WC Upper, Middle & Lower gate theory

[Phil Redmond]

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.

[Saltire]

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

[Phil Redmond]

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
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.

[punchdrunk]

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.

[Wu Wei Wu]

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...

[Yoshiyahu]

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!




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...

[sihing]

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...


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

[Phil Redmond]

Doesn't it make more sense...
instead of adjusting the hand to cover the head, why not move the head out of the way? . . . . Sometimes you can't. Even pro fighters get hit.


Chi sao doesn't teach to step back and then do tan when you see a punch coming in. . .
In the real world sometimes you have to step back.


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).
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.

[Phil Redmond]

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.

[Wu Wei Wu]

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

[Phil Redmond]

. . .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 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.

[Wu Wei Wu]

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

[Lee Chiang Po]

> 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.

[Phil Redmond]

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
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.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . There are no 'gates'. There is a person, hit him.Suki
Ok semantics, semantics. How about head shots, body shots, and leg shots. Does that work for you?

[Phil Redmond]

Some upper and middle gate training. (head and body shots to some) ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg0nSAOpQ8A

[Phil Redmond]

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. . .
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?

[Vajramusti]

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

[Wu Wei Wu]

"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

[t_niehoff]

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?

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.

[Wu Wei Wu]

I think you asked about how I avoid jabs, crosses etc. Sure. I anticipate, move out of the way and try to hit back. Lots of lateral movement, often dictated by opponents lead leg positioning. Lots of level changes.

Suki

[Phil Redmond]

"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

LOL, said that I could still learn after 39 years because I believe that. Not to impress you.
I've noticed that you speak in absolutes about WC. None of us can do that. We know what we got from our Sifus but no one was around when WC was developed. I believe we all have pieces of the whole if there is a whole.

[Phil Redmond]

Thanks Terence (sp)? and Suki. All I was looking for was constructive input..

[Phil Redmond]

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. . . .
I get so many emails saying what we do is wrong. My remarks were for some of those people. Remember, I have friends in other versions of WC who can kick butt with what they do. So I can't slam what they do because it works for them.


Doing the sil lim tao is not fighting but for development of whole series of skills and attributes...
Thx for understanding I definitely don't believe in slamming others arts.
Our SLT has fighting apps with regards to the hand positions. I'm in the process of making a DVD series that explains how our forms can be used in fighting. In fact when a new student joins our school we teach SLT and how it can be applied to fighting. So we obviously have different views on training which is all good.

[Genetic]

Our school has high tan, dip and bong compared to other schools, but they are to protect from head strikes, as well as body shots. The ideal position should cover both scenarios (apart from bong, which is dependant upon where it is to what it potects)

But a drill we do a lot of (and in keeping with the thread topic) is getting up a 'block' where we cover our head with our forearms, gain contact with the initial strike, and work from it in more traditional (in the traditional sense, but not TWC) terms. e.g. Block. Mould into tan da. Mould into bong lap chop. Mould into Wrong Bong, lap, fut sao. Whatever.

The drill is about natural instinct (to protect your head). Hoever messy it actually is. Into gaining contact and working from it in a systematicaly 'wing chun' way.

If that makes any sense whatsoever.....

[Edmund]

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.


Plenty of people get their head knocked off when they're focusing on hitting their opponent as well: 2 people swinging at each other can result in either person KOed.

Moving your head is fine but generally keeping your hands up is usually good advice.



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.


Are you talking some weird position or 2 people facing each other?
If you're in a position to hit them, the opponent can often hit at you unless you have a big reach advantage or they are turning their back on you.

[Saltire]

I don't post often, and don't get involved in the many personality clashes on here. I also don't agree with Terence very often, but this absolutely is on the money.


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.

My POV is that I feel that saying tan da does / doesn't work is almost an irrelevant issue. What matter is whether you can learn to be a competent martial artist / fighter / drill-monkey using the WC skillset.

Does "technique A" work for you? If not, question why. If it does, follow the engineering principle and test it to the point where its integrity falls apart. Then you know your limits, whether it's your technique or your heart / balls / spirit.

[Edmund]

I don't post often, and don't get involved in the many personality clashes on here. I also don't agree with Terence very often, but this absolutely is on the money.

My POV is that I feel that saying tan da does / doesn't work is almost an irrelevant issue. What matter is whether you can learn to be a competent martial artist / fighter / drill-monkey using the WC skillset.

Does "technique A" work for you? If not, question why. If it does, follow the engineering principle and test it to the point where its integrity falls apart. Then you know your limits, whether it's your technique or your heart / balls / spirit.

That's not what Terence is saying though.

He's saying you have to do what boxers do. Everything else is 2nd rate.
So it specific techniques from boxing that will work rather than a personal thing.

I'd actually agree with you. It's a personal thing BUT learning from others with experience is a pretty good idea for a starting point.

Just doing whatever boxers do is a bit vague though. There's a lot of different methods and personal styles (that may be pretty hard to pull off for you).

[t_niehoff]

That's not what Terence is saying though.

He's saying you have to do what boxers do. Everything else is 2nd rate.
So it specific techniques from boxing that will work rather than a personal thing.

I'd actually agree with you. It's a personal thing BUT learning from others with experience is a pretty good idea for a starting point.

Just doing whatever boxers do is a bit vague though. There's a lot of different methods and personal styles (that may be pretty hard to pull off for you).

Actually, Saltire seems to grasp the point of my post.

I did say that if you want to deal with boxers IN BOXING RANGE, you're going to need to do what boxer's do. Ask yourself: Why do they do what they do to deal with other boxer's attacks? Because they have found through hard-earned experience what works well and consistently and what doesn't work AT THAT RANGE. If simultaneous blocking and striking worked consistently at that range, boxers would be doing that regularly. They don't. They do what has proved to work. This is what Slatire referred to when he said: "Does "technique A" work for you? If not, question why. If it does, follow the engineering principle and test it to the point where its integrity falls apart. Then you know your limits, whether it's your technique or your heart / balls / spirit." This is being guided by evidence, of letting application be your sifu, rather than dogmatically adhering to what you've been told to do (by people who can't do it themselves).

[Phil Redmond]

Actually, Saltire seems to grasp the point of my post.

I did say that if you want to deal with boxers IN BOXING RANGE, you're going to need to do what boxer's do. Ask yourself: Why do they do what they do to deal with other boxer's attacks? Because they have found through hard-earned experience what works well and consistently and what doesn't work AT THAT RANGE. If simultaneous blocking and striking worked consistently at that range, boxers would be doing that regularly. They don't. They do what has proved to work. This is what Slatire referred to when he said: "Does "technique A" work for you? If not, question why. If it does, follow the engineering principle and test it to the point where its integrity falls apart. Then you know your limits, whether it's your technique or your heart / balls / spirit." This is being guided by evidence, of letting application be your sifu, rather than dogmatically adhering to what you've been told to do (by people who can't do it themselves).
Right on the money Terence. I only advocate what works from me or students who compete. I include simultaneous blocking and striking in what works as well. But you're right about only doing what Sifu says without testing for yourself.

[Saltire]

Perhaps what is pertinent here is to work out why boxers' skills work at that range?
.
Why muay thai works slightly further out?
.
Why wing chun works best slightly closer than boxing?

The best fighters I've trained with are those who can impose their game on you, despite your best efforts. There's no reason I've found yet that WC trained as a fighting art can't give one that same mindset of imposing your game on your opponent, but it needs time to familiarise yourself with the likely variables.

I've found that sparring minimises the time taken to do this, but some functional drilling is good too.

Sorry for the digression but the topic is making me think out loud, and I may as well type whilst doing that...... :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

One of the issues I have seen is that WC typically is desgined to work best in a "phone booth" but while it address some of what happens in that "range" - close in striking, trapping and some clinch work, it doesn't adress the rest - grappling, takedowns and the eventual ground fighting, as well as it should, probably because it hasn't evolved (typically) to the point that it deals with the modern problems it is facing.

[t_niehoff]

One of the issues I have seen is that WC typically is desgined to work best in a "phone booth" but while it address some of what happens in that "range" - close in striking, trapping and some clinch work, it doesn't adress the rest - grappling, takedowns and the eventual ground fighting, as well as it should, probably because it hasn't evolved (typically) to the point that it deals with the modern problems it is facing.

I see WCK as a framework on which to build, not as something that provides all the answers. Experience shows you what you NEED and where you are lacking. Even the history of our art shows that our ancestors continually added and modified (Yuen Kay-San taking the close-body methods of Fung Sui-Ching, for example). "The method is from the ancestors The key is adapting it to conditions."

[Edmund]

Actually, Saltire seems to grasp the point of my post.

I did say that if you want to deal with boxers IN BOXING RANGE, you're going to need to do what boxer's do. Ask yourself: Why do they do what they do to deal with other boxer's attacks? Because they have found through hard-earned experience what works well and consistently and what doesn't work AT THAT RANGE. If simultaneous blocking and striking worked consistently at that range, boxers would be doing that regularly. They don't. They do what has proved to work. This is what Slatire referred to when he said: "Does "technique A" work for you? If not, question why.


That's what I mean though.
Experimenting and finding your own favourite techniques is inevitable but you can learn from more experienced people such as boxers as a starting point. You don't want to pick just anything to be "technique A".

[Liddel]

I keep getting emails from people who say my tan/wu or whatever is too high.

Seriously Phil, people need to get a grip... emailing you over something so trivial - do they all have short training partners or something...sounds like folks stuck in SLT to me :o

That said my SLT teaches me three different habbit heights for Tan so i use whats needed against who im facing, end of.



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.

Im with you on that one, again people that make comments like this need to back up thier POV. i.e
At some point a Wu gets so high it compramises structure and recovery timing and opens you up more than youd like which negates the actual use of the action...every action in a MA is susceptible to this !
It has parameters that it must perform in and anywhere outside that area it becomes more of a hinderence than bennificial, so if thats the critics POV then you can take it for what its worth.
If its b/c "its not how its done in the form" then laugh it off mate :p

A simple comment like a 'raised Tan or Wu' said to be 'too high' is to vague of a criticism, its something a non fighter would say IMHO.



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.

Tan Wu and upper Guarn Sau are my habbit actions for covering my head.
I will say they are understated actions when i use them meaning - small movement for cover - not overextending and used to enable quick transitions to other actions covering or attacking.
Covering a single action is childs play covering decent combos and range transitions is a hand full to say the least....

I hold my Bi Jong about chin height or thereabouts. It allows me quicker response time to cover my head as most of my sparring partners use more head shots than body but my prefered lower gate covers with gloves on are elbows and minimal forearm movement with regard to actions like lower guarn for front kicks and gut punches and hooks to the body and the like.
Again i tend not to fully extend as seen and practiced in the forms. Full extension IME is not required for sucess in covering the lower gates especially with good body movement.

In short Phil i hold my hands higher out of necessity but dont find it compramises structure and timing of my habbit actions, on the contrary...it increases thier effectness IME so i see absolutely no problem with it.

DREW

[couch]

I see WCK as a framework on which to build, not as something that provides all the answers. Experience shows you what you NEED and where you are lacking. Even the history of our art shows that our ancestors continually added and modified (Yuen Kay-San taking the close-body methods of Fung Sui-Ching, for example). "The method is from the ancestors The key is adapting it to conditions."

I love this idea/approach. Great post about WC being a framework to build upon.

[stonecrusher69]

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.

"Tan to high or low" does not matter if the structure is right. Myself I would not use Tan Da in that way,situation as Sifu Lee demos it. I would just hit him and not use any coverage or block. In general I don't use Tan Sao with any type of punch that travels a big circular path. I feel there are better alternatives.

[Phil Redmond]

"Tan to high or low" does not matter if the structure is right. Myself I would not use Tan Da in that way,situation as Sifu Lee demos it. I would just hit him and not use any coverage or block. In general I don't use Tan Sao with any type of punch that travels a big circular path. I feel there are better alternatives.
Henry Leung taught me tan da along with other methods.

[Phil Redmond]

Seriously Phil, people need to get a grip... emailing you over something so trivial - do they all have short training partners or something...sounds like folks stuck in SLT to me :o . . . . . . .DREW
I get emails from my website addy and my youtube channel all the time about how TWC sucks and that we don't know what we're doing. They're anonymous of course. ;) I used to try to respond respectfully. Now I just delete them.

[punchdrunk]

hey if your testing what your doing and it works to hell with the critics... beginners are usually the toughest critics of other schools and they tend to have such a stiff robotic and unflexible idea of how wing chun should work and how it should look. Basically they need to get out more and get some experience to open their minds.

[Phil Redmond]

hey if your testing what your doing and it works to hell with the critics... beginners are usually the toughest critics of other schools and they tend to have such a stiff robotic and unflexible idea of how wing chun should work and how it should look. Basically they need to get out more and get some experience to open their minds.
You put that very well.

[Saltire]

You put that very well.

I agree.

I guess it's normal though - people get very attached to the 'unique selling points' when they are in the beginning stages, and the concepts underlying them tend to take longer to bed in. These new converts see somebody who doesn't fit in with the picture perfect snapshots they are referencing, and forget to look at the movie......It's good that they are so passionate about the arts, but a shame they tend to be so dogmatic.

Books with staged photos of perfect range and exaggerated effect are the bane of decent martial arts, where functionality should be the main guiding light.

[mun hung]

Hello, haven't been on this sight for quite some time and was just passin thru when I saw this. IMHO - tan da is not the end all solution to an upper/outer gate strike be it a short hook/swinging round punch/haymaker/etc. but it does teach many of the basic fundamentals of WC - offense and defense simultaneously/shifting of the horse/timing/dealing with force. I wouldn't run around trying to "tan da" opponents to death, but it is undeniably an important part of WC...and has been for hundreds of years. And personally, I have applied tan da in the street in an actual fight several years ago against a much larger opponent who swung pretty hard at me and it worked like a charm. Maybe I was lucky. Maybe not.. I believe that most WC schools train some sort of tan da drill, but yet most criticize it for it's ineffectiveness. This I don't understand. Why train something that doesn't work for you? Why is it there at all? It must work at some capacity, right?

Just my humble opinion.

[stonecrusher69]

Hello, haven't been on this sight for quite some time and was just passin thru when I saw this. IMHO - tan da is not the end all solution to an upper/outer gate strike be it a short hook/swinging round punch/haymaker/etc. but it does teach many of the basic fundamentals of WC - offense and defense simultaneously/shifting of the horse/timing/dealing with force. I wouldn't run around trying to "tan da" opponents to death, but it is undeniably an important part of WC...and has been for hundreds of years. And personally, I have applied tan da in the street in an actual fight several years ago against a much larger opponent who swung pretty hard at me and it worked like a charm. Maybe I was lucky. Maybe not.. I believe that most WC schools train some sort of tan da drill, but yet most criticize it for it's ineffectiveness. This I don't understand. Why train something that doesn't work for you? Why is it there at all? It must work at some capacity, right?

Just my humble opinion.

I believe Tan da is very effective if used right. IMO it does not work well in this situation. Your tan could collaspe from a round punch.

[mun hung]

I believe Tan da is very effective if used right. IMO it does not work well in this situation. Your tan could collaspe from a round punch.

So if you believe it is very effective if used right, what is the correct way of using tan da? For what application if not for a round punch/outer upper gate attack? No chi sau examples, please.

I say that it absolutely can be used against a round punch....if applied correctly.

[Liddel]

I personally dont use Tan all to often against round punches as its to much force against force with my sparring partners giving rise to a collapse... or more importantly -

Your angling and range must be very well utilised to avoid the action folding around your Tan and catching you...

I prefer Fut Sau, for me it has greater support as a habbit action and is more forgiving in range and angle for covering. It also is a solid action used traveling foward or back :eek: whereas i have issue with using Tan when moving in directions other than foward, but thats me...

Either way though, its covering my head :p

DREW

[stonecrusher69]

So if you believe it is very effective if used right, what is the correct way of using tan da? For what application if not for a round punch/outer upper gate attack? No chi sau examples, please.

I say that it absolutely can be used against a round punch....if applied correctly.
it's not so much the application.Tan can be used many ways.Bong to tan so on etc. I would use the Tan for straight punch or lineair types of strikes in general.The gate or height does not matter much.

[wcextreme]

Hey this is my first post, and if you give me crap I'll reply with all bold text. Yeah. You read that right.

Seriously, I've never used Tan Sau against round punches for the very reason that punches often hook around it and that the leverage offers no advantage. Done that way Tan becomes just a block, and a weak one at that. I've been Lop Sau'd too many times to know better now.

Use Tan Sau when using centreline energy,the reason the elbow is down in Tan Sau is for Loi Lau Hoi Sung. Blocks don't use that.

Use Biu Sau or Fut Sau against round attacks. Nuff said.

[Phil Redmond]

First of all a tan doesn't use force against force. Hence the name Tan (disperse/spread). I don't advocate that a tan be used all the time because there are other ways to deal with round punches. But I will say that I have used a tan in full contact events and it never collapsed because I tan'd (dispersed) the force of the oncoming blow. But each to his/her own. ;)

[mun hung]

Interesting stuff. I agree with Phil that the tan sau does not use force against force. IMO - it meets it and wedges it.

Another interesting point is that tan sau collapses against a round punch only when the positioning is off. I guess we all do this in different ways. I was taught to shift 45 degrees to face the incoming force with the tan sau, which seems to work just fine for me. Once again, not the end all of applications but one I definitely feel confident with against a round punch.

Different strokes for different folks. :)

[Phil Redmond]

At about :58 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg0nSAOpQ8A you can see a tan used against a round punch. It's not full power of course but you can see that Sifu Rahsun is "dispersing" the force of the blow. the right after that you'll see him blocking a kick with a mid-level tan support by a gum sao. I told Jose to kick hard and Jose has some serious kick. His brother who studied in Thailand is even a harder kicker. I've been teaching these guys since they were kids and they all have used their WC in real fights in the Ft. Greene Projects. When I say something works it's because I've either seen it work or I can do it myself.

[bennyvt]

i was always taught that your facing depended on the force you think is coming or how confident you are. Facing the force of the punch means the tan is strong but punch is weak. Face the centre and punch strong and tan weak. This means which ever is off the centre will be weaker then normal. Theory says if you step in and just attack, the punch will rise over your head so you dont have to block. But if the guy is massively bigger then you better to block it just incase.

[Phil Redmond]

i was always taught that your facing depended on the force you think is coming or how confident you are. Facing the force of the punch means the tan is strong but punch is weak. Face the centre and punch strong and tan weak. This means which ever is off the centre will be weaker then normal. Theory says if you step in and just attack, the punch will rise over your head so you dont have to block. But if the guy is massively bigger then you better to block it just incase. If you face the strike the body is behind the block. When you face the punch and punch along the central line the punch is stronger because you've thrust your waist into it. Those of you who are members of the wckcg can see the clip I just uploaded of us training in a boxing gym last night. But of course you should do what works for as I do what works for me.

[mun hung]

i was always taught that your facing depended on the force you think is coming or how confident you are. Facing the force of the punch means the tan is strong but punch is weak. Face the centre and punch strong and tan weak. This means which ever is off the centre will be weaker then normal. Theory says if you step in and just attack, the punch will rise over your head so you dont have to block. But if the guy is massively bigger then you better to block it just incase.


Interesting. I have been taught in this instance (tan da) to turn, get a little distance away from the incoming force but face it, meet it, cut into it and jam it using support and power from the elbow and shoulder. Since I am now shifting 45 degrees to face this oncoming force the tan sau is now being supported directly by the shoulder which gives it strength - I have also now gained a shoulder in length to extend my punch deeper into the opponent, therefore punching harder.

Stepping into an attack is just plain dangerous because we just assume that we know what the opponent is doing but can find ourselves in a bad situation if we are wrong. You might walk into something else instead. It's sort of like walking in towards the pitcher to hit the ball and guessing you know what he's throwing instead of just waiting for and watching the pitch by the plate and then dealing with it from a more advantageous and supported position. (how's that for a run-on sentence) ;)

IMHO - it is far better to be safe by covering and striking instead of walking in and assuming we are faster and stronger than our opponents no matter how large or small, fast or slow, strong or weak we assume them to be. (this is coming from a guy who used to take a punch to give a punch) You just never know.

Not trying to force my ideas down anyones throat here. Just trying to recognize ouir differences. This is a very good topic that has come around and gone around probably several dozen times on this forum in the last 10 years. Subject matter hardly ever changes. I'm sure the same debates went on hundreds of years ago. :)

[Phil Redmond]

Interesting. I have been taught in this instance (tan da) to turn, get a little distance away from the incoming force but face it, meet it, cut into it and jam it using support and power from the elbow and shoulder. Since I am now shifting 45 degrees to face this oncoming force the tan sau is now being supported directly by the shoulder which gives it strength - I have also now gained a shoulder in length to extend my punch deeper into the opponent, therefore punching harder. . . . .. .............
What he said ;)

[bennyvt]

by stepping forward we add lots more power to the block and strike then just pivoting. Each is good for different purposes. But by striking at the same time you take out the what if part of it. He the persons does something else the tan can always be changed or the punch. Pivoting would be more used when they are close for more power but i would rather step then pivot. Being small i tend to be pushed back so when stepping i just go back a little and recover i find pivoting tends to root you to the spot which means your arm will collapse in most cases.

[bennyvt]

It comes down to which back leg as opposed to the waist. If I tan sao with my left hand and punch with my right the force coming from the tan will go into my right leg. If this is the back leg then the block is strong, if my left leg is back I have a chance that my stance will collapse as the force is going to the other foot that isn't as solid a base. Hence needing to turn to face the block if it is a strong punch.
Stepping just increases the power and catches the attack earlier making it weaker.
On the form. The main problem with changing the way its done for more fighting approach is the problem found in doing the moves differently. Take the Wu sao. It is taught at sternum height and kept there to teach you to always go in a straight line. Single and double dan chi teaches us to us an angle to still go in a straight line but it must corespond to the opponent. If you do it higher in the form, does it start high and keep in a straight line. If so you are always practicing to go high then forward.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . .Take the Wu sao. It is taught at sternum height and kept there to teach you to always go in a straight line. Single and double dan chi teaches us to us an angle to still go in a straight line but it must corespond to the opponent. If you do it higher in the form, does it start high and keep in a straight line. If so you are always practicing to go high then forward.
That depends on the lineage. Here's the SLT/SNT that I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8kwEt6RvYk
For 13 years before TWC I did the gum saos close to the body like most people do. Now I do them in front of the body. There are also other differences that you will see but I feel that as long as you understand what you're doing in the form it's all good. Like I said in my Chinatown clip. A Wu Tan or whatever can be used upper or middle gate. But since most fighters are head hunters I prefer to train the Wu to protect my face.