Proper Gawn Sao

[r4cy]

I want to see the different point of view of the different lineages of Wing Chun/VingTsun about this technique. I noticed some people make the gawn sao putting the forearm right in the middle of the centerline and shooting straight down to the umbilical area.Any comments?

[sihing]

Kan/Gaun Sao is the sister technique to Tan Sao. The positioning in my school is like this. Using the left arm, the wrist is down centerline, which means most of the left hand is on the right side of the centerline, the wrist is approximently waist/sash height, fingers pointed/inline with the outer forearm pointed diagonally downward and to the right. The intention is forward and not to the side. Can be used against any attack that is below the solar plexus, and against front, round, side kick, and various other grappling counters, etc.. And can also be combined with other hand movements, Pak sao, and footwork combinations.

James

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by sihing
Kan/Gaun Sao is the sister technique to Tan Sao. The positioning in my school is like this. Using the left arm, the wrist is down centerline, which means most of the left hand is on the right side of the centerline, the wrist is approximently waist/sash height, fingers pointed/inline with the outer forearm pointed diagonally downward and to the right. The intention is forward and not to the side. Can be used against any attack that is below the solar plexus, and against front, round, side kick, and various other grappling counters, etc.. And can also be combined with other hand movements, Pak sao, and footwork combinations.

James
That's why it's called a "plow" hand. It plows forward like a plow in a field does. ;)
Phil

[sihing]

Phil,
In our terminology list we translate it as "Splitting Deflection", is plowing hand more literal?

James

[YongChun]

So we have :

1. Plow hand
2. Splitting deflection

so far and Wang Kiu described it as

3. Separating hand or hand of separation:he showed how it separated one of the opponent's hands from the other hand. Separating the dirt and plowing it are the same ideas.

Kenneth Chung's method is more like the straight downward approach without the sideways idea. I think it is more of a replacement hand in this case.

Ray

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by YongChun
So we have :

1. Plow hand
2. Splitting deflection

so far and Wang Kiu described it as

3. Separating hand or hand of separation:he showed how it separated one of the opponent's hands from the other hand. Separating the dirt and plowing it are the same ideas.

Kenneth Chung's method is more like the straight downward approach without the sideways idea. I think it is more of a replacement hand in this case.

Ray
Well, the actual character for gan means to 'Plow' or "cultivate".
In TWC we plow forward like a plow is used on a farm I've yet to see someone plow sideways. We don't "chop/slice" to the side like a Karate block.
Phil

[YongChun]

In the Wang Kiu method and in a Jiu Wan method I saw, the low hand comes smashing into your central axis so it goes forward from the guy doing it. The top hand does the same.

Ray

[sihing]

Yes, the force would be dispersed outward away from the centerline. Gan/Kan sao can also be used to trap and control in certain situations. And also can be combined with Tan Sao to form Grun Sao I believe.


James

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Well, the actual character for gan means to 'Plow' or "cultivate".
In TWC we plow forward like a plow is used on a farm I've yet to see someone plow sideways. We don't "chop/slice" to the side like a Karate block.
Phil

I was instructed that it meant 'splitting' as well (although Phil is correct in the literal).

But the image is not a 'chop/slice' to the side (a gwat sau would closer resemble that action) but like an axe wedge it's 'splitting' the attack along the centerline, which is not unlike that of the plow 'cultivating' (or 'splitting') the soil.

[kj]

Originally posted by YongChun
Kenneth Chung's method is more like the straight downward approach without the sideways idea. I think it is more of a replacement hand in this case.

Yes, it replaces and displaces. In the process, it also momentarily alters the direction of adjacent forces.


Originally posted by AmanuJRY
But the image is not a 'chop/slice' to the side (a gwat sau would closer resemble that action) but like an axe wedge it's 'splitting' the attack along the centerline, which is not unlike that of the plow 'cultivating' (or 'splitting') the soil.

I agree with this. Even with our downward movement (as Ray described), it is IMHO very similar to a plow penetrating the soil and initiating its subsequent task. Even though the hand and forearm movement slices downward, the geometry combined with movement and intention of the elbow also generates a forward vector; if I move with my legs, even more so.

Some may not perceive a correlation to splitting or plowing in our movement, but I do. Still, I won't mind dropping the opponent with the initial penetrating movement instead of just disrupting into them if a) they give me enough to work with, and b) provided I can catch the timing well enough to affect it.

What I will not do is to try lifting my arm (increasing upper arm/body angle at the shoulder) as a means of pushing forward or fighting into them; I am too weak and vulnerable for it.

Regards,
- kj

[t_niehoff]

Forget all the "theory" you have and will be offered -- it's one that works for you.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by sihing
Yes, the force would be dispersed outward away from the centerline. Gan/Kan sao can also be used to trap and control in certain situations. And also can be combined with Tan Sao to form Grun Sao I believe.


James
Hi James, Grun sau should be Romanized as Kwan Sau. ;)
Phil

[SAAMAG]

The terminology between practitioners is crazy. I learned Gwun/kwan sau as being a tan/bong combination. AKA "rolling hands"

[martyg]

A lot of your descriptions sound more like what I would call tan (dispersing) energy, which can take more of the (yang) offensive (like the way the front of a boat disperses the water to create waves) or (yin) passive (drawing in to disperse - like what Jim talks about with regard to koo lo/pien san's application of Tan). Most of the descriptions here IMHO seem to be more of the yang application of tan energy (though in gan "clothing").


Marty
Watchful Dragon (http://www.hanweionline.org/wingchun)

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Vankuen
The terminology between practitioners is crazy. I learned Gwun/kwan sau as being a tan/bong combination. AKA "rolling hands"

So true, it would be nice to all use the same 'method' for romanization. For Cantonese it would be the Yale method and for Mandarin it would be Pinyin (those are the accepted methods for universities and 'self-study' courses). Also, if we were to use the Chinese characters instead of our romanizations it would reduce the 'confusion'.

I have even seen the use of Cantonese and Mandarin words together describing a technique.:rolleyes:

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
So true, it would be nice to all use the same 'method' for romanization. For Cantonese it would be the Yale method and for Mandarin it would be Pinyin (those are the accepted methods for universities and 'self-study' courses). Also, if we were to use the Chinese characters instead of our romanizations it would reduce the 'confusion'.

I have even seen the use of Cantonese and Mandarin words together describing a technique.:rolleyes:
Wing Chun Kung Fu is a mixture of Mandarin and Cantonese. It should be Wing Chun Gung Fu (Cantonese), or Yung/Yong Chun Kung Fu (Mandarin).

[t_niehoff]

crimsonking wrote:

How do you propose someone with superior physical attributes to any regularly available training partners develop a high level of martial skill?

**One proven way is to continually place yourself in disadvantageous situations and "work" from there. For example, limit the tools available to you while your training partner has greater options. Or constantly face "fresh" opponents without taking a rest. Or let your training partner achieve some advantage and then work from there. You get the idea.

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
crimsonking wrote:

How do you propose someone with superior physical attributes to any regularly available training partners develop a high level of martial skill?

**One proven way is to continually place yourself in disadvantageous situations and "work" from there. For example, limit the tools available to you while your training partner has greater options. Or constantly face "fresh" opponents without taking a rest. Or let your training partner achieve some advantage and then work from there. You get the idea.

Excellent suggestions.

Regards,
- kj

[t_niehoff]

Thanks, KJ, but I don't deserve any credit -- fighters have been training this way for some time.

----------------

crimsonking wrote:

How would you suggest someone with vastly inferior physical attributes to their regular training partners develop a reasonable level of martial ability?

**I'm not certain what you mean by "vast". Let me begin by dispelling one myth -- that strength, size, speed, etc. doesn't matter in WCK. It does. Greatly. As it does in any fighting method. What they should really say is that by training in WCK, as with many other fighting methods, a well-trained person can learn to maximize his or her individual attributes to their fullest advantage. Thus, they, like lots of other martial artists, can overcome a stronger or faster person that doesn't know how to use their individual advantages fully (or at least as well as we can). To do this requires one develop the strategies, tools, etc. of their method. They do that by training -- learning the form/technique/strategy/etc., drilling it until they feel comfortable, then putting it into fighting practice. As they progress in this training regimen, they'll find how to "personalize" the method to suit their individual natural "attribute level" -- and they can only learn to do that via fighting practice. Moreover, there are many "learned" (as opposed to natural) attributes that only come from fighting training, like timing, sensitivity, distance, etc. Make sense?

[reneritchie]

Dunno, Terence. That sounds like a lot of work. I think I'll just find one of those people who tell me they will teach me an unchanged method from Ng Mui or Bruce Lee that will let me magically defeat Bob Sapp if only I join up and wave my arms around a little.

[t_niehoff]

crimonsking wrote:

Vast - imagine a woman training with a group of men with say an average 50% weight advantage. That wouldnt be extraordinary.

The rest of your post follows perfectly - no myths dispelled thanks.

How do you feel it's possible for this person to benefit from fighting practice with partners with such superior attributes? Realistically - they're gonna get stomped on every time.

**Well, do you think that there is some way for a "weakling" to develop the skills to defeat someone with "superior attributes" without fighting? It won't happen. The only way to learn how to deal with that is by dealing with that; if they don't fight, they will never develop any skills. And if someone thinks they have found a way to develop the skills to handle someone with "superior attributes" other than through fighting, then it should be an easy thing to demonstate in fighting (which is where you need them).

**If you go to any BJJ school, for example, you'll see women rolling with men or smaller guys rolling with more muscular men and they will not just be getting "stomped." Similarly, I've seen women boxers give some men real problems. It is always going to be more difficult for persons with physical disadvantages -- that's all the more reason for their needing to train properly: it's their only chance.

[reneritchie]

The smaller you are, the higher skill and better strategy you need.

I've seen smaller and not as skilled beat bigger just through better strategy.

[SAAMAG]

"beat" like how? they tagged them more times? Were these real fights wherein the bigger guy was really trying to take off the smaller guys head? That's a whole different a ball game then.

Not to say that the cliche statement is untrue, smaller guys need more skill/strategy to win...

[t_niehoff]

I don't like the term "real fight" -- it's sort of like saying "really pregnant"! It either is or it isn't. A fight is characterized by genuine resistance and the intent to really pound or submit the other guy. Lacking that, it is not a fight. That's why I don't like the term "sparring" because so often it doesn't really involve fighting.

[SAAMAG]

Exactly Terence. It either is or it isn't. The problem here lies in the fact what most people think "is"...isn't. That's my point.

[t_niehoff]

crimsonking,

I've given you the answers that have proven over time to work for all fighters, and it is quite common for fighters of varying levels of natural attributes to train together. A person can't develop good fighting skills without fighting, and they can't learn to handle superior attributes without facing them -- unless, of course, they use some sort of magic.

And yes, boxing in the ring is fighting, rolling on the mats is fighting (one of my students is a former varsity wrestler in Div. 1 NCAA, and he likes to say "wrestling is a streetfight!", and if you have any doubt about that, then give it a go with one of those guys and see for yourself how accurate he is).

[saifa5k]

Kenneth Chung's method is more like the straight downward approach without the sideways idea. I think it is more of a replacement hand in this case.

Ray [/B][/QUOTE]

Being from that same general family tree I was taught the gaun sau was more forward than sideways.
Dave c

[t_niehoff]

crimsonking wrote:

So, in answer to my first question a person with superior attributes to available training partners can't develop a high level of martial skill.

**The answer to your question lies in what it takes to train any competitive athlete. Of course one needs to work against good training partners; one will never reach one's full potential or the higher levels of performance without that. No athlete does. (Do you think anyone can become a world-class boxer without ever getting into the ring with other world-class boxers?). The Gracies have a saying: "you're only as good as your training partner." There is a lot of truth in that. However, not everyone we train with has high-level skills or attributes. So, in that situation, we can still derive benefit from the training but we need to first recognize that to develop beyond where we are, we need to be pushed to perform close to our limit of performance. One way to get soemthing from training with an "inferior" training partner is to manipulate the situation, so that the conditions remove or diminish our superiority and thus force us to push ourselves.

You've also failed to answer my second question about training a person with inferior attributes - perhaps you failed to understand the question. I can only assume you believe it's also impossible for a person with inferior attributes to available training partners to develop their martial skill, while it may still not be enough to enable them to 'hang' with them.

**As I said, the answer lies in how any competitive athlete trains. If a person goes to a BJJ class, they are going to often roll with folks that have a wide range of attributes and skills, from grossly inferior skills and attributes to some with superior skills and superior attributes; if you go to a boxiing gym or MT school or etc. you'll enconter the same thing. This goes on all the time in any competitive athletic field. And they seem to do OK.

Both the scenarios i've given are real world examples - sounds like a pretty flawed training methodology.

**Well, it seems to work in the "real world" of the fighting arts and other athletic endeavors. But what we haven't heard is what you think is a better training methodology.

Regardless - what place DO you believe theory has in martial training? It would seem to me that in either of these unequal attribute scenarios, let alone more evenly matched situations, its pretty unlikely that a single technique like a gaun sao will occur in a repeatable enough way for finer details to be developed. IMO, these finer details make a big difference when facing an opponent with superior attributes.

**As you may recall -- well, let me just repost part of it:

"one develop the strategies, tools, etc. of their method. They do that by training -- learning the form/technique/strategy/etc., drilling it until they feel comfortable, then putting it into fighting practice. As they progress in this training regimen, they'll find how to "personalize" the method to suit their individual natural "attribute level" -- and they can only learn to do that via fighting practice. "

**This training method is really a cycle or loop (one used by all fighters btw), one "learns" the tool, the guan sao in this case, drills it (and this is where we get the repetitions), and then put it into fighting to see how well that works for me. My fighting experience will cause me to adjust or modify how I want to use that tool, so I will go back and drill it that way. Then I put it back into fighting. It's a continual process of development. The linked sets don't tell you specifically how to use that tool. The drills don't tell you how to specifically use that tool. The theory (kuit, whatever) gives you a point of departure for your own inquiry. In the end, you need to make it your own. There is no objective right way to use the tool (although there are wrong ways); there is only the way that works best for you. The training method I outlined, that all fighters use, is how you do that.

[t_niehoff]

crimsonking,

Chi sao is not, in any way or form, fighting. It is a game, one devoid of genuine resistance and without the intent to really pound (do you routinely try to knock your chi sao opponents out?). It is a game that is intended to be used by fighters to supplement their training - to take various tools, tactics, etc. and drill them, and not as they will necessarily be used in fighting (anyone that tries to fight like they do chi sao is going to go down fast against anyone with any skill; this is why if all you do is forms and chi sao, you'll suck when it comes to fighting). Folks that make fighting the core of their training will see chi sao for what it is. That's why chi sao tournaments are a farce.