In reality, you will not likely ever see this move in any professional fight. Not in the Proper sense of the term. Everything has it’s place and use. Tan da, or tan and punch simultaniously is usually an opening move. When professionals fight, a referee calls them from their corners to the middle of the ring to fight. Both fighters are looking dead at one another, and are in full expectation of anything you might try to do. Both men are in defensive postures, and any time you assault a defended position you are at a disadvantage. They attack one another back and forth repeatedly until one gets in a luck punch or decided to sneak in under for a take down. This is professional fighting as such today. And boxers are no different. They absorb a punch on the gloves and shoulder and return the punch while they have an opening. A tan would not work in this case. Any style or system of fighting is designed really for fighting itself. The same style or system. It can be adapted to fight other styles or systems, but the other fighting style might not require the same moves and techniques, and they just might not be effective if you did use them. I have used tan, and I find it very effective. I would always attempt to return a punch at the same time, putting me to an advantage over a suddenly stunned oponent. This is the whole idea.
Most systems are no different from WC in that they suffer the same against other styles. We see people fighting in the ring today that are billed as black belts in lots of different fighting styles, but you never see it in the fight. Now and then one might do some fancy kick, but that will be the extent. It ends up all looking the same. The only reason we might train in a particular martial art is to give ourselves a bit of advantage over others in a fight. There are no garantees however, and you just might get your a$$ kicked by a sissy or a girl. Real fighting is a frame of mind along with fighting heart and strength. No matter what some people might study, they are still subject to get that a$$ kicked. Likewise, some people can fight and win no matter what they study. Just comparing a style of fighting against other styles is no way to determine it’s use. You have to consider who the fighter is. When the fight breaks out, a lot changes quickly. The way you fight changes after the opening exchange.
I agree there are different games being played in boxing and MMA, are you suggesting that it isn’t a good fit for an MMA encounter? IF this is what you are saying, is it fair to assume that we woudn’t want to commit two arms in that scenario as the other guy may go for a takedown? What is the reasoning? I’m trying NOT to read anything into your comments, so I am simply asking.
If both your arms are high and extended, that does open you up a bit for a shoot. I was thinking more that if your arms are half extended and elbows away from the body that allows a wrestler to tie up and get inside your striking range with good standing controls. You WC skills may be good and you fast, but a wrestler has his own version of chi sao called handfighting and he may have good skills at this range.
That said, good WC doesn’t have to give the wrestler those opportunities, though only working out with wrestlers would develop those skills IMO.
Even something as fundamental to WC as “rooting” (a term which, as an Aussie, I dislike) can cause you problems in MMA as a grounded stance of any sort can give away an opportunity for a takedown.
FWIW and IMO, there are still comparatively few MMA guys that have good compbination skills and can strike, clinch, takedown, groundfight and defend against all of those done by top level opponents effectively. MMA is different enough from both pure striking and pure grappling to deserve a completely separate approach.
Disclaimer: I’ve done WC for decades and have a purple belt in BJJ, but I’ve not fought MMA (and since I’m 55 in a few weeks am unlikely to ever), though I trained in it technically for a couple of years. I stopped MMA training because my interests lie elsewhere right now.
I don’t think your initial post was a stupid question by any means.
I guess the point is, if it worked well in boxing or MMA, we’d see it more often.
Sorry guy for having to get beatin up by the folks here. I think tan da is fairly useless in the context of applying exactly tan sao and a punch as we see it in pictures or in the classroom or whatever. i think it’s only good for drill training and to give some idea to the student of how tan sao can be applied FOR TRAINING PURPOSES (you know, like giving some meaning to move x or y in a kata so that it helps the student get a general feel of what they’re supposed to do, but really one wouldn’t apply move x or y like that), but to actually tan da someone, especially someone of an MMA background would be pretty silly. as silly as lop da, bong da, etc.
To me, tan da, as a drill, would teach the student the idea of tan sao, the sinking, sticking, etc. the punch would give the idea of simultaneous attack and to not leave that hand free and doing nothing. also to follow the principles of going forward, with both tan sao and punch, etc. in other words, it’s a great training drill.
But as a means of application, you’re asking for trouble. you better hope that the “da” knocks out the guy with that one shot. outside the setting of other fellow wing chunners in your school, i don’t think many punches would require you to use tan sao anyway..direction/momentum/pressure all where tan sao would not be needed. The stimulus for tan sao is very specific.
if there are any instances of where tan da was applied successfully in the context you’re inquiring about, it was just a snap shot in time of what may have looked like a tan-da but had no intention of being tan-da when it happened.
It’s too bad, I find the emphasis on a punch to the chest/head to limit the mind’s view of the drill and its application. To me, Tan Da is “Deflect AND…” whatever. It’s Tan + Man sao in the form of a punch, b1tchslap, bearpalm, biu (really? biu?), uppercut to the ribs, elbow, shot to the leg… and then move on to the next thing, whether it’s defensive or offensive. And then move on to the next thing.
“Ready… Go!.. … and… and… and… FINISH! …Ready…”
To me, Wing Chun is getting from “go” to “finish” in as few “ands” as possible.
All you are doing with a tan da (as I train it) is covering while striking…I am sure this happens lots in mma.
It goes back to the bruce lee and finger pointing at the moon…people naturally focus on the tan rather than the punch.
The focus is on the punch (jab, cross or whatever) the tan, biu, pak, gaan etc are there to minimise the opponents strike…I teach this first class to my students…
any coach will keep teling students to keep their hands up…that what you do with your tan, pak, bui…
Thanks for all of the replies everyone, I think I did get the wrong impression of the utility of the Tan-Da. I am still looking to find that boxer I mentioned, I’ll post the pic if I find it, and it didn’t become famous, he may have only done it in this one fight, but I remember the commentators claiming it was “cheating” and they claimed he was trying to trap/catch the other guy’s hands. Anyway, I am sure he didn’t have the tan-da intent, but it was similar motion, and he used it effectively. Glad I finally got something productive out of this post. Happy turkey day all!
tan is a strike in drills
the turning tan and jum strike [not tan da] is a drill for facing..as you retract the previous extended arm back to ‘elbow in’ prior to striking again…
tan doesnt leave the center line in the same tan shape/angle, or standing turning to block incoming from a basic stance in front of people…sorry, its a common mistake. Many are taught to use it to leave the line and chase punches like a ‘block’ from karate, trying to make it simultaneous by striking with the other hand = 2 extended arms fighting one …
SLT = make a line to strike on [strike line] then punch with elbows along the ‘strikeline’, wrist xing slightly to create a natural intersecting line…
then train elbow positions slowly= tan,fok, jum, vu…repeat 3 times each arm…why repeat tan fok jum so much ? what no jum ?
then do dan chi-sao DRILL , when tan strikes the tan ‘elbow’ moves/spreads off line as the fist extends on the strike line, using the elbow spreading off the strikeline to displace arms in its way/angle.
Jum is the counter strike in the DRILL to develop the jumstrikes ability to NOT be moved offline, opening up your center…and using the inward elbow and simultaneous forward fist strike in unisong with the tans elbow forceing itself outwrds..
inwards outwards, inwards outwards, or vice versa…2 strikes each doing 2 actions per beat=
economy of motion, simultaneous strike defelection, while angling and moving using tactcial ideas and attacking concepts.
tan versus jum energy…in a drill for fighting later with 2 free cycling strikes…not for fighting in chi-sao drills ..
fok is just an elbow ‘time-out’ relaxed, in a DRILL when your not doing tan or jum in ther DRILL…
simple really…only took me 20 years to figure out ..hah!
If you see an inside strike (or a straight punch to the inner gate) that is Tan Sao. A chained strike is Tan Da. Tan Da is just an example, a frozen moment in time. Strikes are WCK, Tan, Bong and Fuk are partial extensions of strike.
One can use Tan Da, Pak Da and Bil Da as a defensive technique. But I for one love to use it as an offensive entry technique. I Pak Da or Tan Da my opponents guards, punch or grabbing arm as I move to a flank or inside. Using it offensively gives you advantage because you are taking the fight to them. To use it defensively you have await the opponents attack. Patience is a great thing.
