[QUOTE=k gledhill;1111647]so you’re basing this off a scenario of two guys with equally extended arms fighting like chi-sao ? One has 2 hands on yours like chi-sao and your trying to regain face , doing chi-sao ? And your “rolling” using body with Kwan, in chi-sao with 2 arms extended ? Right ?[/QUOTE]
It’s not unique to Chi Sao kevin. I gave you the correct explanation of kwan sau. Do what you want with it. Seems like you’re just arguing to argue now…
[QUOTE=WC1277;1111658]It’s not unique to Chi Sao kevin. I gave you the correct explanation of kwan sau. Do what you want with it. Seems like you’re just arguing to argue now…[/QUOTE]
you’re missing my point, you’re trying to give kwan sao [ your thinking] an application in chi-sao scenarios for refacing with bong and tan against strong pressure on your arms from a partner doing chi-sao back at you.
you dont even understand my argument, thats the problem. Like many chi-sao’ers , one tends to over indulge in the drills without any goals , or developmental ideas to take to free sparring from no contact, no 2 extended arms to turn against 2 arms etc…
follow ?
IOW Kwan has a ‘life’ in the realms of chi-sao if you happen to be in tan bong and the partner in double fo sao 
never mind …
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1111665]you’re missing my point, you’re trying to give kwan sao [ your thinking] an application in chi-sao scenarios for refacing with bong and tan against strong pressure on your arms from a partner doing chi-sao back at you.
you dont even understand my argument, thats the problem. Like many chi-sao’ers , one tends to over indulge in the drills without any goals , or developmental ideas to take to free sparring from no contact, no 2 extended arms to turn against 2 arms etc…
follow ?
IOW Kwan has a ‘life’ in the realms of chi-sao if you happen to be in tan bong and the partner in double fo sao
never mind …[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t really follow because you’re horrible at expressing your ideas. Kwan sau is not unique to Chi Sao or dependant on tan/bong like I’ve already stated. Against someone who is applying pressure towards your own center, yes, you will most likely see the finished movement, if it was static, in a tan/bong position. Why, you ask? Because it’s the strongest position against that type of incoming force. But it’s the motion into that position that matters, not the position itself. If done properly you will be switching into an attack immediately and not resting there. Now against a non WC opponent, when you do that rolling motion, at any point in the roll that the opponents structure breaks you attack. It’s the roll with the body shifting that makes it work, not a static position into contact like you see in the dummy form. FYI all those double blocks in the dummy form are meant to show you how to switch using this same concept in application.
You’ve been trained by your comrades to think that all other systems other than yours don’t understand the difference between chasing and attacking but you’re wrong kevin. Your biggest fault is that you look at WC structure as black and white…
[QUOTE=WC1277;1111673]No, I don’t really follow because you’re horrible at expressing your ideas.
((TRUE))
Kwan sau is not unique to Chi Sao or dependant on tan/bong like I’ve already stated. Against someone who is applying pressure towards your own center, yes, you will most likely see the finished movement, if it was static, in a tan/bong position. Why, you ask? Because it’s the strongest position against that type of incoming force. But it’s the motion into that position that matters, not the position itself. If done properly you will be switching into an attack immediately and not resting there. Now against a non WC opponent, when you do that rolling motion, at any point in the roll that the opponents structure breaks you attack. It’s the roll with the body shifting that makes it work, not a static position into contact like you see in the dummy form. FYI all those double blocks in the dummy form are meant to show you how to switch using this same concept in application.
((True))
You’ve been trained by your comrades to think that all other systems other than yours don’t understand the difference between chasing and attacking but you’re wrong kevin. Your biggest fault is that you look at WC structure as black and white…[/QUOTE]
((True)) Joy
[QUOTE=WC1277;1111673]No, I don’t really follow because you’re horrible at expressing your ideas. Kwan sau is not unique to Chi Sao or dependant on tan/bong like I’ve already stated. Against someone who is applying pressure towards your own center, yes, you will most likely see the finished movement, if it was static, in a tan/bong position. Why, you ask? Because it’s the strongest position against that type of incoming force. But it’s the motion into that position that matters, not the position itself. If done properly you will be switching into an attack immediately and not resting there. Now against a non WC opponent, when you do that rolling motion, at any point in the roll that the opponents structure breaks you attack. It’s the roll with the body shifting that makes it work, not a static position into contact like you see in the dummy form. FYI all those double blocks in the dummy form are meant to show you how to switch using this same concept in application.
You’ve been trained by your comrades to think that all other systems other than yours don’t understand the difference between chasing and attacking but you’re wrong kevin. Your biggest fault is that you look at WC structure as black and white…[/QUOTE]
Er ..no, you’re wrong, blind in fact , but thanks for trying to make us see your view. You don’t even understand my idea, but you argue it …? who’s that make black & white then…?
I have experienced your ideas first hand in Arizona and in NYC , they where very similar to my old ways of being taught, seen videos, watched demos, etc…overly , sticky feeling, like many schools , so dont think Im just making the distinction exclusive to your thinking alone. I used to think like you so its not like Im just blabbing , but you havent experienced my side…and you still want to argue , like your vague explanation makes sense. Thats a red flag right there.
The fact that in reply you say ‘those double blocks’ is just sad really. It shows a mind set very common to VT today. I cant change it , not trying, but I m not sitting around letting you try to make everyone think VT is a bunch of double handed blocks on a dummy, with Kwan thrown in, that frankly gets vaguer as you try to explain …
Your first post revealed a lot about that mind set when you said BG had ‘silly things’ in it, weapons where outdated and redundant . Saying that also shows the shallowness of your understanding of the system.
Me In Arizona, never mind each sides memory of it, I was there !!
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1111681]Er ..no, you’re wrong, blind in fact , but thanks for trying to make us see your view. You don’t even understand my idea, but you argue it …? who’s that make black & white then…?
I have experienced your ideas first hand in Arizona and in NYC , they where very similar to my old ways of being taught, seen videos, watched demos, etc…overly , sticky feeling, like many schools , so dont think Im just making the distinction exclusive to your thinking alone. I used to think like you so its not like Im just blabbing , but you havent experienced my side…and you still want to argue , like your vague explanation makes sense. Thats a red flag right there.
The fact that in reply you say ‘those double blocks’ is just sad really. It shows a mind set very common to VT today. I cant change it , not trying, but I m not sitting around letting you try to make everyone think VT is a bunch of double handed blocks on a dummy, with Kwan thrown in, that frankly gets vaguer as you try to explain …
Your first post revealed a lot about that mind set when you said BG had ‘silly things’ in it, weapons where outdated and redundant . Saying that also shows the shallowness of your understanding of the system.
Me In Arizona, never mind each sides memory of it, I was there !! :D[/QUOTE]
Don’t put words in my mouth kevin. The “FYI double blocks on dummy” was in response to #4 in your original post on this thread.
You have some nerve posting a picture of yourself with the two guys you’ve spat on more than once. You’re a disrespectful little sh!t!
[QUOTE=WC1277;1111695]Don’t put words in my mouth kevin. The “FYI double blocks on dummy” was in response to #4 in your original post on this thread.
You have some nerve posting a picture of yourself with the two guys you’ve spat on more than once. You’re a disrespectful little sh!t![/QUOTE]
The truth doesnt always bring out the happy side of people…
In simple words:
Outside of chi sau, in general, what does kwan sau work against, what should it achieve as an end result and what is the mechanics behind it?
[QUOTE=CFT;1111708]In simple words:
Outside of chi sau, in general, what does kwan sau work against, what should it achieve as an end result and what is the mechanics behind it?[/QUOTE]
Ah! Trying to make sense of the bickering at last! 
I think that the answers are already in the posts though, but they conflict a little with eachother.
If you want to know ‘what kwan is’ it MUST be translated! Personally, I think JRB was pretty spot-on with his basic understanding
[QUOTE=John Ray Brooks;1111708]Maybe a year ago I connected with kwan sau as a a "tying/untying hand from within a bridged position.[/QUOTE]
Then it’s all got out of hand because people are not willing to just see the basics, which both Kev and WC1277 are both presenting. Just different ideas as one is hellbent on lien siu dai da and if it isn’t attacking the attacker it isn’t VT and one is trying to explain the motions of kwan itself and if it doesn’t do the ‘turning’ thing it aint kwan!
I dunno, maybe I’m a bit jaded today but can SOMEONE give another opinion and translate the word properly before more arguing please??! :o
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1111711]Ah! Trying to make sense of the bickering at last!
I think that the answers are already in the posts though, but they conflict a little with eachother.
If you want to know ‘what kwan is’ it MUST be translated! Personally, I think JRB was pretty spot-on with his basic understanding
Then it’s all got out of hand because people are not willing to just see the basics, which both Kev and WC1277 are both presenting. Just different ideas as one is hellbent on lien siu dai da and if it isn’t attacking the attacker it isn’t VT and one is trying to explain the motions of kwan itself and if it doesn’t do the ‘turning’ thing it aint kwan!
I dunno, maybe I’m a bit jaded today but can SOMEONE give another opinion and translate the word properly before more arguing please??! :o[/QUOTE]
I’ll give you an opinion. Its you posturing as the WC curriculum expert ,and happy to judge everyones posts on this forum, but why dont you offer a WC related combat reply to a given situation.
You never do.
Because you dont have any, and are happy pretend that “translation” will further you expertise (or lack of)
Please tell me that you dont teach people??
God knows they would need therapy
My ‘go to’ Chinese online dictionary has this for ‘kwan’:
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=��
[SIZE=“3”][/SIZE]: tie up; bind, truss up; bundle
That is no more enlightening that what has gone before in the thread.
[QUOTE=GlennR;1111713]I’ll give you an opinion. Its you posturing as the WC curriculum expert ,and happy to judge everyones posts on this forum, but why dont you offer a WC related combat reply to a given situation.
You never do.[/QUOTE]
Funny that! Because you never serve us anything other than your own interpretation and ‘posturing’ as some hard VT man who has trained everything everyone else has but they haven’t done anything like you! Never seen a clip even…
[QUOTE=GlennR;1111713]Please tell me that you dont teach people??
God knows they would need therapy[/QUOTE]
FWIW No I have no formal students, but I do exchange with anybody that has an open mind And if you’re not willing, after all your years, to accept that by learning the terms correctly greatly improves your understanding, well, then I seriously hope you don’t teach people either! :eek:
[QUOTE=CFT;1111716]My ‘go to’ Chinese online dictionary has this for ‘kwan’:
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=��
[SIZE=“3”][/SIZE]: tie up; bind, truss up; bundle
That is no more enlightening that what has gone before in the thread.[/QUOTE]
But it IS. It explains the purpose more so than Kevins negativity.
Some people simply give you directions like ‘turn right’ whereas Kev may fill your head with all the reasons not to turn left but forget to tell you to turn right! This is because he is avoiding the more simple questions. Like, tell me what kwan means? 
Answer me this, IF we take a literal look at binding/tieing up, tell me where you would do that (in life)? What occupation?? Then look at Wing Chuns history. You will find it easier to understand WHY we have kwansau and name it that way. THEN tell me how it’s applied in combat!
Giving the old lien siu dai da chestnut is just a cop-out, but very common in the WSL/PB line I guess because that’s what PB prefers (?)
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1111717]Funny that! Because you never serve us anything other than your own interpretation and ‘posturing’ as some hard VT man who has trained everything everyone else has but they haven’t done anything like you! Never seen a clip even…
Dude (nice aint it) i could easily hop on the “PB waterboy killing machine” fanclub to join in ridiculing you but i choose not to. I respect your opinion and will defend your right to express it (FWIW i think G is a tool and K is getting better with time)
What i cant stand is your one-eyed support for anything chinese and you looking down at the western “approach”.
Youve just supported Jackie (because he’s chinese, but is he?) but when i mentioned my rare lineage you slagged me off.
If my name was Ray Chen would it have been different?
Your hypocrisy is astounding
Just had an ex-student contact me after 15 years thanking me for teaching him how to hit hard… apparently it sticks in his mind and he is a MMA exponent now.
Care to exchange student stories?
[QUOTE=GlennR;1111720]
(FWIW i think G is a tool and K is getting better with time)
Priceless!!!
GH
[QUOTE=Graham H;1111733][QUOTE=GlennR;1111720]
Priceless!!!
GH[/QUOTE]
Always thinking of you G
[QUOTE=GlennR;1111734][QUOTE=Graham H;1111733]
Always thinking of you G[/QUOTE]
I know! :eek: :o
G
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1111718]Answer me this, IF we take a literal look at binding/tieing up, tell me where you would do that (in life)? What occupation?? Then look at Wing Chuns history. You will find it easier to understand WHY we have kwansau and name it that way. THEN tell me how it’s applied in combat![/QUOTE]How long is your piece of string for tying up then? 
One term is not going to tell me how it’s applied in combat.
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1111718]But it IS. It explains the purpose more so than Kevins negativity.
Some people simply give you directions like ‘turn right’ whereas Kev may fill your head with all the reasons not to turn left but forget to tell you to turn right! This is because he is avoiding the more simple questions. Like, tell me what kwan means?
Answer me this, IF we take a literal look at binding/tieing up, tell me where you would do that (in life)? What occupation?? Then look at Wing Chuns history. You will find it easier to understand WHY we have kwansau and name it that way. THEN tell me how it’s applied in combat!
Giving the old lien siu dai da chestnut is just a cop-out, but very common in the WSL/PB line I guess because that’s what PB prefers (?)[/QUOTE]
Stop trying to make me think literal chinese will explain it all. I leaned to read , write and speak cantonese. I am rusty and my teacher moved, so its not a resume’ qualification by any means.
I am not trying to be negative, simply no longer accepting what I am training in, is to be explained to me by guys who dont have a clue beyond chi-sao battles.
IOW guys look for answers to techniques inside chi-sao, rather than, why we are doing it is for sparring from no chi-sao, ie, reflex reactions at high speeds , not thinking, just bam, intercept me, bam bam, not “lets feel him and then tie him in a kwan knot” , whoops he just took me down as I turned myself to redirect his hands …darn !
We dont see bong, we strike, bong n tan are an item in lightning mode , bong disappears as fast as it came, tan stays on the line , firing, bong became a hit …all in the blink of an eye.
The ballistic force of bong was developed in dummy drilling on the lower arm…
There is only one bong ! not a low, high middle, left of center, ooops right abit left a bit, doh !
Energy in unison, straight line strikes coupled with parry’s laterally moving across our centerline. Equals a combination of a ‘turning’ force = bong/gaun, etc… + a linear force strike =tan/jum.
Learning to unify energy that both turns and strikes extended levers offered. No levers, free hands hit.
why would I have both arms extended inside yours while standing still waiting to feel to do a [your idea] kwan ?
There must be plenty of video footage of PB on youtube now that includes use of kwan sao? You can just ‘talk’ us through a few seconds.