you describe and how it is off as a tool for comparison or argumenting.

Can not say whether or not he collapses his elbow or keep tension, collapsing elbow we do not accept ourselves but it is damn hard to see the difference on experienced people. He is also not part of my lineage, it was just the closest I could find in short amount of time with some description added.

We dont create a taan sau, it gets created for us as a tool to get a clearer path to our opponent. Meaning, there is no seeking a taan sau, if there is nothing it would simply be a punch instead.

 

[KPM]

Lemme show you why a taan-da is indirect and inefficient.

Opponent throws a single punch. You use one arm to run wide off line redirecting the punch (indirect), and use a second arm to punch, meaning two arms/actions against one (inefficient).

---Really? I don't know the lead in or the set up around what is happening in that picture. But common sense would seem to say to me this.....if an opponent is throwing a wide punch that is coming in very fast if I simply step in and punch him I still run the risk of his punch continuing through and striking the side of my head. I can imagine that when viewing that picture....if the opponent had been a bit faster, or the Wing Chun guy's timing a little off, AND the Wing Chun guy didn't have that Tan Sau up....he would have gotten nailed in the side of the head. This is very much the "Choy Lit Fut vs. Wing Chun" scenario that was classic in the HK during Ip Man's heyday.

So...the Tan Sau hand is up as a cover as he goes in for the punch. If it engages the opponent's attack...that's good. If it doesn't...that's Ok as well. But the Wing Chun guy has given himself an extra little bit of insurance and protection from getting hit. And you think that is "inefficient"???

And he is punching with one hand while defending with the other. Because when I look at that picture I see someone defending against a wide punch, not someone that has redirected a centerline punch outward. You think that is "indirect"??


Again with an Appeal to the Majority fallacy?

---Majority fallacy? I'm simply pointing out that when the entire Wing Chun world other than you and your little pocket see no problem with something, then you have to start questioning what you've been told. It might not be so horrible as you think. After all, there are plenty of smart people and good fighters doing Wing Chun. Again, just common sense.

 

[KPM]

Any holier than thou art does not really belong in this thread, instead try to answer questions in a polite and respectful manner or face the fact that above post was nothing more than trolling.

.

Yes, this! ^^^^^^ You see Steve, its not just me! And I don't think I'm the one with the communication problem!

 

[LFJ]

This you can then use to visualize better what I mean with the taan da you describe and how it is off as a tool for comparison or argumenting.

From your point of view. There are others who do taan-da just as I described, but whatever. Let's look at what you do then.

We dont create a taan sau, it gets created for us as a tool to get a clearer path to our opponent. Meaning, there is no seeking a taan sau, if there is nothing it would simply be a punch instead.

You guys say this all the time, but what is shown is just moving straight forward with a man-sau that doesn't start out with the intent to punch. In fact, it is just walked straight into the opponent's arms like a zombie, thinking it's going to "wedge" things out of the way. Starting like this, without the intent to punch from the beginning, the converted punch will lack speed, power, and accuracy.

That's the first issue. Second, he is walking straight up an occupied and well guarded center that he knows he will not likely just walk through. Why? He's walking into an obstruction knowing he will most likely have to convert to taan or bong or something else to get around it.

That may be "direct" but it's not intelligent. Nor is it efficient, because now he has to do several things in order to get around the obstacle he just mindlessly walked into. He has to change his shape, his footwork, his facing, his angles. Everything. Not so direct after all.

(I think this comes from a misconception of man/wu and an obsession with occupying the center, all due to missing elements of strategy. Cham-kiu, seeking the bridge. Many interpret the bridge as contact with an opponent, so they walk straight forward with outstretched arms expecting to run into contact and work their chi-sau skills. For me, the bridge is the most simple and direct path to the target. Has nothing to do with touching arms, and walking straight up the middle into an occupied center is not it!)

Third, his arm is converted to taan before he steps through and punches, or perhaps as he steps, but before the punch. Problem is, from the moment contact is made with the lead hand, both people have the same amount of reaction time. It will come down to which of them is faster, more direct, and powerful.

Stepping through like that isn't going to be fast or powerful. It's a full step forward changing direction, alignment is broken during the step and the punch has no base behind/under it. And obviously it isn't direct, as it's moving around an obstacle.

For the opponent, @0:35 say, all he needs to do is sharply jat+punch to cut him off and knock him out with a direct power shot before any of the rest of his idea gets to play out. Simple, direct, done.

 

[LFJ]

@KPM

So, you're in the camp that says to step into a round punch and block it with taan-sau?

---Majority fallacy? I'm simply pointing out that when the entire Wing Chun world other than you and your little pocket see no problem with something, then you have to start questioning what you've been told.

Well, look... There are many lines stemming from YM. It is all supposed to be or to have come from the same system, except for a couple who claim "final" or "traditional" versions.

So, when I look around at other YM derived Wing Chun, I notice a lot of indirect and inefficient tactics that appear to be workarounds and gap-fills for the lack of certain elements of strategy, as I've been saying. They just don't quite work logically or so much in practice.

With a more coherent system having answers that render these workarounds unnecessary, and that isn't in direct conflict with fundamental principles of the system, I can honestly say what I train stands up to questioning and testing. Others not so much, but I'm supposed to accept their ideas because there are more people who hold them? That's an Appeal to the Majority.

 

[Vajramusti]

I choose not to use the same interpretations of terms that several people are using on this thread.
Entire body structure details are relevant in understanding wing chun applications.
Several people seem to be more oriented towards just the hands.

 

[KPM]

So, you're in the camp that says to step into a round punch and block it with taan-sau?

---I won't even dignify that with a response, since you are clearly just trolling.

So, when I look around at other YM derived Wing Chun, I notice a lot of indirect and inefficient tactics that appear to be workarounds and gap-fills for the lack of certain elements of strategy, as I've been saying.

---Maybe what you are seeing is Wing Chun that has a little broader perspective than yours. Maybe you are seeing Wing Chun that allows for other things rather than blasting in with a maximum response as its only option. Maybe you are seeing Wing Chun that allows for more controlling elements and Chin Na elements. Maybe you are so focused on your "one-dimensional" approach that you can't see the logic in anything that is different?

They just don't quite work logically or so much in practice.

---And that is only your opinion. You did not answer my points about what you seem to think is "inefficient" and "indirect" in my prior post. You seem incapable considering a viewpoint that differs from your own.

 

[geezer]

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.

Hmmm. I agree with most of your critique of that videoclip (post # 119). That's Alex Wallenwein. He originally got some training in the EWTO and then became an LT seminar student here in the States before breaking off to join another group. For demo purposes, I could accept the punching at the forehead (too high for actual application) and prematurely extended punch with a locked elbow (too far away to hit), but the excessively out-turned elbow does seem problematic to me.

On the other hand, I find much to like in Sifu Fernandez' stuff. The aggressive use of footwork and forward pressure is loosely reminiscent of some WSL VT clips.

 

[geezer]

You seem incapable considering a viewpoint that differs from your own.

Nonsense! LFJ frequently considers viewpoints other than his own.





...and then summarily dismisses them as rubbish.

 

[KPM]

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.

Yes! Barry Lee! WSL's brother in law. Widely noted as one of if not THE best fighter to come out of WSL's school.

Here's a pic of Barry Lee:

Robert Vogel jr. en Barry Lee

Now, that can't be a Tan Da he is doing! Surely WSL wouldn't teach his own brother in law and one of his best fighters a sub-standard version of Wing Chun!

 

[Danny T]

There several so called 'applications' used to show and for beginners (sometimes intermediate) level practitioners to view and understand principles. There are several 'drills' utilized to physically apply those principles to gain a greater level of understanding and to ability to actually do. Unfortunately many never learn the difference in using a demo or a drill to gain a mental and physical understanding and actually applying that understanding against a full force attack/s. Many inside the guard demos or drills are about defending, attacking, or controlling the centerline while application in a fight may well be on the outside of the guard.

 

[PiedmontChun]

Let's break out this classis:

@8:26-9:30 WSL clearly uses a Tan-Da when presenting the 'Four Gates' Principle. WSL guys like LFJ and Guy: Is this something WSL taught to introduce concept only and not actual application? If yes, then it seems superfluous to teach it at all. If it IS for application, then why all the finger pointing here that other lineages doing this are doing so against the basic principles of VT?

To be clear, some of the pictures posted earlier do show a Tan-Da that I was never taught, being that the elbow is coming out wider than its normal position and the Tan hand essentially 'chasing' the opponent's arm. Keeping the elbow in closer to the centerline like WSL does here in this video is more similar (appearance wise) to how I was taught and how I know LT/WT people use Tan.

Also, @ 7:41 WSL sends a hand out and it becomes a Lop once it meets the opponent's punch, to which he then punches over with the other hand in a 1-2 fashion. It is common for my LT offshoot school to teach and do drills like this, but we use Tan hand shape as well since it can disperse an incoming punch off the centerline, and depending on the vector it might have even stronger structure. What is wrong or out of 'VT principle' with that?

I'm not trying to be a troll; its an honest question from someone with no experience in WSLVT. I've watched this entire cringe-worthy thread from the sidelines scratching my head why this is such a huge deal at all.