Wong Shun Leung & Tan Sau

[JPinAZ]

I can't believe this argument is still going on. Regardless of any disagreements in application or methods, once you consider how often and quick some are to put others down, call names, belittle other's views.call them 'stupid', etc the discussion is over. This forum has been a great place for sharing and honest dialog. This is not the place for these child-like actions and it only pulls this great forum down to levels other forums started falling apart at. If individuals can't refrain from getting personal maybe this isn't the forum for them.

That said, I'm with Piedmont on scratching my head on why this is such a big deal, and find it rather funny that there has to be this level of disagreement over a f'g taan sau! It really isn't that complicated.

 

[LFJ]

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.

Not at all. You described that exact response, with a punch, against CLF type round punches and seem to think it a good idea. If you own that opinion, I can send you to some posts where it has already been discussed so we need not spend more time repeating it.

---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?

I see how you might think like that having only seen one side of the equation. All I can do is suggest you, and others, go and experience it for yourself. Hear the thinking, give it a go, then see what sort of impression you walk away with. Until you do that, you really have no frame of reference to be making comparisons.

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

No? You must have missed every post where I've taken the time to detailedly explain why I don't agree with specific ideas. I can consider them, but don't have to accept them.

I've made two such posts on this thread addressing what anyone can see on videos. No one has made counterpoints to the problems I see yet. In fact, geezer agreed on the first one.

That is the trend I've seen. No one makes counterpoints to the problems I point out, some even agree, and no one points out serious flaws in my approach besides "ugh, it's too one-dimensional". People will post videos of PB but not really find much to critique.

So, what am I led to believe? You want me to think I'm missing something? You'll have to do better than that.

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!

Why look at photos and make assumptions about what they actually teach? Better to go find out for yourself. BL is a bit of a legend, a mystery. I haven't seen him in much action. Have you? To be honest, I've seen some stuff coming from his line that is quite shocking. But having not seen him, I can't make a judgement, much less should you!

Btw, the previous lineage of the other guy is one that WSL didn't want to embarrass when he was invited to the Netherlands for seminars and so taught "mainstream" ideas, like taan-da which the other sifu was teaching his students.

 

[LFJ]

@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?

This old tape has been discussed before. WSL intentionally put several mistakes in it. It's called "marking" for public consumption. Very common in TCMAs. Not worth discussing. Standing right in front of someone and dealing with "four gates" is not an efficient method. Taan-sau as a defensive technique was born out of man/wu misconceptions and an obsession with occupying center.

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?

Two arms against one, when one would suffice. Superfluous. WSL used to say if it can be simpler and more direct, that is VT.

I've watched this entire cringe-worthy thread from the sidelines scratching my head why this is such a huge deal at all.

That said, I'm with Piedmont on scratching my head on why this is such a big deal, and find it rather funny that there has to be this level of disagreement over a f'g taan sau! It really isn't that complicated.

It's not just about taan-sau, it's about the entire fighting strategy of the system! If you can't see that, you might be caught up looking at techniques and scenarios. It's much more than taan-sau. Look at my response to the video Phobius posted. It's about intelligent strategy where none of that would be necessary.

 

[LFJ]

Regardless of any disagreements in application or methods, once you consider how often and quick some are to put others down, call names, belittle other's views.call them 'stupid', etc the discussion is over.

To be honest, I may have misread Phobius' question and thought he was just being silly. Lighten up.

I've given an honest and detailed response explaining why I disagree with the presented method. No one should feel belittled by logic. Just consider the points I've made, and if you disagree, explain precisely why my critique is invalid. Or accept it and explore further.

 

[KPM]

I've made two such posts on this thread addressing what anyone can see on videos. No one has made counterpoints to the problems I see yet. In fact, geezer agreed on the first one.

---Are you blind? I most certainly did provide counterpoints to when you claimed the picture of a Tan Da you posted was "inefficient" and "indirect." Should I call you a liar, as you did me?


So, what am I led to believe? You want me to think I'm missing something? You'll have to do better than that.

---Yes! I think you are so sold on what you are doing that you are incapable of seeing the logic in what others are doing as being just as valid. Two different approaches doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong. WSLVT works for you! That's great! Post about what you like about it and why it works. That doesn't require belittling everyone else's Wing Chun. Just like Guy, you seem incapable of having polite and tactful discussions. Is that something they teach in WSLVT?


Why look at photos and make assumptions about what they actually teach?

---Well, you keep saying that WSLVT would never use a Tan Da because it is "inefficient" and "indirect." Yet I can find photos of several WSL people, including WSL himself doing exactly that! Makes me think YOU don't really know as much as you think you know.

 

[wckf92]

---Yes! I think you are so sold on what you are doing that you are incapable of seeing the logic in what others are doing as being just as valid. Two different approaches doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong. WSLVT works for you! That's great! Post about what you like about it and why it works. That doesn't require belittling everyone else's Wing Chun.

I think we all drink our koolaid one way or another. Clearly the koolaid over at WSL VT must be really tasty!

The pattern seems to be that person X (who spent lots of time/money/effort etc learning lineage Y) has now found out that lineage Z is the best gig in town and now feel it is their job to shout from the rooftops so the rest of us (apparently) blind idiots can follow suit.

It plagued that other forum with the dynamic duo from wslpbvt...hopefully it doesn't happen here(?)

I've learned a lot about all of you guys and your viewpoints on WC/WT/VT and am hoping the adult conversations continue. I don't really care about the hype of certain threads or individuals; mostly due to the fact that they are probably living on the other side of the planet and not likely to be able to meet up with them to physically compare/contrast. I would, however, still buy them a pint or two if we ever do meet up!

As for the two different approaches...if the ultimate goal is to hit/strike/drop the bad guy...whether that happens with "one arm against two" or the other "inefficient" way seems a strange argument and revolves around ones own interpretation on just what the term 'efficient' means.

Early morning rant over now...continue drinking koolaid!

 

[LFJ]

you seem incapable of having polite and tactful discussions. Is that something they teach in WSLVT?

---Are you blind?

Where did you pick it up?

I've made two such posts on this thread addressing what anyone can see on videos. No one has made counterpoints to the problems I see yet. In fact, geezer agreed on the first one.

---Are you blind? I most certainly did provide counterpoints to when you claimed the picture of a Tan Da you posted was "inefficient" and "indirect." Should I call you a liar, as you did me?

Are you blind? I'm referring to two specific posts where I discussed methods proposed by others. The first of which was covering two ideas you brought up, but you went silent after I critiqued them. No counterpoints provided.

Phobius seemed to think the picture I posted was a bit of a strawman. So I asked him to provide a clip to avoid misrepresentation, and I then detailed the issues I saw with the proposed method. Maybe he's busy and hasn't gotten back, but once again, no counterpoints have been made.

Why don't you present a clip of your method of taan-da so you aren't misrepresented, and you can fully defend your own ideas?

Regarding your response to the picture, I would call what you said hardly counterpoints. I'll quote you from that post:

the Wing Chun guy has given himself an extra little bit of insurance and protection from getting hit. And you think that is "inefficient"???

Yup, because if he used a more efficient strategy than walking into a round punch, as you seem to interpret the picture, it would be unnecessary.

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"??

Yup, because one hand is chasing outward to the wide punch, meaning a lot of his energy is not directed at the opponent. If he had a more intelligent overall strategy, both hands could be directed at the opponent and he'd only need to gamble like that as a very last resort if he really screwed things up.

Anyway, if you would rather not discuss a still picture that neither of us made, you're welcome to post a video representing your method of taan-da.

I think you are so sold on what you are doing that you are incapable of seeing the logic in what others are doing as being just as valid.

Not true, because I've been through some of those ideas and was previously sold on them, until I learned a more direct and efficient method (because serious martial artists tend to continue in honest exploration).

It's impossible for me to turn back to what is now clear to me as quite indirect and inefficient methods. When I find something just as valid as what I know now, I'll acknowledge it. And if I find something more direct and efficient than what I know now, I'll gladly adopt it.

Why look at photos and make assumptions about what they actually teach?

---Well, you keep saying that WSLVT would never use a Tan Da because it is "inefficient" and "indirect." Yet I can find photos of several WSL people, including WSL himself doing exactly that! Makes me think YOU don't really know as much as you think you know.

And how many of them have you trained with, spoken to, asked about it?

You still prefer to look at photos and make up your own mind when it has already been explained to you why WSL has shown taan-da on certain occasions and why it is not part of the system? I think maybe you are sold on what you do and want to validate it rather than face the facts.

Again, I'll suggest you seek out some instructors of quality WSLVT and see for yourself, then form an opinion.

 

[LFJ]

As for the two different approaches...if the ultimate goal is to hit/strike/drop the bad guy...whether that happens with "one arm against two" or the other "inefficient" way seems a strange argument and revolves around ones own interpretation on just what the term 'efficient' means.

Why do you train Wing Chun as opposed to any other martial art then?

I think efficiency is very well defined in VT. It's really not something to be freely interpreted in different ways, IMO.

 

[wckf92]

Why do you train Wing Chun as opposed to any other martial art then?

Because it is efficient.

 

[LFJ]

Because it is efficient.

So you value efficiency, but don't see why one would pursue the most efficient method? That seems strange.

 

[wckf92]

So you value efficiency, but don't see why one would pursue the most efficient method? That seems strange.

So, in your opinion...the WSL method is the "most efficient method". That's cool. To me, my way of WC is also efficient. You guys like to emphasize one arm vs two...other WC does this also. I don't know which lineage of WC you originally learned prior to WSL; so it is difficult to know exactly why you are so adamant. I think its great that you and Guy found a more efficient method. I look forward to the day when I can link up with a properly trained practitioner of the WSL / PB(?) VT methods so I can see for myself first hand.
Bottom line for me is I think I was born with two arms so I'm going to deploy these assets in the most efficient manner possible.

 

[LFJ]

So, in your opinion...the WSL method is the "most efficient method".

Didn't say that. It's just what my exploration has led me to. Thus far, of the methods presented, I think it can be logically argued and practically demonstrated quite clearly as being the most efficient. But when I find something more efficient, I'll be adopting it.

I can only suggest people make the effort to seek it out and experience it for themselves and see what sort of impression they come away with. For some that may mean taking an impossible trip. And if that's impossible, I'd just suggest other styles.

 

[KPM]

Are you blind? I'm referring to two specific posts where I discussed methods proposed by others. The first of which was covering two ideas you brought up, but you went silent after I critiqued them. No counterpoints provided.

----

wckf92 said: ↑
So, in your opinion...the WSL method is the "most efficient method".

LFJ said:
Didn't say that. It's just what my exploration has led me to.

---I'm done. This guy is beyond belief! He has proven that he cannot carry on a coherent and logical conversation. On to other things! This thread needs to come to an end.

 

[wckf92]

Didn't say that. It's just what my exploration has led me to.

Agreed. My exploration has done the same.

Thus far, of the methods presented, I think it can be logically argued and practically demonstrated quite clearly as being the most efficient.

Outstanding! But this would be based on ones views on efficiency.

I can only suggest people make the effort to seek it out and experience it for themselves and see what sort of impression they come away with. For some that may mean taking an impossible trip.

Yup... believe me if I am ever passing through the NYC area I'll plan on stopping by the WSL gym there. Or, perhaps PB gives seminars in the US some times?

 

[LFJ]

@KPM

Post #119. Coherent enough for you?

Feel free to remain silent again. I never got the impression you were a serious martial artist willing to examine critiques on what you do. So, I'm not bothered if you wish to exit the thread.

 

[LFJ]

Agreed. My exploration has done the same.

Cool. Let's keep it up.

Outstanding! But this would be based on ones views on efficiency.

Indeed, but views on efficiency can be changed. I used to think inefficient things were efficient.

Yup... believe me if I am ever passing through the NYC area I'll plan on stopping by the WSL gym there. Or, perhaps PB gives seminars in the US some times?

He does. You'll have to keep an eye on it.

 

[Danny T]

Ho hummm. Guys this is has been such bore.
Strategy is great.
Using one arm against one is efficient. I believe we can all agree with that, at least I can.
How many times does that work every time. What do you do when it doesn't happen? You continue with your attack and get hit as well? Or do you adjust and then advance with your attack? What do you do when your attack has been countered?
Guess what you have just become inefficient! Now what do you do? You Have To Do A Different Move!! Oh the Inefficiency of it all. The reality is you train to strike and not get struck but you do get struck. Now how do you deal with it? Get struck again or counter attack using a secondary move? Or is your attitude a Na man if you had trained properly you would not have got struck to begin with. Mine is I accept I will get hit (don't want to; train not to) but I know I will. How do you deal with the reality not the Strategy, Not the Theory.

 

[wckf92]

Indeed, but views on efficiency can be changed. I used to think inefficient things were efficient.

Absolutely true! haha. As my journey through the WC land has led me...I've even found more efficient ways of doing things inside the same school of thought. Just didn't recognize till I'd acquired more time/training/experience. Ce La Vie I reckon.

 

[KPM]

@KPM

Post #119. Coherent enough for you?

Feel free to remain silent again. I never got the impression you were a serious martial artist willing to examine critiques on what you do. So, I'm not bothered if you wish to exit the thread.

 

[Phobius]

Sorry but I am kind of busy during normal days. After all we all train as much as we can, this forum is just for those hours where our body needs the rest or otherwise don´t work to fund our basic needs.

Anyways the things you posted about the video, I would like to say in my view you are trying to visualize this technique as if used forcible in a fight that is believed to occur just like in demonstration, it is not. There is an intent to do taan sau upon certain situations. That intent is felt through and if the moment persists it will become visible but otherwise it will move on to another movement. We dont do techniques in fight like some planned chess game.

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.

Actually the answer is yes and no, that "zombie bridge" is just a well used drill to
learn about the feeling and building up tension. (In this case to demonstrate)
Problem starting out with punching is that it will be flawed unless done with full intent. Full intent would cause many students to lose their body structure or start doing taan sau as a stressed technique rather than a natural move due to tension.

Starting like this, without the intent to punch from the beginning, the converted punch will lack speed, power, and accuracy.

This is just a drill, or in the video it is simply a slow description of taan sau.

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.

Pretty sure I said that elbow collapse is not part of what I am doing, just like in the movie there
is no just walk through attack here. It most likely look that way because of lack of intent in his student.
When you learn how tension works there is no point moving more than enough to exit the path of his punch and use that angle to attack him.

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.

Not sure where you see this happening, he has a clear path to attack his opponent.
Only exception I could see was when he was talking about if an opponent pushes him hard,
something his opponent did not do which made it look rather odd. @0:40

(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!)

This you need to show what you mean it should have been, but keep in mind that scenario of walking in
like a zombie is nothing more than simple drill to get basics. Advanced use is for more live action drills.
Also note that taan sau only exist for a very short moment in case of punch. If it even becomes a taan sau at all. Not all techniques are always needed against a quick jab however.

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.

Taan sau has nothing to do with the punching. Taan da or not to taan da, the situation decides.

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.

So you never move to the sides, sidestepping in towards your opponent? If you do, you will notice that body structure is intact all through the movement and in many cases, but not all, the power of such a move is present in a punch as well.

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.

Yes his opponent can, and then he can react to such a movement. There are no unbeatable techniques.
Keep in mind that if you want to train taan sau, you need to do so in a scenario where you can prolong its existence.

Everyone can make more moves. I usually see it like this, if I make a move, you can make a move. When you made a move that leaves me the option to make a new move as well.

Please, those kind of comments I dont even know how to counter because they are unrealistic. If something changes then taan sau is no longer kept, believing anything else would go against WC/VT and you know this well enough.