At both 0.42 and 1.20, his right hand is so close to his opponent’s face. In both cases, his right hand can strike on his opponent’s face with very short distance. There is no need to use the other hand to punch. So the WC principle, “block and strike at the same time” can be achieved by using just one arm only. The “long Tan Shou” can do that job very well.
To me, Tan Shou can be used for offense and not just to be used for defense.
At both 0.42 and 1.20, his right hand is so close to his opponent’s face. In both cases, his right hand can strike on his opponent’s face with very short distance. There is no need to use the other hand to punch. So the WC principle, “block and strike at the same time” can be achieved by using just one arm only. The “long Tan Shou” can do that job very well.
To me, Tan Shou can be used for offense and not just to be used for defense.[/QUOTE]
At least you gave your reasons why and SC can respond with a reason. I could add that if it is supposed to be so efficient and no wasted motions was eyes not sliced from outside to inside tan sou ? We all notice these things from our perspective. We can theorize to death. My non wing chun answer is he has gained some control over the guy with his tan sou, sounds like a trap to me, and he can sacrifice that to hit a potentially weak hit or keep control for the millisecondens it should take to really drive home a serious shot. Temple, side of jaw, corner of eye, side of neck or just crack the dude wherever you can.
There is also the likelihood on the second inside tan that being he was explaining that he did not " include" the punch with the left while tanning with the right ? Perhaps he expected people to get that part. He left the left out of the way to show the tan in isolation.
But that outside tan if intended as a trap was good usage in my opinion. You got control, ideally at the elbow, the puncher his off balance, bang. His relative position could have been off to much to apply a simultaneous punch with that tan. He could be using “control” to regain position and to hold in place for the hit. The idea of maybe shuffling the tan up to hit may not be there as cleanly as hoped for. Do you still go for it ? Bail out ? Flow with it ? Just some thoughts.
I really no little of Orr but the more I see the more I like. I am not going to say he is doing it right for anyone else but holy **** he is doing what I see in there. And he found his hook in WC, He calls it a whipping punching. It looks like it goes straight out and snaps in at the last second. Like an inward elliptical. It appears that he is using the knuckles you would knock on a door with. Back on point, he is using Tan like a boxing guard. ( Maybe similar is a better word to avoid bias.) Like I saw in that video I posted on the elbow form or whatever it is. I saw that guy move through a range of motions, if that is valid to use during a strike why is it not to use as a guard or cover ? Why can one not stop along the motion? It is in WC.
Anyway, his take on it. Some may be shocked, shake heads, laugh that ain’t wing chun. Looks like Wing Chun to me.
What Alan does has more visible WC in it than some of his fighters. And, I think if he were working bare handed – without gloves, you would see more tans and paks. Of course, bare handed training with heavy contact isn’t very practical for people who value their health! So gloves it is. Regardless, he is the best known WC man to coach fighters for the ring, and more importantly, he has had success. Admittedly, what he does is at one end of the WC spectrum, but it is absolutely WC in my book, and has made a huge contribution to the art.
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287072]At least you gave your reasons why and SC can respond with a reason. I could add that if it is supposed to be so efficient and no wasted motions was eyes not sliced from outside to inside tan sou ? We all notice these things from our perspective. We can theorize to death. My non wing chun answer is he has gained some control over the guy with his tan sou, sounds like a trap to me, and he can sacrifice that to hit a potentially weak hit or keep control for the millisecondens it should take to really drive home a serious shot. Temple, side of jaw, corner of eye, side of neck or just crack the dude wherever you can.
Hopefully he will enlighten us to his reasons.[/QUOTE]
I’m demonstrating the basic use of long and short tan sao as a concept not so much as a particular technique. The idea in this video was to bridge,control the space then strike.
[QUOTE=Grumblegeezer;1287078]What Alan does has more visible WC in it than some of his fighters. And, I think if he were working bare handed – without gloves, you would see more tans and paks. Of course, bare handed training with heavy contact isn’t very practical for people who value their health! So gloves it is. Regardless, he is the best known WC man to coach fighters for the ring, and more importantly, he has had success. Admittedly, what he does is at one end of the WC spectrum, but it is absolutely WC in my book, and has made a huge contribution to the art.[/QUOTE]
I believe what happens is while fighting things change. Picture perfect goes right out the window. Especially is used against another system. It is not that the WC is gone, it just looks different. Things get shorter. Arcs change. Etc. Against another WC guy then one will probably see what looks like ideal WC much more.
I have read here WC is a concept art. Does that not mean, do not get hung up on what a technique looks like as long as the principle are there it will still work ? ie, it is still be WC? I think people get hung up on the end of the motion " picture" and if it does not look “right” than it must not be WC even if it worked? Clearly his WC training allowed him to score but because it looks off people are like," WTF was that? That’s not WC."
Now take tan sao and I have seen guys demo that against swings. I assume if you got your skeleton aligned properly it will work. Like hitting a wall. Problem is during the potential chaos of a fight, the odds you align properly go way down and you will be bearing that force with shoulder muscle. Not very strong and good chance your shoulder is toast. I posted a video once on the potential power a swing has. I think a cover is a better idea. Allen looks to be shortening his tan sao. So but he is keeping the principle of whatever else is needed in good tan sao to make it work. I think ducking is good too but that may not be in WC. I don’t know.Just hit while ducking to ideally prevent/stop or weaken a counter to your duck. But if that’s is not there period, and one want to keep it pure as possible, then do not do that.
Anyway, thank you sir. Thanks for sharing everybody. Appreciated.
[QUOTE=guy b.;1287087]How are you going to use tan for offense when it is between arm and head?[/QUOTE]
You use “double Tan” (like 2 spears) to separate your opponent’s arms from his head. After your arms are both inside of your opponent’s arms, you can do many thing:
both palms strike on his ears.
forearm hit on the back of his head.
willow palm strike on his neck.
both thumbs on his eye sockets.
both thumbs into his nose.
both hands choke on his throat.
pull his head into your knee strike.
head lock.
…
The “double Tan” can help you to get there. How you may want to play with his exposed head will be all up to you.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1287109]You use “double Tan” (like 2 spears) to separate your opponent’s arms from his head. After your arms are both inside of your opponent’s arms, you can do many thing:
both palms strike on his ears.
forearm hit on the back of his head.
willow palm strike on his neck.
both thumbs on his eye sockets.
both thumbs into his nose.
both hands choke on his throat.
pull his head into your knee strike.
head lock.
…
The “double Tan” can help you to get there. How you may want to play with his exposed head will be all up to you.
[QUOTE=guy b.;1287112]Sounds like something different to wing chun[/QUOTE]
Not to me. I know, I don’t do wing chun. But do you not have any idea, technique or form that has double handed attacks? Some sort of double palm/ 2 hand hit strike?
If so, he is applying that concept to perhaps another technique. Or more likely combining the concepts. After which he may be applying the same double hit concept to techniques or vehicles if you will. He may change the tools. Using ideas in ways not normally considered yet, those ideas are there perhaps taught in another context.
If you can double hit. Why not double tan sao? Why not double pak sao? Why not, just keep adding I guess until you have exhausted your understanding then ask for help. “What am I missing ?” " What else is there?"
[QUOTE=guy b.;1287112]Sounds like something different to wing chun[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
To clarify why I feel this way, at this point John (YouKnowWho) is taking a very loose definition to the WC concept of taan sau and applying it outside the context of WC principle by calling what he is doing as ‘spreading’. This IMO is the issue when trying to take something that is very system-specific and apply it to a ‘general MA’s’ thinking or approach, while ignoring the source-system’s basic/core principles & concepts.
While I feel it’s always good to explore ideas and challenge what we are taught, IMO none of the pictorial examples he’s giving really fit within WC principle-based application of what taan sau is. I say this as because none of them takes into consideration for what drives the taan sau action from a WC gate theory, facing, energy or WC structural POV. To simply say ‘see, this is a spreading action, so it’s taan sau’ isn’t enough.
Bottom line, we can call anything we want a by any name we want (taan sau in this case), but if you aren’t following basic supporting WC principles that drive the action, it’s only a taan sau by name alone.
To clarify why I feel this way, at this point John (YouKnowWho) is taking a very loose definition to the WC concept of taan sau and applying it outside the context of WC principle by calling what he is doing as ‘spreading’. This IMO is the issue when trying to take something that is very system-specific and apply it to a ‘general MA’s’ thinking or approach, while ignoring the source-system’s basic/core principles & concepts.
While I feel it’s always good to explore ideas and challenge what we are taught, IMO none of the pictorial examples he’s giving really fit within WC principle-based application of what taan sau is. I say this as because none of them takes into consideration for what drives the taan sau action from a WC gate theory, facing, energy or WC structural POV. To simply say ‘see, this is a spreading action, so it’s taan sau’ isn’t enough.
Bottom line, we can call anything we want a by any name we want (taan sau in this case), but if you aren’t following basic supporting WC principles that drive the action, it’s only a taan sau by name alone.[/QUOTE]
This is a great post. I agree with everything you wrote. Stick to your principles. But what if you can’t? Are there other lesser principles that may become major principles in certain situation?
YKH, was clearly giving self defense applications. Perhaps in a way that as far as you are concerned is wrong and you are violating to many. But lets say, how ever it happened, you get bear hugged and lifted up. Okay if you are 6’3 and 250lbs that may not even be in the realm of possible for you. But a little guy. You are only going to be there for a second most likely before the next bad thing happens. This may be the “best” position to do anything from. The next may be your last. Would doing anything as YKW, provided you had at least one arm free, now be something found in WC ?
I am not trying to be difficult. Or to prove anyone wrong. Everything everyone has wrote thus far is probably 100% correct. But not always ! Not for all things. I would not believe for a second, WC has no answer to the posed problem or others that may be just as potentially tricky but to get one to think. What do you do ? Where is the answer ? Ed is hopefully going to help solve those questions. I can’t believe for a second that anything YKW wrote can not be found inside of WC.
I just found a WC front bear hug video. Closest I could to my scenario. But both his arms are restrained and he is not picked up. It matters little because I I liked was HOLY SMOKES. Wing Chun may have bear hugs as attacks !!! Not only that but front chocks as well as attacks. Found in the forms/ How many of you Wing Chun guys practiced bear hugs this week? Or chocking the crap out of someone ? I personally would be grabbing the adams apple but whatever. Same difference to me.
Now, that is their belief. It may or may not be yours. I am using “yours” as a generalization. My replies are not always meant to only respond to the guy asking the question or whatever. Anyway, they were taught this or found this. Right or wrong ? I have not a freaking clue. But that is what was seen and ended up in their laps.
And this is their idea to escape. Others may have found another way that is equally valid. Some may work better for certain body types you may have or the body type of the attacker. Probably more than one option. A juijitsu guy may come along and say, that’s crap. From his point of view he is probably right. Trying it against him will probably fail. But it may work as shown against someone who does not know much bear hugging you.
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287116]This is a great post. I agree with everything you wrote. Stick to your principles. But what if you can’t? Are there other lesser principles that may become major principles in certain situation?
YKH, was clearly giving self defense applications…
…What do you do ? Where is the answer ? Ed is hopefully going to help solve those questions. I can’t believe for a second that anything YKW wrote can not be found inside of WC.[/QUOTE]
We can discuss what-ifs and the extreme hypotheticals all day long, but don’t see any point in veering off the subject any further. fair enough?
The subject is the action of Taan Sao. There are specific usages for tan sao action based on specific WC ideas & theories taking into consideration facing, range, leverage and contact point, strategy and tactics. Nothing personal against John, but looking at his examples and what he’s said here, we’re clearly talking about 2 very different ideas of what WC is. In which case it’s hard to find common ground to continue discussion, so we can just agree to disagree.
As for Ed, I think he’s trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist (for most people in the WC community anyway). But then, he’s not part of this discussion, so I see no point to go into that here
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1287136]We can discuss what-ifs and the extreme hypotheticals all day long, but don’t see any point in veering off the subject any further. fair enough?
The subject is the action of Taan Sao. There are specific usages for tan sao action based on specific WC ideas & theories taking into consideration facing, range, leverage and contact point, strategy and tactics. Nothing personal against John, but looking at his examples and what he’s said here, we’re clearly talking about 2 very different ideas of what WC is. In which case it’s hard to find common ground to continue discussion, so we can just agree to disagree.
As for Ed, I think he’s trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist (for most people in the WC community anyway). But then, he’s not part of this discussion, so I see no point to go into that here ;)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287113]Not to me. I know, I don’t do wing chun. But do you not have any idea, technique or form that has double handed attacks? Some sort of double palm/ 2 hand hit strike?
If so, he is applying that concept to perhaps another technique. Or more likely combining the concepts. After which he may be applying the same double hit concept to techniques or vehicles if you will. He may change the tools. Using ideas in ways not normally considered yet, those ideas are there perhaps taught in another context.
If you can double hit. Why not double tan sao? Why not double pak sao? Why not, just keep adding I guess until you have exhausted your understanding then ask for help. “What am I missing ?” " What else is there?"[/QUOTE/
