The "question for the TWC people (Phil Redmond) " thread brought up an interesting, obvious, but often overlooked point. Even though we are all doing Wing Chun, we are doing Wing Chun differently. We may share the same terminology, but in some cases, what’s behind some terminology differs greatly from school to school.
Take the tan sao. Judging from TjD’s and Phil’s description of their respective tan sao’s, their “essences” are very different. And both their tan saos stand in stark contrast to the tan sao that is used in my school (at least, from what I have observed. my seniors can correct my if I am inaccurate.). It’s almost like 3 different animals.
So with that, I’d like to ask a few questions with regards to the tan sao of everyone would like to share. I just want to get an idea of what the similarities and differences between schools are.
What does your tan sao look like? Is it high, low, flat, angled, bent wrist, straight wrist, one fist distance out, two fists distance out, etc.
What is the nature, or essence of your tan sao? Is it more defensive or more offensive in nature? I’m sure it can be both, but I’m curious as to which side it’s more inclined to.
Give me an “ideal use case” where your tan sao would be applied, where its “essence” is demonstrated.
Angled, straight wrist, energy to tip of finger, one fist distance (you are talking about the elbow, and not the actual “tan”…)
2)Offensive. My goal is to destroy my opponents structure.
3)I guess in a sweeping (consider the waist and not just the tan structure and elbow distance) manner, bridging with the opponent, controling both arms, jolting his structure, and converting to a fist to smash into whatever is closest, knocking him out and to the ground…
Sometimes folks talk about “shooting out the Tan Sau.” What is meant by that? Aren’t your arms always in front, at least a fist distance from your elbow to your torso? Not much room to shoot out, or am I missing the application.
I just thought I’d answer the questions myself first, to kind of set the tone. My answers reflect only my current understanding of Wing Chun, and I leave the inaccurate details for my seniors to correct. =)
My tan sao is flat, straight wristed, forearm parellel to the floor, at about the stomach level. It is about one fist distance from my ribcage, pointing down the middle. This is just the way it looks in SLT, and will necessarily change in application, though hopefully not by much. All things being equal, that is the “ideal” or position of my tan sao.
I believe the essence of my tan sao is defensive in nature. I see it as the equivilent of the bong sao, used for the other side. My right armed bong sao is generally used to redirect incoming force off of my line towards my left side. Similarly, my right handed tan sao is used to redirect incoming force off of my line towards my right side. This is in keeping with the name “tan sao,” which can be translated as “dispersing hand.” It is used to disperse energy away from my line. Now this next part is strictly my opinion, and I haven’t been explicitly told this. Like the bong sao, it is a transitional movement. I also think that like the bong sao, it is possible to “tan the wrong hand.” In the case of bong sao, it is much more effective to bong the the same side hand. This is because you effectively take both hands off your line by doing so. This can be compared to “taking the blind side.” Likewise, the tan sao is more effective applied cross hands. Going back to my right sided example, my right hand meets with my partner’s right hand. He comes in, and I turn to the right with my tan sao, effectively taking his blind side again.
I sort of described a use case in the previous answer, but here’s an elaboration. It is important to note the it is not my arm that drives the tan sao, but my body. And it is not my body that turns, but my knees. So in actuality, the right handed tan sao is a coordinated full body movement to disperse the incoming energy to my right. The reason it is flat is to also direct the energy downwards and hopefully upsetting the balance in the process. This is also the reason we keep our tan sao low. If it is high and/or angled, and I use the tan sao in this manner, I give my partner an opportunity fight back by pushing up perpendicular to my tan sao. If it is flat and parallel to the floor, I have much better leverage and he has no functional surface to fight against (e.g. he’d have to lift my entire body directly up to push against my tan sao).
So there’s my understanding of it. Hopefully I wasn’t too confusing. Look forward to see how other people approach this.
Originally posted by yenhoi
[B]1) Angled, straight wrist, energy to tip of finger, one fist distance (you are talking about the elbow, and not the actual “tan”…)
2)Offensive. My goal is to destroy my opponents structure.
3)I guess in a sweeping (consider the waist and not just the tan structure and elbow distance) manner, bridging with the opponent, controling both arms, jolting his structure, and converting to a fist to smash into whatever is closest, knocking him out and to the ground…
:rolleyes: [/B]
I take it your tan sao is used from outside to in?
the high tan of twc , to me isnt a tan…its a tun sao…tan does a totaly differant energy…twords my opponents structure…striking…i never block…i attack…non of my wck motions are used passivly…tan can be very aggresive to open up my opponent …with a palm strike…it can be used to wedge…but also to disperse force off to the side or to trap…it can be used in or out…tun is a swallowing motion…that protects the upper gate…swallowing the force with a upward spiraling motion…also good for locking the opponenets bridge…
got to run…
brian
Originally posted by Zhuge Liang
[B]1) What does your tan sao look like? Is it high, low, flat, angled, bent wrist, straight wrist, one fist distance out, two fists distance out, etc.
What is the nature, or essence of your tan sao? Is it more defensive or more offensive in nature? I’m sure it can be both, but I’m curious as to which side it’s more inclined to.
Give me an “ideal use case” where your tan sao would be applied, where its “essence” is demonstrated.
[/B]
good post! wish it was part of my thread
wrist rarely ever above the shoulder (unless it’s against someone tall), wrist straight, fingers pointing towards where i’m going to hit after my tan sau breaks their structure. tan sau shoots forward, elbow can be anywhere from near my side to 3 fists out (as long as the eblow stays bent).
read the other tan sau post. i see tan sau as a wedge when used aggressively and as dispersing when use defensively (passively). tan sau is the most aggressive of the tan/fook/bong trio for me. its more offensive, as if the offensive doesn’t work i can switch it to defense. once your doing defense its slower to switch to offense.
ideal use case is when my structure is superior and my tan sau cuts forward. the energy of the arm that came into contact with my tan sau pushes my elbow/hand forward, increasing the energy in my strike - using their own power against them. this is the nature of its wedging and what that wedging tries to accomplish.
"I once was doing chi sau with the venerable master of flying ancestor atack. he practise arsenal of techniqe to me. first he use the vulgar monkey contact, follow by three fox woman palm. he mix in with it some fire of the grasshopper style using the unfathomable grasshopper punch. then he withdraw with judicious wizard protection. again he come in with the impressive river advance and begin to using the abominable animal pushing turn to the leaping goldfish ambush.
he finish up with the lethal accupuncure breath with the dreaded terror essence of the honorable qi scare. but all this was nothing compare to his final strike. the emasculating scorpion vengeance." - miles
So with that, I’d like to ask a few questions with regards to the tan sao of everyone would like to share. I just want to get an idea of what the similarities and differences between schools are.
Re; the thread-
Potentially a good way to compare and share what we do.
The devil again is in the details… and the net has it’s limitations.
So… basically and incompletely…
my forearm is not flat like some Leung Shun folks. Nor is it straight and high up like the William Cheung folks. Just different approaches- no adversarial criticism implied.
From my elbow near my body- controlling the line my forearm and
arm make about a 135 degree angle- but my palm not my forearm is fairly flat.
Without debating what Ip man really did… in some of his pictures- allowing for illness- his shaping appears similar in some pictures.
But I am mindful that the tan sao is a very important whole body motion and not just a hand technique. It has many usages.
We have several “tan sao” like hands in our Siu Lien Tao set. The one we refer to as Tan Sao proper has the arm along the meridian line, the elbow one ‘tiger’mouth’ from the body, the elbow bent less than 90d, the hand twisted externally, and the fingers angling downward. It disperses force away from the body center, inside or outside. There’s a variant along the shoulder line as well.
Tun Sao is similar but does not drop the fingers down; rather it keeps the wrist straight, the fingers roughly nose-height, and still twists the forearm along the meridian line. It swallows force, inside or outside, bringing it in to break its linear power.
Mo Sao (not a real name, just an adaption) is similar but has the forearm parallel to the ground and the fingers pointing slightly up. It senses and then adapts to lower-height bridge work.
I take it your tan sao is used from outside to in?
Depends. Mainly on which way my waist is turning, but also on the knees, footwork, which guard position my hands resemble, his, what my other hand is doing (punch, bong… etc..)
one of the things that makes all wck motions work , is the correct alignment/structure…body unity…twc looses chum in my opinion…in many cases…as hendrik put it…we are learning the proper paths…and as most of us know…wck forms are principle and conceptual in nature…they are also jing patterns…not application forms…as were the older white crane forms…they 2 were jing patterns not application…application forms came way…way later…twords the early 1700s ifim not mistaken…when 18 lo han system was mixed into the white crane system…so…
if the proper structure..upper and lower body and kiu sao are incorrect…we wont be able to generate the proper jing that the particluar structure was designed to give a path to…so tan , imo…uses a particular shape…to allow a certain path for a certain energy…that the root is always from the ground…my understanding is there are 4 basic jings that can be generated from the the tan shape (at least the 1 i use…based on a triangle…)…tun is differant than tan…i think rene explained it perfectly!! and both are needed!!! if your tan lifts as high as your head it violates certain paramiters that define the tan structure…the tun on the other hand has…leung jan noticed covers the top gate nicly.!!
brian
…i think rene explained it perfectly!! and both are needed!!! if your tan lifts as high as your head it violates certain paramiters that define the tan structure…the tun on the other hand has…leung jan noticed covers the top gate nicly.!!
The TWC tan sao doesn’t violate any TWC parameter. Maybe they are violated in “your” methodologies. To say what is and isn’t in WCK one has to speak from an all knowing platform. I personally never say that or that is wrong when I see something that differs from what I Believe.
From what I gather you agree with Rene that the tun sao has the fingers pointing downwards, right? Do you mean like a waiter holding a tray? I’m just curious.
Phil
The tan motion should not go higher than your collar bone. Any higher, as mentioned by Brian, and chum is lost.
How do you apply a tan at the level of the collarbone to the top arms of the dummy? Also, the emphasis in “tan” is spread/disperse. Not chum. If you chum with a tan your arm will push a punch downwards leaving an opening for an uppergate attack. Some chum with the elbow forward, but not with the arms, (at least in TWC, I’m not speaking for others).
PR
Brian is correct. One point to stress as well is that describing Tan Sao based on how it ends its position is as valid as describing it how it begins (be it at the side or as Wu or whatever) both end points are only both end points, and the motion in between is as, if not more, important.
How do you apply a tan at the level of the collarbone to the top arms of the dummy? Also, the emphasis in “tan” is spread/disperse. Not chum. If you chum with a tan your arm will push a punch downwards leaving an opening for an uppergate attack. Some chum with the elbow forward, but not with the arms, (at least in TWC, I’m not speaking for others).
PR [/B]
Application of tan sao, to the top arms of dummy, depends on how you have adjusted the height of the dummy in relation to your body. Assuming I get into stance, the top dummy arms height is adjusted to my shoulder height ; this way I can perform the tan movement at my collarbone level.
In application I find it that it is harder to block a strike coming mid level than high; thus doing a tan held lower will protect your midsection and solar plexus.
The idea of having a high tan dropping down to cover – in the midst of doing a combination of movements (with another technique perhaps) and using the concept of gravitiy to assist in the movement I think is improper. Ideally, all WC movements should attack and go forward and I prefer to raise an arm up to high (if necessary) than to have an already high arm sink to cover a lowline strike. Having your movements originate from a solar plexus level covers both top and lower gates optimally.
The concept of chum is to sink but what i really mean is holding the arm low helps to use your body to spread incoming energy and not just your arm. Also If your structure is correct you can move forward with your tan to break an opponent’s structure as oppossed to just “receiving it”. It is very hard to apply this concept with a tan held high.
A similar concept applies to Bong Sao. Some people think that Bong is just a passive reactive movement. But in reality the bong can advance in a similar manner to the tan – the advancing triangle wedge concept – to uproot or ground an opponent.
hi guys…
phil—let me clairify…it violates wing chun parameters…as passed down by leung jan, yuen kay san and almost all yip man students except…william cheung…
.
obviously it doesnt violate twc parameters…since you are a sifu in twc im sure you wouldnt do something that violates the system you represent…lol..err… hopfully…
and the twc tan...is used in other wck systems...
as i said the motion you describer as tan…in many wck system is not a tan…it is a tun…every tool has its specific uses…and the use of tun is not the same as tan…in leung jan, yks, ect..possibly cho family
if you see "chum" in that way....you are not understanding how many wck use there chum with there kiu and body unity/structure.....its not a "push"....you join,,,and than stick..listen....and if you have proper root and have allowed your yi and your chi to sink....you will have a very heavy sticking springing force that inhibits and helps jeet your opponents motions.....dispersion can be to the sides...or slightly upwards .or slightly downwards....or slight combos of each obviously as you stick and are alive responding with those wonderfull contact reflexes......thats slightly.....anything more is extreme....that leaves you open for mid to mid lower strikes...which proper chum helps prevent...... training your kiu so high...imo...its extreme.....i walk the middle line that wck proper is based on....not extremities
and the all knowing platform of what is or isnt wing chun was mastered by william cheung back in the 80's ...i wouldnt dare!!
brian]
- miles