[QUOTE=k gledhill;879857]
Tan sao used to mean [to me ] what most think, it was a line leaving hand chasing block up in the air…Then I met Philipp Bayer who explained WSL training with it …
strike an arm away, using a strike.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG96eyig5dI
Would you say that at 0:55, this is what is being said here about the Tan Sau? That it is attacking a strike? Or are you talking about “the hand that blocks is that hand that hits?”
not the same , that is a use with a tan still on your line …the striking aspect is that the tan is taking the line of force away , left or right , depending on your attacking line/s, while striking with the same hand in one smooth delivery…punch.
Make your arm into a tan sao aiming at your partners head then punch him with the same hand fast and bring back the elbow to your centerline …the elbow flies off the line .
Now get them to place an arm out [for reference only] 1/2 extended , move so your at angle of about 45 degrees,[ for this example stand to their right using your right tan] so your centerline is facing theirs , their other arm shouldnt be able to reach you unless they turn to face you… and close enought to strike when extended…you should X over the arm of the partner who is just giving you a similar ‘dummy’ arm…dont think of the tan as a static pose , just a training aid to develop the punch…now strike doing the same tan strike making a fist …the partners arm is moved sideways by the force of the tan elbow leaving your centerline, BUT you are striking him directly forwards along the same line with your fist…
to follow an attacking intent ..you can shut off that same arm by now delivering the jumming follow strike …
iow as the spent tan is coming back to vu sao, the jum is striking in while keeping the partners arm to the same side the tan moved it off the line …by striking using the inwards force of the forearm/elbow …
simple line strikes.
remember your attacking the guy not waiting for him to attack you and use a fancy move…just attack, but not down the center if they are waiting for you…
The nature of the strikes further builds the , pak , jut, bong huens, as line clearing actions for the vu strikes…either jum or tan can become the required ‘clearer’ depending on what they meet along the line THEY are striking on…
Dan chi-sao isnt wrist movements etc..or fook bs…it is alignment drills for your partner to do a tan then strike , you jum then strike, he bongs to deflect sideways…you recover your strike over the bong by doing fook , recover the neutral elbow, with no jum or tan intent yet…just recover back to see what side the strike needs to use maintenance force on.
once the strikes are developed in dan chi the dan chi becomes redundant becasue we will only fight using a 1 beat strike with 2 actions developed in dan chi…not feeling for feeling sake, but to hold the lines of deflection before striking …removing the tendency to move the wrists or drop the hands to block before striking, thus taking the gun off the target …like training to shoot by dropping the barrel to block a bullet, instead of maneuvering for cover while holding the target and firing as they fire at you, only your off the firing line while firing .
The jum keeps the arm along the line with the elbow in, while striking out.
Together they make the basic line attack ..tan offline elbow , jum online elbow, repeat either side seamlessly. Because the strikes dont waver off-line the tan action of the elbows leaving and returning to the line act to deliver the 2 forces per strike. Same as Jum inward force , same force as pak sao, lateral, relative to the outward striking action…once we are striking the targets the elbows dont matter . They , by design, cycle to man sao , vu sao, so neither is ever stopped from striking from the rear.
Because they fire on the line AND deflect in the strike action on the same line we dont need to think about chasing off-line, just hit until the arm is stopped X by interception, grabbing etc… no thinking attack , from a forwards intent , delivering an attacking momentum with 2 free hands both aimed to hit 1st, not chase and hit, chase and hit, trap and hit …that is taking the very basic ‘edge’ of naturally fighting with 2 hands like any good boxer . thai boxer..etc…Vt is stifling itself by over ‘applicating’ instead of very effective simple striking attacks with double edged strikes.
Because the chi-sao is done [incorrectly] with wrists and feeling as the focus, the development of a 2 edged strike is simply ‘lost’ to a jum 1-2 a tan in the air and another arm punches…to function this is done inside the 2 attackers arms, already a bad place to wait to ‘perform’…what are you waiting in the center for ? you give the attacker the ability to throw flanking shots at YOU…
Freedom to move around and feint shift , turn , relative to an attackers actions , frees us from the constraints of waiting for a ‘application’ from gate a with tan sao block B adopting a lead leg 
not good.
Remember that your training WITH each other for a common goal to fight those who dont know your moves or tactics. Not trying to feel each others wrists for openings :rolleyes: ‘wristing’ is a bad word in our vt vocabulary.
Subtle change of how to see the system with profoundly different fighters …
lost in translation
As my coach tells me , “WSL had many visitors , but few students”
Kevin,
If you try to guess from phoentic sounds you will end up with the confusion you have demonstrated. Its a simple mistake.
Because I speak the Mandarin and Cantonese dialects and occasionally a variant of Shanghainese, we always have to go with the characters. Funny thing is having a conversation with people who speak multiple dialects is you can always have confusion and misunderstanding. Your interpretations certainly were quite amusing!
David Peterson’s Mandarin is great! His Cantonese is also very good!
Phil’s Cantonese is great!
For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust? 
Best regards,
[QUOTE=chusauli;880237]For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust? :)[/QUOTE]That is an interesting question. I had always assumed the ‘chung’ used in the idiom was the same as that used in the sun character punch (yat ji chung choi), but flood seems to make sense too.
Thrust ([SIZE=“3”][/SIZE]): http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=��
Flush/wash away ([SIZE=“3”][/SIZE]): http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=�R
[QUOTE=chusauli;880237]Kevin,
If you try to guess from phoentic sounds you will end up with the confusion you have demonstrated. Its a simple mistake.
Because I speak the Mandarin and Cantonese dialects and occasionally a variant of Shanghainese, we always have to go with the characters. Funny thing is having a conversation with people who speak multiple dialects is you can always have confusion and misunderstanding. Your interpretations certainly were quite amusing!
David Peterson’s Mandarin is great! His Cantonese is also very good!
Phil’s Cantonese is great!
For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust?
Best regards,[/QUOTE]
which confusion are you confused with ?
[QUOTE=k gledhill;880245]which confusion are you confused with ?[/QUOTE]I think you think he is confusing Kevin Huang with Kevin Gledhill. 
Confused? You will be in the next episode of … Wacky Wing Chun Races.
[QUOTE=CFT;880247]I think you think he is confusing Kevin Huang with Kevin Gledhill.
Confused? You will be in the next episode of … Wacky Wing Chun Races.[/QUOTE]
thanks that was confusing
[QUOTE=chusauli;880237]
For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust?
Best regards,[/QUOTE]
Hi Roberts, good question. I’d need to see the character for “chung”. I tried a brief online search but couldn’t find it. Do you know of an online source?
PR
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;880256]Hi Roberts, good question. I’d need to see the character for “chung”. I tried a brief online search but couldn’t find it. Do you know of an online source?
PR[/QUOTE]Phil, back up a few posts, before my silly one to Kevin.
Hi Phil!
Yes, back up a few posts and you will see the 2 characters there! Courtesy of CFT!
By the way, the implication is not quite the same. One is thrusting - perhaps just moving the arm or striking. The 2nd character implies bowling down the opponent. Which one is correct? (I already know the answer…)
Its good food for thought…
Best regards,
[QUOTE=chusauli;880277]Which one is correct? (I already know the answer…)[/QUOTE]
Long time Chu Sifu. Hope you are well.
From what I’ve seen I’d have to go with ‘Chu’ng’ - to rush towards or collide with.
Thanks guys. On page 140 of The Complete Wing Chun this is the character used:
[B]Thrust (): http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexi...h.php?q=BD�[/B]
PR
To be real honest, this type of translation serve only very surface.
IMHO,
There are Chinese characters and the place the characters were use… meaning changes… and special meaning when using in a different phrase.
That is also why the translation of the WC kuit to today’s english is difficult. one needs to understand enough classical chinese which was used before 1930’s era.
But today’s public rather to translate at their own way calling that as thier own intepretation. Because everyone want to be an expert.
The truth is Chinese language is very specific and well define, provided one has a back ground of definition.
IE: Sun Tzu the art of war is keeping defining a few core ideas…etc. it is not just some wishfull saying but comes with What and how.
with most no longer study clasicall chinese. things will get more confusion. and also not every elderly chinese is literate or literate enough to know the specific details. Thus, for the past 60 years, WC’s kuen is not really fully preserved. and lots of terminology was also created due to neccesasity for communication.
IE: Bong has a couple call Kei. In the classic writting.
Bong is some what horizontal, Kei is some what vertical.
Now a day, the term kei is almost unknown. But replace by high Tan sau…etc.
and
The couple Tan- Fook, Bong-kei were evolve as Tan - Bong - Fook.
Thus, Tan becomes a confusion now because it carry both the identity of Tan and Kei.
So, everything becomes Tan.
It is certainly everyone’s free will to follow what they believe. and what I brought up here is just to say, the old timer got things define thier way.
Just my five cents.
Try the other character:
Flush/wash away (): http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexi...rch.php?q=�R
Instead of sticking a hand in, you will bowl your opponent over.
Best regards,
chusauli,
Lee umshee Taiwan lang. Lee kao kong Taiwan weh?
Taiwan weh umshee cogoo.