I know the word block is usually not associated with Wing Chun because it implies force against force. So I’ll use “cover”. I keep getting emails from people who say my tan/wu or whatever is too high.
Here’s Sifu Alan Lee demonstrating his tan against a head punch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMilpCqhwXU
He’s not TWC but he’s covering his head with his tan. If a hand position that covers my head is considered by some to be too high then I’ll go for covering my head all the time. Since most fighters are headhunters I’d like to know what hand/arm positions do most WC people use to cover their head/temple area. The tan and wu I see in “most” WC won’t cover head shots.
Phil, I get what you’re saying.
My thoughts on this are pretty simple - tan sau / tan da seen in isolation means nothing to anyone.
When you complete the picture by adding in the punch you are responding to, only then people can judge whether your technique is effective.
I’m not entirely sure why this is a contentious issue, unless of course, the critics never train with practicality in mind?
Regards, Rich
[QUOTE=Saltire;927730]Phil, I get what you’re saying.
My thoughts on this are pretty simple - tan sau / tan da seen in isolation means nothing to anyone.
When you complete the picture by adding in the punch you are responding to, only then people can judge whether your technique is effective.
I’m not entirely sure why this is a contentious issue, unless of course, the critics never train with practicality in mind?
Regards, Rich[/QUOTE]
Thx, that was well put. A tan or whatever should be where the strike is coming. I never say tan should always be high. It can vary with the point of contact. But some people are on this my way is better than your way kick. I think most of them don’t fight with the art so they can’t really know what works.
Sure makes sense to me that everything must adapt to the circumstance, sometimes people get hung up on the wrong ideals and forget what they are trying to do in the first place. How many times have we heard “that doesn’t look like wing chun” on this forum instead of people asking why it was done that way? Same disease, unfortunately wing chun seems to attract theorists and philosophers more than practical hands on people. Don’t get me wrong the world needs both types of people, but you don’t want a philosopher covering your rear when bodies hit the floor.
Doesn’t it make more sense…
instead of adjusting the hand to cover the head, why not move the head out of the way? That way, the hands can concentrate on hitting and not just being an umbrella in the storm.
A tan sau is a failed attack - i.e. it was a punch which ended up touching the opponents arm on the inside and then transitioned into tan. Chi sao teaches this - transitioning shapes (bong, tan) from a connected/stuck position. Chi sao doesn’t teach to step back and then do tan when you see a punch coming in.
To suggest a tan can stop a decent punch is wishful thinking. (I’m not talking about a rehearsed drill, or a widely thrown haymaker which allows you time to brew a coffee before it connects).
Just thinking aloud and not wanting to ruffle any feathers…
One should practice using
Tan Sau
Bil Sau
Wu Sau
In real force and strength scenario. Meaning you practice fighting drills with force. I do this with people all the time so you can get the application for real. An then we do some light sparring where people throw all sorts of attacks. The key is being prepared and practicing…practice is what counts.
You may not be able to use tan so use bil or pak. It depends on the type of punch also…A strong Hook I would use bil sau or Wu Sau not tan Sau right off!
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927744]Doesn’t it make more sense…
instead of adjusting the hand to cover the head, why not move the head out of the way? That way, the hands can concentrate on hitting and not just being an umbrella in the storm.
A tan sau is a failed attack - i.e. it was a punch which ended up touching the opponents arm on the inside and then transitioned into tan. Chi sao teaches this - transitioning shapes (bong, tan) from a connected/stuck position. Chi sao doesn’t teach to step back and then do tan when you see a punch coming in.
To suggest a tan can stop a decent punch is wishful thinking. (I’m not talking about a rehearsed drill, or a widely thrown haymaker which allows you time to brew a coffee before it connects).
Just thinking aloud and not wanting to ruffle any feathers…[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927744]Doesn’t it make more sense…
instead of adjusting the hand to cover the head, why not move the head out of the way? That way, the hands can concentrate on hitting and not just being an umbrella in the storm.
A tan sau is a failed attack - i.e. it was a punch which ended up touching the opponents arm on the inside and then transitioned into tan. Chi sao teaches this - transitioning shapes (bong, tan) from a connected/stuck position. Chi sao doesn’t teach to step back and then do tan when you see a punch coming in.
To suggest a tan can stop a decent punch is wishful thinking. (I’m not talking about a rehearsed drill, or a widely thrown haymaker which allows you time to brew a coffee before it connects).
Just thinking aloud and not wanting to ruffle any feathers…[/QUOTE]
Suki is right on the money here, I totally agree with what he says above.
If your thinking is tan da, you are thinking static. If your thinking is my tan is too high, too low, in the forms you thinking is static, because already you are taking the thinking away from hitting and putting it into chasing hands and defending a strike coming towards you. Why would you allow a strike to come toward you without yourself in the midst of striking? Since most fights are unfair, and people will hit you when you are not looking or unable to see the strike, prearranged defences will not work anyways. The key thing here is awareness, are you aware of your surroundings and the threat possibility. As someone that deals with this threat everyday at work, the awareness has to be there. If someone is in my face then I become ready to do what is needed.
Basic thinkin in VT is this, tan is punch, from inside line, fok is punch from outside line, bong is helping action to facilitate recovery to hitting from a deflected strike, eat their space, stall their delivery system, rev yours up and take it to them. The message here is movement, constant states of change and adaption as needed. When you think in static terms or picture perfect poses, the engine is stalled, the brain is stalled, and everything you learned is out the window.
James
P.S. Just found this new video of Sifu Lam explaining Tan sau as he see’s it. I don’t really care for the demo at the end, but at the beginning of the clip he refers to the tan sau as an “action’=verb’” to open the door to cross to the opponent and take his position, in other words to spread the line, take some control and to faciliate what? Hitting. When Sifu Lam is demo’g he is doing what he calls dbl tan drill, when the first stepping tan is defeated he takes the other guys facing and re-enters with another stepping tan and push in continous motion (the push teaches structure and power from the ground and allows one to continue drilling, not to be confused with an actual technique application). A drill designed to teach many things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLhMlhkuzSY
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927744]Doesn’t it make more sense…
instead of adjusting the hand to cover the head, why not move the head out of the way? . . . .[/QUOTE] Sometimes you can’t. Even pro fighters get hit.
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927744]Chi sao doesn’t teach to step back and then do tan when you see a punch coming in. . . [/QUOTE]
In the real world sometimes you have to step back.
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927744]To suggest a tan can stop a decent punch is wishful thinking. (I’m not talking about a rehearsed drill, or a widely thrown haymaker which allows you time to brew a coffee before it connects).[/QUOTE]
Oh yes it can against a resisting opponent bent on crushing you. But the only way to know for sure is to fight. That’s how I know it works.
Let me post this again
Here’s Sifu Alan Lee demonstrating his tan against a head punch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMilpCqhwXU
The students at Sifu Duncan Leung’s school where I met Sifu Allan Lee fought. If seems at though WC people who fight have something in common.
Phil,
I’m not sure I made myself clear. You implied that sometimes you can’t move your head out of the way. True. I would go further and say, most times you try to block punches with your hands you will get hit. When one is focused on covering via, tan, bil… and not attacking, one becomes a product of that focus.
I am not disputing what you do. It just makes more sense, to me at least, that the focus should be on hitting and being in a position where you can’t be hit.
You wrote “sometimes in the real world you have to take a step back”. Please re-read what I wrote. I was referring to what chi sao does (or doesn’t) teach. That said, I’m not sure what you mean by the “real world”. In my real world, people are pleasant and Wing Chun is rarely, if ever used with anyone more challenging than a like-minded training partner hobbyist. If you wanna discuss “real world” then seriously, Wing Chun = effective??? Time would be far better spent simply avoiding public places/large gatherings is self=protection is the aim. lol.
You then said tan sau does work "against opponents who have a crush on you or something ; ) Seriously… I train an average amount with an average level of skill and spend an average amount of time sparring and have had an average amount of fights. Guess how many times I have seen something even vaguely resembling a tan sau (other than in Steven Sea-gull movies) work. It don’t - plain as day. If it did, then it would be used everywhere fighting took place.
I didn’t watch Alan Lee’s vid. I clicked on the link, saw that it was a demo = compliant/submissive student playing ‘bad guy’ and switched off and went back to watching something a bit closer to the “real world”;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTmIGXYkp5o&feature=related
Suki
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927776] . . .Guess how many times I have seen something even vaguely resembling a tan sau (other than in Steven Sea-gull movies) work. It don’t - plain as day. If it did, then it would be used everywhere fighting took place. . . . . [/QUOTE]
I was a kickboxer and used a tan very effectively in the ring. Some of our fighters have used it and many other WC “techs” in Lei Tai and other competitive events. Some people can make somethings work and some can’t. Your experiences are different from mine. That’s why I’d never say what you can pull off in a fight. Yet you say “it don’t work”. I know better. I’d never stop doing something that has worked for me because you say it won’t work. We differ and I’m going to leave it like that.
If ‘tan’ were effective in the ring, yours or anyone else’s we would see it. Effective Wing Chun movements are like UFO’s. Lots of people claim to have direct experience, but it is remarkable that there is no evidence.
I am not disputing that you did it or someone else you know has done it. Even if you did manage to use it the problem still remains that rare isolated events do not give rise to confidence when training a martial art for its effectiveness.
I’m a Wing Chun guy and I humour a lot of the stuff that I hear. My direct experience is ‘that it aint about the hands, its about the body. It aint about hand shapes, its about body positioning’.
And, to further complicate matters this thread is titled “Upper, Middle and Lower..” Honestly!?! How far can these divisions be taken to complicate something that used to be simple. How about “inner, outer, upside down, zig zag, topsy turvy…”
There are no ‘gates’. There is a person, hit him.
Suki
> I’m a Wing Chun guy and I humour a lot of the stuff that I hear. My direct >experience is ‘that it aint about the hands, its about the body. It aint about >hand shapes, its about body positioning’.
What kind of WC are you talking about? If you do not understand the concepts or practice them it is not WC.
>And, to further complicate matters this thread is titled “Upper, Middle and >Lower..” Honestly!?! How far can these divisions be taken to complicate >something that used to be simple. How about “inner, outer, upside down, zig >zag, topsy turvy…”
>There are no ‘gates’. There is a person, hit him.
>Suki
Not real gates anyway, but concepts, which give a better understanding when you are dealing with and teaching defences. There is more to fighting than just hitting you know. Even more important is not getting hit.
I don’t know why the love affair with hook shots exists. A hook shot it a very short range weapon, and a straight shot will trump it at any time. If a tan is done correctly and you shift your center line when applying it, it will be stronger than any hook shot. Remember, it is not going to stop it, but redirect it. Even if it comes a fraction of an inch from your face, a miss is still as good as a mile. And with a real hook shot it will even fold at his elbow and allow you to take control of that arm.
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927785]If ‘tan’ were effective in the ring, yours or anyone else’s we would see it. Effective Wing Chun movements are like UFO’s. Lots of people claim to have direct experience, but it is remarkable that there is no evidence.
I am not disputing that you did it or someone else you know has done it. Even if you did manage to use it the problem still remains that rare isolated events do not give rise to confidence when training a martial art for its effectiveness.
I’m a Wing Chun guy and I humour a lot of the stuff that I hear. My direct experience is ‘that it aint about the hands, its about the body. It aint about hand shapes, its about body positioning’.
And, to further complicate matters this thread is titled “Upper, Middle and Lower..” Honestly!?! How far can these divisions be taken to complicate something that used to be simple. How about “inner, outer, upside down, zig zag, topsy turvy…”
There are no ‘gates’. There is a person, hit him.
Suki[/QUOTE]
There are no gates to you. But the gate concept does help. Also, I’d like to ask if you’ve ever competed in any full contact events. I don’t mean sparring with friends. If you haven’t then this conversation is moot.
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927785] . . . There are no ‘gates’. There is a person, hit him.Suki[/QUOTE]
Ok semantics, semantics. How about head shots, body shots, and leg shots. Does that work for you?
Some upper and middle gate training. (head and body shots to some) 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg0nSAOpQ8A
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;927785]If ‘tan’ were effective in the ring, yours or anyone else’s we would see it. Effective Wing Chun movements are like UFO’s. Lots of people claim to have direct experience, but it is remarkable that there is no evidence. . . [/QUOTE]
You probably haven’t seen it because only a few WC schools compete.
You also said that chi sao doesn’t teach to step back. Now here’s where my statement about different experiences comes into play. There is stepping back and to the side in chi sao and not just in TWC.
I didn’t start this thread the slam what others do. I just wanted to explain what we do and to see what methods others use. After 39 years in WC I can still always learn new or better methods. Can you contribute what you do for jabs, crosses, hooks, round punches etc. to the head?
Phil-greetings
I know that you didn’t intend to slam but one of your posts sounded as though folks who don’t hold their wu and tan high in a TWC way were not fighters.
That wouldn’t be true.
There are good structural reasons followed in several other lines for holding the wu and tan in the sil lim tao differently from TWC. Doing the sil lim tao is not fighting but for development of whole series of skills and attributes… and interception of top gate shots or going in first is not a problem
in application with all sorts of wing chun timing/training work. I have no problem with TwC approaches for TWC training.
With the elbows naturally low in the dynamics of the hand- the hands can react at head level, middle level or groin level IMO.
On the forum…I dont take most posts seriously. But because I care deeply about the art- I chip in a post now and then these days when something fundamental in a POV is fuzzy.. The lassez faire of the internet chit chat is beyond reform so it’s a mistake to learn much from it any way.
joy chaudhuri
“After 39 years in Wing Chun…”
And???Is that meant to impress me. Should I put you on a pedestal and bow down because of such rhetoric? A classic example of what is wrong in Wing Chun, a superiority belief that time spent = skill. No, no no! Time spent means nothing other than parading ego like waving pantyhose.
Anyways, no I haven’t fought full contact fights in a sporting arena. Are you implying that only those who have fought have proof that magical mysterious movements work? I’m gonna go buy me some Tapout shorts and get me some ‘tan sau’ proof. lol.
You quote me and say that Chi Sao doesn’t teach stepping back but your TWC, has multi-directional stepping. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. My point was a simple one. That tan is a failed strike which transitions into the tan shape when it contacts on the inside of an opponents arm. To demonstrate that it was a contact based move, I suggested that chi sao doesn’t teach you to disconnect by stepping away and then doing a tan in air. Phew…
Suki
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;927813]
I didn’t start this thread the slam what others do. I just wanted to explain what we do and to see what methods others use. After 39 years in WC I can still always learn new or better methods. Can you contribute what you do for jabs, crosses, hooks, round punches etc. to the head?[/QUOTE]
This is my perspective, Phil.
If you want to learn how to BEST (and effectively) deal with crosses, hooks, round punches, overhands, jabs, etc. then do what boxer’s do – they can make what they do work against WORLD CLASS punchers. Who else can do that? They’ve found what works from tons of actual practice, and against top-level people. Their methods work; everything else AT THAT RANGE or PHASE is second-rate at best.
My view is WCK is a contact fighting method and doesn’t work well on the outside (in boxing/kickboxing range). This is why we never see the WCK tools used consistently and effectively at boxing/kickboxing range. When you are in sustained contact, attached to your opponent, he can’t jab, can’t cross, can’t do what boxers do, so you don’t need to deal with those sorts of things. It is at this range or phase that the WCK tools function.
If we see WCK in this way, then when on the outside, instead of trying to stay out there and deal with his boxing, we either keep out of range or get in and close him down – in other words, don’t play HIS game, but make him play ours. By analogy, if you have a knife and face someone with a sword, you don’t ask how to deal with sword attacks since your tool (knife) isn’t going to be able to parry, block, etc. the sword. Your strategy is to get inside quickly and make it a close-quarter knife fight, and if you can’t do that, keep out of the sword’s range until you can.