The Magical Tan Sao thread..

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Re: Nelson

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
[B]

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]

tan sau can be used with a sinking type energy (chum). this will not leave your upper gate open, as you are dropping your tan and their arm under it. if anything it opens their upper gate. your other arm is free to guard your upper gate from their other arm, but you’ve controlled/taken the centerline with the tan sau arm which is using the sinking energy.

22

Allthese dogmas. Developing your tan sao and applying it are two different functions. After all among other things in application there is the other person- its not solitaire.
You can apply the tan sao at shoulder level when you need to…

23

that Tan Sau right before the Folk/Wu cycle in SNT is horizontal because we train to focus our Yi/Energy forward evenly, and we employ both body mass and ground support evenly. If it is done higher then ground support is more dominant. So in a sense this particular Tan Sau is a finger to the moon that helps one cultivate a kind of jing. In application do whatever, go nuts.

When the Tan is high … if you still want to call it a Tan then call it a Tan, if you call it a Tun, then it is a Tun. I feel that it is related to the SNT opening move that comes after the double Gaan - double upward Tan. Although that double upward Tan is done with both hands, but in essence it is just two Tan’s or Tun’s coming up at the same time. Nothing stops you from doing it with just one hand. The upward Tan movement is of course a little circular just like many other moves in SNT :slight_smile:

24

Brian

If you re-read my post you’ll notice that I phrased it in a way not to be abrasive or insulting to anyone or any Sifu.
PR

25

Looking for a Definition of Tun

Originally posted by yylee
[B]that Tan Sau right before the Folk/Wu cycle in SNT is horizontal because we train to focus our Yi/Energy forward evenly, and we employ both body mass and ground support evenly. If it is done higher then ground support is more dominant. So in a sense this particular Tan Sau is a finger to the moon that helps one cultivate a kind of jing. In application do whatever, go nuts.

When the Tan is high … if you still want to call it a Tan then call it a Tan, if you call it a Tun, then it is a Tun. I feel that it is related to the SNT opening move that comes after the double Gaan - double upward Tan. Although that double upward Tan is done with both hands, but in essence it is just two Tan’s or Tun’s coming up at the same time. Nothing stops you from doing it with just one hand. The upward Tan movement is of course a little circular just like many other moves in SNT :slight_smile: [/B]

Interesting post. :smiley:

I’m not familiar with the term Tun Sao. Is it merely a non-level Tan Sao? IOW, how is it different? Is it somehow related to the pole form?

Regards,

26

TjD

tan sau can be used with a sinking type energy (chum). this will not leave your upper gate open, as you are dropping your tan and their arm under it

I don’t push an arm down with my tan because a skilled person can release, as in chi sao, while you are “pushing” down.
Phil

27

Originally posted by Phil Redmond

I don’t push an arm down with my tan because a skilled person can release, as in chi sao, while you are “pushing” down.
Phil

Hi Phil,

TjD referred to sinking. It is not a push down. The elbow drops, maybe the level of the horse drops too if necessary, but the energy is still on the center, and when done properly, the tan sao still threatens and so the opponent cannot disengage.

Do you have this concept in your lineage?

Regards,

28

The techniques found within the forms are a necessary component for training muscle memory as well as preserving the heritage of the art. Upon contact, however, the function of the tan sao (or any other bridge) should determine the necessary form (shape/path) regardless of whether it follows the prescribed patterns in the sets. If my bridge spreads or disperses, it IS a tan sao, regardless of the start and end points. The concept of tan sao illustrates to the practitioner a method of manipulating force (i.e. spreading it out or dispersing it) on his bridge.

Ultimately, mainupulating ging to and from the ground based upon present conditions is more important than the height of the arm, the proper angle of the elbow, or the attack that it counters. Following such an inflexible pattern will develop a round peg for an amorphous hole, which may require a different shape for the same function.

Dzu

29

Kudos to Dzu and Joy; only they display an understanding beyond the most basic level.

Terence

30

Brian,

While I’m not familiar with the TWC Tan Sao, I believe they might keep their elbow higher than Tun?

Terence,

As with Kuen Kuit, the path and measures left to us by our ancestors in the sets might help guide us somewhat, perhaps showing examples generationally intended to optimally represent the concepts behind them. Precision in the examples, therefore, need not bind you in application, but can provide a buffer against degredation affecting application (a base point from which to make adjustments, yielding higher percentage chances of retaining structural alignment, power transfer, etc.

In sum, the path of the elbow doesn’t have to matter in application only if it has mattered a great deal in training. A round peg of sufficiently small diameter can fit in many a shaped hole. Amorpheus can risk fitting in none.

My general approach is still to remain in the center and eschew both extremes.

31

Kudos to Rene,

Only he (and the few others who’ve tried to answer my questions) understood the nature of my questions beyond the most basic level.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

32

Hi Dzu,

Thanks for your answer. The “concept” of the tan sao was precisely what I was looking for. The second question was “What is the nature, or essence of your tan sao?” Questions 1 and 3 provided additional context to help me understand the essence of an individual’s tan sao.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

33

phil…my original post..said…the twc tan sao, TO ME is a tun sao…if i came across as speaking for all lineages…i appolagize…when anyone conversates..imo,they have there own memory/thoughts as a referance point…so sometimes you forget to add in to your statements…my opinion…or in yks…or whatever…but i try to as often as humanly possible

rene…yes..the elbow is higher in the twc tan sao…and it isnt churned like a tun…it reminds me of the structure of the fa kune form andreas hoffman learned from the chu chong man lineage…there is the same basic tan structure…but it is a bit lower…and fa kune has seung fook…which are like the twc dog paw fook sao…
brian

34

Hi Rene,

I agree with you in that the ‘classic’ examples are a guideline as to the ideal case. They provide a framework, provided that one’s body structure is dynamic and functional. That said, however, not everyone is built the same and the classical shape may not be the most efficient for that particular person.

Sometimes being close to the ‘classical’ is enough and anything extra is wasted effort that can be used for other purposes. After a while, one needs to break free from the classical form, invest in loss, and take some lumps to find out if it really does work, why it works, under what conditions, and if it’s the most efficient method.

Dzu

35

Dzu,

You brought up an excellent point. I don’t really like to talk much about how certain hand forms are supposed to look now. The energetics study as well as it conceptual application of the hand is more relevant to me. The swiching of the power focus of the Tan from any of the joint points of the human body can give one so many different kind of forces either to uproot forcefully, to sink down like a mountain, to disperse , to cut, etc on any contacted bridge. It’s important to stick to the basic, but it is just a form in the end. When it is imbued with your own feelings , spirit, and emotional content it is something more than just a tan.

Regards,

36

Actually, man sao is the better stopping short move, and it is a two handed technique.

37

Brian,

Thanks, that was my impression.

Dzu,

I agree, with some caveats. First, I think the Chinese system of relative measures takes into consideration some amount of variance in human physiology. Second, as ideals, they may be better viewed as things to strive for, rather than requirements. That keeps us working, even if we make modifications in the interim to suit our current needs.

Likewise, the ideals provide a measure for the range, you need only use as much as needed. If you’ve never worked towards the ideal, however, you’ll not have that range should you ever need it. What we use in real application will always be a subset. Perhaps that’s why many say the fight is won or lost in the training beforehand.

I agree with you about transcending. I think that’s why its training rather than doing. We need the foundation, though, like the kitestring that keeps us grounded during our flights of fancy. Transcendance needs a solid foundation, and its a step by step, individual process, so not everyone might be at the same point in the path, thus different answers can apply to different people even if the question is the same.

38

Rene,

I think we agree that one has to reach a certain level of technical competency before experimentation should be done. It’s a case of learn the rules before you can break them. My point is that there is nothing better for verifying the ‘ideal’ than pressure from an opponent.

Some lineages state that the tan sao should be in the center, others use the mid clavicular, and some might even use the shoulder line. Which then is the ideal? Others have stated that the tan sao should be held high, shoulder height, or even level. Again, which one is the ideal then? Is the ‘ideal’ form lineage dependent or independent?

Personally, I feel that the lineage ideal is a starting point, but not the only point. Each lineage tends to have a basic structure/strategy/methodology that guides the application. Everyone might be at different points on the mountain, but it’s important to be cognizent of the big picture to help keep us moving on up.

Dzu

39

Hey Dzu,

Nice to have intelligent, informed, productive debate for a change! Hopefully we won’t devolve into personal attacks, or accuse each other of conspiracy agendas! LOL!

I look at it as two separate steps. First the sets give us the ideal by itself, within the context only of ourselves, so that we can learn how to move and how to adapt the base positions, and achieve any training needs we might have (joint flexibility/control, coordination, relaxation, etc.) Once that is done, we add in the partner to gain a sense of opponent and, step by step, bring up the pressure so we can adjust the ideal (ourselves to the ideal as much as possible, then the ideal to the situation as needed) yet retain the trained developmental attributes (relaxation, path, etc.) Both are important, like foundation and construct.

I tend to view “lineages” more in the light of “systems” that have developed as cohesive wholes, and (mostly) don’t just do a Tan Sao a certain way just to do it that certain way, but because it is part of their whole-system approach. Since every method of doing something has its strong and weak points, I believe systems take that into account and support the strong points while shielding the weak, so if you just take some “lineage” Tan Sao and view it outside its system-whole, it will not only be difficult to see how it fits, but how it works.

Also, I think good systems don’t have a singular approach but understand the range within which certain movements are most effective and then through a few ideals, describe that range to the student. As I noted before, my WCK has several Tan-like hands that describe to me from center-line to shoulder line, from higher to lower, the range in which the concept can be optimally used. So it doesn’t become a matter of is Tan Sao high and on the centerline, but if I need to use it high and on the center line based on what’s happening at the moment, I have the measures trained and ingrained to do so. Of course, some lineages/systems may prefer one version to another, but all good ones should still cover the range.

I agree with you about the big picture.

40

Re: The Magical Tan Sao thread..

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.

  1. 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.

  2. Give me an “ideal use case” where your tan sao would be applied, where its “essence” is demonstrated. [/B]

  3. It depends. In SLT, I use the following, depending on which of the SLTs I’m doing that day!

a) Wrist to throat level (about the Adam’s apple), wrist and fingers relaxed but fingers together keeping enough energy in them to keep them straight but not locked with the thumb pulled in to the side of the hand, so naturally there is a slight bend in the wrist. Elbow is about a fist and a thumb’s distance from my solar plexus.
b) Same energy in the arm, same elbow position. Wrist to nipple level.
c) Elbow out (:eek: ) to parallel the side of the body, about one and a half fists away from the body, with the forearm pointing in at about 45 and the wrist pulled back, so it could conceivably be a waiter position! If I’m feeling fanciful I imagine projecting the energy into my ‘opponent’s’ tanden from the ends of my fingers. Rarely happens. Wrist nipple level.

  1. Offensive, forwards. Riding, crushing, sinking, penetrating, dispersing, occasionally guiding (in this case, I would suggest it seems more sidewards, but it’s misleading as my body will be turning, as in tan-wu-lop reflex). Usually I am turning or stepping through from offline when I use tan: I aim for my tan energy not to be a block, but to disrupt structure enough to strike through, or preferably just to strike.

  2. High shots: sometimes comes out automatically against halfhearted hooks, in which cases it is useful to disperse the energy while striking with the other hand, and riding the retreating hook in to strike a short palm to the jaw/zygomatic bone/ear and/or fuk the head into the other arm’s incoming elbow/palm jaw-strike-projection. Otherwise I don’t use it high. Good hooks will break it or come round, unless I’m turning inside, which isn’t fast enough and will get me clocked. Sometimes it comes out automatically against a hook, when it usually flips over into a biu: or I get to see the constellations!:smiley:

Middle shots: jabs, crosses, anything centreline (too easy!:stuck_out_tongue: ). Usually from outside, offline with footwork (if I’m on the inside, my hands have hit him without need for tan, or if in tan shape my arm usually delivers a bounce punch/uppercut from ck).

Going low: I call chum jarn. Nitpicking really, but as some like to say: the devil is in the details. The difference being my chum jarn aims to crush the opponent’s strike with the elbow, using it as a half-beat ‘bounce’ through to strike. Those of you familiar with kendo will recognise a similar idea with the kote strike (plus similar elbow energy and centreline theory!:wink: ). Sure, it’s a downward motion, but it’s also a forward motion, and usually a desperate measure!

Tun: The (c) tan I do in SLT is good for turning into a tun. It’s a lot more short range, from a 45/45/45 forward wu, and very good for absorbing in very close, without having to rely on turning your body too much when sometimes you can’t. Otherwise, I see any tan as a tun, if I have to turn to absorb at the last minute (half-beat) before I can strike/lop. Hence the answer to (2) above being: offensive!

I’m not even gonna mention SLT’s high outside gate tan… I don’t think I’ve ever needed it!

Just a few thoughts. Sorry it’s a bit long and technical.

BTW, what’s a lineage!!! We don’t use that term in my, er, system… Is it from the Chinese? What do the Kuen Kits say?! :smiley: :rolleyes: :smiley: :smiley: (also BTW, if anyone’s interested where I got any of the above nonsense from, please mail me privately, where we can keep any lineage nonsense civil!).

Rene: The system should be wing chun, however it’s spelt. While I agree with what you’re saying as way to mediate and calm lineage quarrels I think this is the most important of your points:

Rene
Also, I think good systems don’t have a singular approach but understand the range within which certain movements are most effective and then through a few ideals, describe that range to the student.
This is right on the nail.

I think that systems or lineages or whatever you wanna call them, who state there is only one way of doing something… are wrong. So, such a ‘system’ may be a ‘cohesive whole’ within itself but can never have a place as a useful practical evolving art.

To illustrate my point, the number of times I have been to a school and they say do this this way because your opponent will do this this way… is, well, quite high. They do look surprised when you clock them.:eek: :smiley: