The Magical Tan Sao thread..

[Zhuge Liang]

Hello folks,

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.

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.

2) 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.

3) Give me an "ideal use case" where your tan sao would be applied, where its "essence" is demonstrated.

Looking forward to some responses.

Regards,
Alan

[yenhoi]

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:

[Grendel]

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.

Regards,

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Again,

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. =)

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi yenhoi,


Originally posted by yenhoi
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:

I take it your tan sao is used from outside to in?

Just curious,

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

[byond1]

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

[TjD]

Originally posted by Zhuge Liang
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.

2) 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.

3) Give me an "ideal use case" where your tan sao would be applied, where its "essence" is demonstrated.


good post! wish it was part of my thread :D

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

[marcelino31]

Excellent posts by Brian and Travis!

"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."
:p - miles

[yuanfen]

zhuge liang asks:

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.

[reneritchie]

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.

[yenhoi]

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..)

At any rate *I* am moving forward and attacking.

We have a flat tan also, and a "lifting" tan.

:eek:

[byond1]

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

[marcelino31]

A simple rule:

The tan motion should not go higher than your collar bone. Any higher, as mentioned by Brian, and chum is lost.

I have seen some people doing a tan sao like a waiter serving a dish -- can anyone comment on this?

[Phil Redmond]

....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

[Phil Redmond]

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

[reneritchie]

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.

[marcelino31]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond


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

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.

[Alpha Dog]

No one has mentioned the tan sao's other application -- stopping short. Only works in cars though.

"Hey, that's my move!" LOL

[byond1]

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]

[byond1]

and the twc tan...is not exaclty a tun as i know it....the wck tun uses chrun lik....which i have never seen a twc use before!
b

[TjD]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond


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


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.

[yuanfen]

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...

[yylee]

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 :)

[Phil Redmond]

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

[Grendel]

Originally posted by yylee
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 :)
Interesting post. :D

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,

[Phil Redmond]

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

[John Weiland]

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,

[dzu]

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

[t_niehoff]

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

Terence

[reneritchie]

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.

[Zhuge Liang]

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

[Zhuge Liang]

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

[byond1]

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

[dzu]

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

[PaulH]

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,

[Alpha Dog]

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

[reneritchie]

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.

[dzu]

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

[reneritchie]

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.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Zhuge Liang
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.

2) 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.

3) Give me an "ideal use case" where your tan sao would be applied, where its "essence" is demonstrated. 1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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!:D

Middle shots: jabs, crosses, anything centreline (too easy!:p ). 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!;) ). 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?! :D :rolleyes: :D :D (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: :D

[Mr Punch]

Oh dear, that was long!:( Sorry!

Dzu, nice post.