Kwan Sau [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

YouKnowWho

07-04-2011, 12:59 AM

There was a tournament in HK (1965 - 1971 ?) that a WC guy had a match against a CLF guy. The CLF guy threw a right hook punch, the WC guy used his left Tan Shou to block it. The right hook punch knocked through the left Tan Shou, and still hit the WC guy's head. That evening the WC guy went back to Yip Man. Yip Man told him that he should use his right Tan Shou to block the left side hook punch by adding counter-clockwise (top view) body rotation into it. In other words, that WC student should use his whole body structure and not just the arm.

The Kwan Sau (high Tan Shou and low Bong Shou) is very strong defence. It can be used to catch your opponent's roundhouse kick. Since you won't know where your opponent's roundhouse kick will hit, you use your high Tan Shou to block high roundhouse kick and use your low Bong Shou to block low roundhouse kick. No matter which arm that contack your opponent's kick, your low Bong Shou will function as a trap and hook under your opponent's kicking leg. You then fold your low arm and upper arm so your opponent's kick leg is not going anywhere.

I will use my Kwan Sau exactly the opposite direction as the following clip. It's just one of the Kwan Sau applications. Not sure other WC experts here will agree with me on this or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXXx01FDJIg

Graham H

07-04-2011, 02:12 AM

No I don't!!! ;):cool:

GH

LoneTiger108

07-04-2011, 05:55 AM

No I don't!!! ;):cool:

GH

He asked for an expert dude ;) :eek:

That's why I will shy away from this thread...

trubblman

07-04-2011, 06:54 AM

I am not an expert by any means but a kwan sau is 1 possible defense vs a roundhouse kick. It's the first defense I learned when I started off with traditional wing chun.

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 08:09 AM

Lets break it down ...Kwan is what ? a tan and a bong done together, right. Why would we do this in a drill or real fight ?

1) we re scared and need to block bad guys evil arm with not one arm , tan , but 2 ! tan and a bong. ( like, country & western ) :D one block isnt good enough we need 2 ...one arrm isnt working alone, what does that tell you? maybe its not a block...? MAybe we should be doing something else, tactically..?

2) we are in a drill with a consenting partner and they are using two foks in a desperate double arm attack on us :rolleyes: this alone reeks of wrong thinking. We dont fight with 2 equally extended arms while in a jgkym stance , we do 'drill' with 2 equally extended arms .

3) we have guys repeatedly kick us with shin-pads on and use the idea of ' stand and act like a heavy bag with a kwan sao block' this idea makes us stay exactly where the kick is most powerful so we can use our new 2arm block :o. take shin pads off and kick randomly with full force using shins. Drill will change shortly :D , mobility is your friend. Go in or stay out of the 'ring of death by shins'. Like there are sharks in the water between you on dry land or boat just a few feet away in the water...you choose to stand in the water with sharks circling you and turn to block their bite :D
stay on land or go for the boat asa you can. dont tread water waiting for shin bites .

4) we pose in dummy training and ask 'whats this for ?', tan & low bong...we dont ask why are we cycling through these positions ? Worse we think the preceeding action was also a double arm block, high and low gaun sao's :D:o, followe dby ...another double arm block ? Hmmthats a lot of double arm blocking. And then after two double arm blocks on the dummy , I side step and attack you with a tan and a midsection palm to your ribs ? wow , thats some deadly s h i t there....:o

5) too sad to carry on :o

6) okay, I will persevere for the benefit of the those who also did #3 :D and dont like it either ....kwan sao is not a double arm block its the unity of a strike , tan strike, and a bong (helping to create another strike) developing ging , displacing force, on the dummy arms. We are simply cycling through our repertoire of lin sil di da, angling, timing of body unity with arm actions, stance shifting, axis rotation..etc..attributes not applications.

7) On the dummy 1 section, if you use you right arm alone from the tan to gaun to tan to lowering sidepalm , you see the SLT in action with Ck . If you use your left you see a jum punch to a bong to a tan, gaun, jum , jut....
We are cycling each ARM to be the opposite of the other while attacking with one arm, the other is helping to make another attack possible...lin sil di dar . One arm is attacking, while the other is becoming a displacing/defensive action, then back to attacking action...tan is a strike, to bong [low on arm so we can slap it with bong forearm] then back to striking with tan ...hit, bong, hit, cypress hill song ? NO ! VT idea at work.

8) We dont turn to block, we turn to FACE our target/victim. If this is right then turning away from our opponent center to use two arms to block is breaking that idea. If it was an idea it might be in Bil Gee, but its not in any bil gee I have seen.
CK teaches us to use stepping to face and chase to attack not to redirect force like a game of feel me . Why do we develop ging displacing force on the dummy if we are training to feel by sticking and redirecting ? answer, we arent developing feeling sticking, we are developing lin sil di da .

9) We can use anything in our mind to create anything with our arms. BUT there are guiding concepts, like always make an attacking action. BG shows us to use 2 arms to recover back to NOT using two arms...

10) dont develop kwan sao, try looking for a way to make an attack in that action....

bil gee elbows is actually to break out of a grabbed wrist or trapped elbow preventing FACING...recovery of free hands that hit when free.
If you turn to block your putting yourself into a position BG is teaching me to get out of...see the conundrum ?

YouKnowWho

07-04-2011, 08:28 AM

He asked for an expert dude ;) :eek:

That's why I will shy away from this thread...
I'm just saying that there are WC guys in this forum that are more qualified to give proper WC opinions than me. :)

Another usage that I can see can be similiar to Bagua "double switching hands" that the moment your block your opponent's punch with your Tan Shou, your Bong Shou will take over the block and that will free your Tan Shou hand to strike. The only concern is that the Bong Shou may be too far away from the elbow of your Tan Shou. This will reduce your switching hands speed.

trubblman

07-04-2011, 08:58 AM

BTW Gary Lam also gives excellent kwan sao applications in his chi sao videos.

LoneTiger108

07-04-2011, 09:21 AM

I'm just saying that there are WC guys in this forum that are more qualified to give proper WC opinions than me. :)

Really? Who is qualified to share experience exactly?

Lets break it down ...Kwan is what ? a tan and a bong done together, right.

Clever stuff Kev ;) Now can you write kwan in chinese please?? :eek: Then share exactly what the said bong and tan are doing in kwansau?

I say this because not everything has to be lien siu dai da and the way you explain it seems to only encompass that principle. Great breakdown and attempt, but what is kwansau for?? Lien siu dai da?? No. :D

FME Kwansau is only one of four key double-handed postures and if you can't explain exactly what one of them is for, well you see what I mean...

Nobody has sailed a boat before here no?

Vajramusti

07-04-2011, 09:39 AM

[QUOTE=Jon_Ray_Brooks;1111441]

At the moment I'm contemplating 2 different expressions of kwan sau, one from chum kiu and one from biu gee, the difference being "rolling" vs some emphasis on an elbow strike. I'm interested in feedback and reaction from some of you more senior to me in that train of thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolling and elbowing at close quarters are not mutually exclusive motions.

joy chaudhuri

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 10:30 AM

Really? Who is qualified to share experience exactly?

Clever stuff Kev ;) Now can you write kwan in chinese please?? :eek: Then share exactly what the said bong and tan are doing in kwansau?

I say this because not everything has to be lien siu dai da and the way you explain it seems to only encompass that principle. Great breakdown and attempt, but what is kwansau for?? Lien siu dai da?? No. :D

FME Kwansau is only one of four key double-handed postures and if you can't explain exactly what one of them is for, well you see what I mean...

Nobody has sailed a boat before here no?

We should not see 'bong' in a fight, bong does not stay...a bong held in the in the air is a dead bong. Monty python sketch, this bongs dead, no its not, yes it is, not its not, I just saw it move ! .....:D

2 arms fighting ONE is not a skill....

Doing dummy training, tan and bong develop the arms to generate 2 different force vectors with ballistic force capable of displacing and clearing striking paths.
This is done while still facing the position of the opponent using ging force.
Bong deflects sideways, while tan strikes forwards with elbow idea working.
IOW we DONT turn ourselves, we turn the opponent using techniques of VT.
Each arm is moving at high speeds with impact force being generated at close quarters in different directions with hips/body weight in short blasts of motion...add 180 lbs to your 'ging' :D

LoneTiger108

07-04-2011, 11:55 AM

We should not see 'bong' in a fight, bong does not stay...a bong held in the in the air is a dead bong. Monty python sketch, this bongs dead, no its not, yes it is, not its not, I just saw it move ! .....:D

2 arms fighting ONE is not a skill....

I would say that whatever wins the fight is useful. Learning to use both singular, chained and double palm posturing is all good imho. In fact, these are all traits found in the forms.

And FWIW the 'bongsau never stays still' belongs to a kuit that describes interactive training, when actually no seed is still for any length of time because you're constantly turning/rolling/skicking through the transition of the seeds.

IOW we DONT turn ourselves, we turn the opponent using techniques of VT.

Again, this is a speciality of ginsan (square on) Wing Chun, and it is a very highly regarded skill, hence, why Ip Man taught this method in HK to fighters. Thing is, we do turn ourselves, especially in defense, and that's called chiuying (facing shadow) and you can do this with square on, slanted or side body platforms.

Just saying ;) but there's 3 versions of kwansau right there!

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 11:59 AM

Read my first post as an answer....

WC1277

07-04-2011, 01:50 PM

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 02:48 PM

Kwan Sau generally shouldn't be done by itself, otherwise you're chasing.

It's purpose is to regain facing if you get turned too far off the line. It's an excellent way to clear any obstructions as you reface the opponent due to the strength of the structure

:confused: this a classic example of, what ? Done by itself or your chasing, meaning ?

So to regain facing a strong structure, you just kwan sao it ? 2 arms better than one, eh ?

oh dear....

WC1277

07-04-2011, 02:58 PM

:confused: this a classic example of, what ? Done by itself or your chasing, meaning ?

So to regain facing a strong structure, you just kwan sao it ? 2 arms better than one, eh ?

oh dear....

Meaning if you kwan sau for no reason to "block" you're chasing and turning yourself off the line because kwan sau only works with heavy torque.

If you're already turned far off the line for whatever reason, when you "torque" your structure to reface, kwan sau can be one of the safest ways to do it if the opponents arms are controlling you. If there is no contact from the opponent then you just turn and attack like usual.
.

WC1277

07-04-2011, 04:43 PM

Kevin, I don't know what the problem is and why you're responding in another thread.

Look, we both agree that you don't face to block and that the concept of blocking is very much misunderstood amongst practitioners. You have to think of kwan sau in it's rolling motion and not in it's end result. Kwan sau means rolling arms, not high tan, low bong. You're not "blocking" with two arms when applied correctly, you're escaping from being crossed up when your opponent has a hand on each one of your arms in a weak structural position. And more importantly it's just a transition into attack, hence not blocking

Vajramusti

07-04-2011, 04:51 PM

Kevin, You have to think of kwan sau in it's rolling motion and not in it's end result. Kwan sau means rolling arms, not high tan, low bong. You're not "blocking" with two arms when applied correctly, you're escaping from being crossed up when your opponent has a hand on each one of your arms in a weak structural position. And more importantly it's just a transition into attack, hence not blocking
------------------------------------------------------------

Correct...kwan sau= rolling using a coordinated body...

joy chaudhuri

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 04:56 PM

WC1277

07-04-2011, 05:34 PM

so you're basing this off a scenario of two guys with equally extended arms fighting like chi-sao ? One has 2 hands on yours like chi-sao and your trying to regain face , doing chi-sao ? And your "rolling" using body with Kwan, in chi-sao with 2 arms extended ? Right ?

It's not unique to Chi Sao kevin. I gave you the correct explanation of kwan sau. Do what you want with it. Seems like you're just arguing to argue now...

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 06:11 PM

It's not unique to Chi Sao kevin. I gave you the correct explanation of kwan sau. Do what you want with it. Seems like you're just arguing to argue now...

you're missing my point, you're trying to give kwan sao [ your thinking] an application in chi-sao scenarios for refacing with bong and tan against strong pressure on your arms from a partner doing chi-sao back at you.

you dont even understand my argument, thats the problem. Like many chi-sao'ers , one tends to over indulge in the drills without any goals , or developmental ideas to take to free sparring from no contact, no 2 extended arms to turn against 2 arms etc...
follow ?

IOW Kwan has a 'life' in the realms of chi-sao if you happen to be in tan bong and the partner in double fo sao :D

never mind ...

WC1277

07-04-2011, 07:13 PM

you're missing my point, you're trying to give kwan sao [ your thinking] an application in chi-sao scenarios for refacing with bong and tan against strong pressure on your arms from a partner doing chi-sao back at you.

you dont even understand my argument, thats the problem. Like many chi-sao'ers , one tends to over indulge in the drills without any goals , or developmental ideas to take to free sparring from no contact, no 2 extended arms to turn against 2 arms etc...
follow ?

IOW Kwan has a 'life' in the realms of chi-sao if you happen to be in tan bong and the partner in double fo sao :D

never mind ...

No, I don't really follow because you're horrible at expressing your ideas. Kwan sau is not unique to Chi Sao or dependant on tan/bong like I've already stated. Against someone who is applying pressure towards your own center, yes, you will most likely see the finished movement, if it was static, in a tan/bong position. Why, you ask? Because it's the strongest position against that type of incoming force. But it's the motion into that position that matters, not the position itself. If done properly you will be switching into an attack immediately and not resting there. Now against a non WC opponent, when you do that rolling motion, at any point in the roll that the opponents structure breaks you attack. It's the roll with the body shifting that makes it work, not a static position into contact like you see in the dummy form. FYI all those double blocks in the dummy form are meant to show you how to switch using this same concept in application.

You've been trained by your comrades to think that all other systems other than yours don't understand the difference between chasing and attacking but you're wrong kevin. Your biggest fault is that you look at WC structure as black and white...

Vajramusti

07-04-2011, 07:49 PM

No, I don't really follow because you're horrible at expressing your ideas.

((TRUE))

Kwan sau is not unique to Chi Sao or dependant on tan/bong like I've already stated. Against someone who is applying pressure towards your own center, yes, you will most likely see the finished movement, if it was static, in a tan/bong position. Why, you ask? Because it's the strongest position against that type of incoming force. But it's the motion into that position that matters, not the position itself. If done properly you will be switching into an attack immediately and not resting there. Now against a non WC opponent, when you do that rolling motion, at any point in the roll that the opponents structure breaks you attack. It's the roll with the body shifting that makes it work, not a static position into contact like you see in the dummy form. FYI all those double blocks in the dummy form are meant to show you how to switch using this same concept in application.

((True))

You've been trained by your comrades to think that all other systems other than yours don't understand the difference between chasing and attacking but you're wrong kevin. Your biggest fault is that you look at WC structure as black and white...

((True)) Joy

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 07:54 PM

No, I don't really follow because you're horrible at expressing your ideas. Kwan sau is not unique to Chi Sao or dependant on tan/bong like I've already stated. Against someone who is applying pressure towards your own center, yes, you will most likely see the finished movement, if it was static, in a tan/bong position. Why, you ask? Because it's the strongest position against that type of incoming force. But it's the motion into that position that matters, not the position itself. If done properly you will be switching into an attack immediately and not resting there. Now against a non WC opponent, when you do that rolling motion, at any point in the roll that the opponents structure breaks you attack. It's the roll with the body shifting that makes it work, not a static position into contact like you see in the dummy form. FYI all those double blocks in the dummy form are meant to show you how to switch using this same concept in application.

You've been trained by your comrades to think that all other systems other than yours don't understand the difference between chasing and attacking but you're wrong kevin. Your biggest fault is that you look at WC structure as black and white...

Er ..no, you're wrong, blind in fact , but thanks for trying to make us see your view. You don't even understand my idea, but you argue it ...? who's that make black & white then...?
I have experienced your ideas first hand in Arizona and in NYC , they where very similar to my old ways of being taught, seen videos, watched demos, etc...overly , sticky feeling, like many schools , so dont think Im just making the distinction exclusive to your thinking alone. I used to think like you :D so its not like Im just blabbing , but you havent experienced my side....and you still want to argue , like your vague explanation makes sense. Thats a red flag right there.
The fact that in reply you say 'those double blocks' is just sad really. It shows a mind set very common to VT today. I cant change it , not trying, but I m not sitting around letting you try to make everyone think VT is a bunch of double handed blocks on a dummy, with Kwan thrown in, that frankly gets vaguer as you try to explain ....

Your first post revealed a lot about that mind set when you said BG had 'silly things' in it, weapons where outdated and redundant . Saying that also shows the shallowness of your understanding of the system.

Me In Arizona, never mind each sides memory of it, I was there !! :D

WC1277

07-04-2011, 09:12 PM

Er ..no, you're wrong, blind in fact , but thanks for trying to make us see your view. You don't even understand my idea, but you argue it ...? who's that make black & white then...?
I have experienced your ideas first hand in Arizona and in NYC , they where very similar to my old ways of being taught, seen videos, watched demos, etc...overly , sticky feeling, like many schools , so dont think Im just making the distinction exclusive to your thinking alone. I used to think like you :D so its not like Im just blabbing , but you havent experienced my side....and you still want to argue , like your vague explanation makes sense. Thats a red flag right there.
The fact that in reply you say 'those double blocks' is just sad really. It shows a mind set very common to VT today. I cant change it , not trying, but I m not sitting around letting you try to make everyone think VT is a bunch of double handed blocks on a dummy, with Kwan thrown in, that frankly gets vaguer as you try to explain ....

Your first post revealed a lot about that mind set when you said BG had 'silly things' in it, weapons where outdated and redundant . Saying that also shows the shallowness of your understanding of the system.

Me In Arizona, never mind each sides memory of it, I was there !! :D

Don't put words in my mouth kevin. The "FYI double blocks on dummy" was in response to #4 in your original post on this thread.

You have some nerve posting a picture of yourself with the two guys you've spat on more than once. You're a disrespectful little sh!t!

k gledhill

07-04-2011, 11:11 PM

Don't put words in my mouth kevin. The "FYI double blocks on dummy" was in response to #4 in your original post on this thread.

You have some nerve posting a picture of yourself with the two guys you've spat on more than once. You're a disrespectful little sh!t!

The truth doesnt always bring out the happy side of people....:D

CFT

07-05-2011, 01:42 AM

In simple words:

Outside of chi sau, in general, what does kwan sau work against, what should it achieve as an end result and what is the mechanics behind it?

LoneTiger108

07-05-2011, 02:04 AM

In simple words:

Outside of chi sau, in general, what does kwan sau work against, what should it achieve as an end result and what is the mechanics behind it?

Ah! Trying to make sense of the bickering at last! ;)

I think that the answers are already in the posts though, but they conflict a little with eachother.

If you want to know 'what kwan is' it MUST be translated! Personally, I think JRB was pretty spot-on with his basic understanding

Maybe a year ago I connected with kwan sau as a a "tying/untying hand from within a bridged position.

Then it's all got out of hand because people are not willing to just see the basics, which both Kev and WC1277 are both presenting. Just different ideas as one is hellbent on lien siu dai da and if it isn't attacking the attacker it isn't VT and one is trying to explain the motions of kwan itself and if it doesn't do the 'turning' thing it aint kwan!

I dunno, maybe I'm a bit jaded today but can SOMEONE give another opinion and translate the word properly before more arguing please??! :o

GlennR

07-05-2011, 02:25 AM

Ah! Trying to make sense of the bickering at last! ;)

I think that the answers are already in the posts though, but they conflict a little with eachother.

If you want to know 'what kwan is' it MUST be translated! Personally, I think JRB was pretty spot-on with his basic understanding

Then it's all got out of hand because people are not willing to just see the basics, which both Kev and WC1277 are both presenting. Just different ideas as one is hellbent on lien siu dai da and if it isn't attacking the attacker it isn't VT and one is trying to explain the motions of kwan itself and if it doesn't do the 'turning' thing it aint kwan!

I dunno, maybe I'm a bit jaded today but can SOMEONE give another opinion and translate the word properly before more arguing please??! :o

I'll give you an opinion. Its you posturing as the WC curriculum expert ,and happy to judge everyones posts on this forum, but why dont you offer a WC related combat reply to a given situation.
You never do.
Because you dont have any, and are happy pretend that "translation" will further you expertise (or lack of)
Please tell me that you dont teach people??
God knows they would need therapy

CFT

07-05-2011, 03:11 AM

LoneTiger108

07-05-2011, 03:59 AM

I'll give you an opinion. Its you posturing as the WC curriculum expert ,and happy to judge everyones posts on this forum, but why dont you offer a WC related combat reply to a given situation.
You never do.

Funny that! Because you never serve us anything other than your own interpretation and 'posturing' as some hard VT man who has trained everything everyone else has but they haven't done anything like you! Never seen a clip even...

Please tell me that you dont teach people??
God knows they would need therapy

FWIW No I have no formal students, but I do exchange with anybody that has an open mind ;) And if you're not willing, after all your years, to accept that by learning the terms correctly greatly improves your understanding, well, then I seriously hope you don't teach people either! :eek:

LoneTiger108

07-05-2011, 04:08 AM

My 'go to' Chinese online dictionary has this for 'kwan':

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=%AE%B9

捆: tie up; bind, truss up; bundle

That is no more enlightening that what has gone before in the thread.

But it IS. It explains the purpose more so than Kevins negativity.

Some people simply give you directions like 'turn right' whereas Kev may fill your head with all the reasons not to turn left but forget to tell you to turn right! :D This is because he is avoiding the more simple questions. Like, tell me what kwan means? :confused:

Answer me this, IF we take a literal look at binding/tieing up, tell me where you would do that (in life)? What occupation?? Then look at Wing Chuns history. You will find it easier to understand WHY we have kwansau and name it that way. THEN tell me how it's applied in combat!

Giving the old lien siu dai da chestnut is just a cop-out, but very common in the WSL/PB line I guess because that's what PB prefers (?)

GlennR

07-05-2011, 04:20 AM

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1111717]Funny that! Because you never serve us anything other than your own interpretation and 'posturing' as some hard VT man who has trained everything everyone else has but they haven't done anything like you! Never seen a clip even...

Dude (nice aint it) i could easily hop on the "PB waterboy killing machine" fanclub to join in ridiculing you but i choose not to. I respect your opinion and will defend your right to express it (FWIW i think G is a tool and K is getting better with time)
What i cant stand is your one-eyed support for anything chinese and you looking down at the western "approach".
Youve just supported Jackie (because he's chinese, but is he?) but when i mentioned my rare lineage you slagged me off.
If my name was Ray Chen would it have been different?

Your hypocrisy is astounding

Just had an ex-student contact me after 15 years thanking me for teaching him how to hit hard....... apparently it sticks in his mind and he is a MMA exponent now.

Care to exchange student stories?

Graham H

07-05-2011, 05:18 AM

[QUOTE]

(FWIW i think G is a tool and K is getting better with time)

Priceless!!!

GH

GlennR

07-05-2011, 05:19 AM

[QUOTE=GlennR;1111720]

Priceless!!!

GH

Always thinking of you G

Graham H

07-05-2011, 05:22 AM

[QUOTE=Graham H;1111733]

Always thinking of you G

I know! :eek: :o ;)

G

CFT

07-05-2011, 05:34 AM

Answer me this, IF we take a literal look at binding/tieing up, tell me where you would do that (in life)? What occupation?? Then look at Wing Chuns history. You will find it easier to understand WHY we have kwansau and name it that way. THEN tell me how it's applied in combat!How long is your piece of string for tying up then? :p

One term is not going to tell me how it's applied in combat.

k gledhill

07-05-2011, 06:25 AM

But it IS. It explains the purpose more so than Kevins negativity.

Some people simply give you directions like 'turn right' whereas Kev may fill your head with all the reasons not to turn left but forget to tell you to turn right! :D This is because he is avoiding the more simple questions. Like, tell me what kwan means? :confused:

Answer me this, IF we take a literal look at binding/tieing up, tell me where you would do that (in life)? What occupation?? Then look at Wing Chuns history. You will find it easier to understand WHY we have kwansau and name it that way. THEN tell me how it's applied in combat!

Giving the old lien siu dai da chestnut is just a cop-out, but very common in the WSL/PB line I guess because that's what PB prefers (?)

Stop trying to make me think literal chinese will explain it all. I leaned to read , write and speak cantonese. I am rusty and my teacher moved, so its not a resume' qualification by any means.
I am not trying to be negative, simply no longer accepting what I am training in, is to be explained to me by guys who dont have a clue beyond chi-sao battles.
IOW guys look for answers to techniques inside chi-sao, rather than, why we are doing it is for sparring from no chi-sao, ie, reflex reactions at high speeds , not thinking, just bam, intercept me, bam bam, not "lets feel him and then tie him in a kwan knot" , whoops he just took me down as I turned myself to redirect his hands ...darn !:D

We dont see bong, we strike, bong n tan are an item in lightning mode , bong disappears as fast as it came, tan stays on the line , firing, bong became a hit ...all in the blink of an eye.
The ballistic force of bong was developed in dummy drilling on the lower arm...

There is only one bong ! not a low, high middle, left of center, ooops right abit left a bit, doh ! :D

Energy in unison, straight line strikes coupled with parry's laterally moving across our centerline. Equals a combination of a 'turning' force = bong/gaun, etc... + a linear force strike =tan/jum.

Learning to unify energy that both turns and strikes extended levers offered. No levers, free hands hit.

why would I have both arms extended inside yours while standing still waiting to feel to do a [your idea] kwan ?

CFT

07-05-2011, 07:09 AM

There must be plenty of video footage of PB on youtube now that includes use of kwan sao? You can just 'talk' us through a few seconds.

LoneTiger108

07-05-2011, 07:40 AM

Dude (nice aint it) i could easily hop on the "PB waterboy killing machine" fanclub to join in ridiculing you but i choose not to. I respect your opinion and will defend your right to express it (FWIW i think G is a tool and K is getting better with time)

Sorry? You defend my opinions? Don't make me false promises dude :eek:

What i cant stand is your one-eyed support for anything chinese and you looking down at the western "approach".
Youve just supported Jackie (because he's chinese, but is he?) but when i mentioned my rare lineage you slagged me off.

Sorry, I must have missed something. Your 'rare lineage'? Did you tell me this on another thread?? I will have to re-read because I don't recall any 'slagging off' here either! Just saying it how I see it.

Jackie, too, has said things I disagree with but it doesn't stop me posting. I have no preference for anyone Chinese either, I can tell you! One of my oaths was never to teach it back to them!! (joke)

Just had an ex-student contact me after 15 years thanking me for teaching him how to hit hard....... apparently it sticks in his mind and he is a MMA exponent now.

Care to exchange student stories?

Not really because, as I've said time and time again, I do not have any formal students. BUT I have taught many hundreds over the years, or 'assisted' my Sifu teach them if that makes you feel better!

We train how to hit hard too, I think ALL Wing Chun schools should and probably do. And herein lies my thorn with yourself.

You constantly DO NOT defend my views but say you 'would' because you have not learnt how I have. And neither has anyone else here actually, as we were all taught as individuals (I hope!) But when I talk of language and culture it isn't to show disrespect to anyone who has never learnt such a way. It is just to highlight my way. My preference. That's all.

If you find yourself having problems with that then all I can do is offer my apology. I don't ever intend to 'look down' on any Wing Chun student. I have a profound respect for the guys I have met and worked with over the years, and maybe you're just hyper sensitive to my rambling :(

LoneTiger108

07-05-2011, 07:43 AM

Stop trying to make me think literal chinese will explain it all. I leaned to read , write and speak cantonese. I am rusty and my teacher moved, so its not a resume' qualification by any means.

That's your issue, not mine. Learning to speak cantonese isn't going to help you learn, it helps you 'teach' in the same way our ancestors did. Why not ask your Sifu if you can view any original writings he has of WSL's? Bet they're not in English or German ;)

There is only one bong ! not a low, high middle, left of center, ooops right abit left a bit, doh ! :D

So correct (in 1980) but so wrong today!

why would I have both arms extended inside yours while standing still waiting to feel to do a [your idea] kwan ?

Interesting. I can't recall giving you my arms? Simply asking for a translation to base the discussion on of which you have still to deliver an opinion...

LoneTiger108

07-05-2011, 07:47 AM

How long is your piece of string for tying up then? :p

One term is not going to tell me how it's applied in combat.

Hmmm :confused:

I actually expected more from you sir!

In fact WTF???! If your own translation DOESN'T tell you what kwan IS doing in combat what is it telling you?

Simply that you need to be shown ;)

Phew! That's that for now... any more?? :D

Graham H

07-05-2011, 10:10 AM

Hmmm :confused:

I actually expected more from you sir!

In fact WTF???! If your own translation DOESN'T tell you what kwan IS doing in combat what is it telling you?

Simply that you need to be shown ;)

That suggests to me that the gwai lo is wrong!!!! :D:D:D:D

LOL

Vajramusti

07-05-2011, 11:33 AM

[QUOTE=CFT;1111708]In simple words:

Outside of chi sau, in general, what does kwan sau work against, what should it achieve as an end result and what is the mechanics behind it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chee- per your Cantonese dictionary-tie up; bind, truss up; bundle- are good enough basic meanings for kwan. But then- meanings need to be elaborated in different discipline specific contexts.In the wing chun that I do- doing the kwan function involves a coordinated into the line and outward rolling motion with respect to the axis. There is a different inside rolling kwan as well.The concept of the kwan when done well is in the opening of the slt, in the chum kiu, and in the dummy. It can be strengthened with the right BJD motions.. As in other aspects of wing chun knowing one's axis and sensing the weakness of the other person helps with effectiveness of motions.As with many other wc things both elbows work in coordinated fashion.
People usually think of dai bong and tan as kwan- but the devil in the details are more subtle and effective when learned well.The kwan is important enough to be in every section of doing the mook yan jong.

It is not just for chi sao. Application involves the right timing, distance, knowing the forces involved upon contact etc.The usage of the kwan depends on circumstances including the skill of the user.
If the YGKYM structure training is good and someone is about to tie you up in close quarters with a good kwan you can reverse the relationships and get out of the tie up and throw them, or make them lose their balance and hit them or other martial action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS- I don't care to argue with LG and JG..would be wasted time and energy.

But re KG recent post-aside from lacking basic respect for wing chun teachers including the one he was the longest with--and his long jumbled and unclear attempts to explain wing chun...he refers to coming to Arizona, makes negative remarks about what he claims to have seen and posts a picture.
I have commented on this before but since he posts the same junk again..

1. Once some years ago Augustine Fong was asked by Victor Kan to sponsor a seminar.Fong sifu did that and has courteously done so for others- WC and non WC masters of note. The Kan seminar was held in Tempe at what was then Tuft's school on University drive and not in Tucson.
2. I was there- I am in the group pic that was taken. So were others. Several people including a friend of Robert Chu from California can confirm some of my observations:

a) KG did an awful and stiff chum kiu demo when requested by his sifu..
b) he had little control over his limbs.
c)he made a general fool of himself
d)at one point -one of my kung fu brothers went up to him and "accompanied" the unwilling KG to the door right in front of his sifu.

There is more but why bother??

I have attempted to comment on the thread starters post and somewhat reluctantly comment on KG self adulation and thread diversion.

Joy Chaudhuri

WC1277

07-05-2011, 12:12 PM

Good post Joy

I didn't know it was held up there in Tempe. It must of been a nice school there on University!

Vajramusti

07-05-2011, 12:30 PM

[QUOTE=WC1277;1111820]Good post Joy

I didn't know it was held up there in Tempe. It must of been a nice school there on University!
------------------------------------------------------------
Thx. It was in an old set of shops on North side of University between McClintock and Price. It was closed later. Kan sifu brought his banners and hung them on a wall for pictures.

joy

k gledhill

07-05-2011, 01:43 PM

WC1277

07-05-2011, 02:29 PM

Had to bite my lip on a rebuttal :D lets leave that stinking pile of bat guano where it sits in Aridzona way back then, lets move on together and try to stick to VT.

NO ! there is no kwan sao in the opening of the forms, wrong Joy.

heres another photo !;) just finished chi-saoing with Yip Ching & Yip Chun

There is in the opening in our system. We roll the X instead of just lifting it. Once again you see end movements and not the in between where the actual bread and butter is in most things.

I dare to ask you, in clear terms, once and for all, what is kwan sau then kevin?

On a side note, I find it funny that the only recognition you've ever had in the WC world is association with the people you dismiss exemplified by the pictures you post....

ntc

07-05-2011, 06:48 PM

ShortBridge

07-05-2011, 08:38 PM

I'd like to thank everyone for sharing their perspectives on my original question. I've been following most of the discussion with interest and I've learned a few things or at least got some new ideas to explore in training.

My observations:

First the youtube clip of Alan Lee that someone posted in, I think the first response, is a good example of one of the expressions I was mentioning. I have not met Sifu Lee, but if I'm not mistaken, he is in the bronx and was a NY student of Duncan Leung. I felt this type of kwan sao somewhat recently and until I did, I wasn't really convinced, but I do think that it comes from sparring and not chi sao. I'm playing with it now and we'll see if it's something that sticks with me, but I have no doubt that it can work for some people. It wouldn't have occurred to me on my own, though.

I find it related to a concept that is expressed in White Crane called "breaking bridge". It doesn't seem to be as a major of a focus in wing chun, but I don't dismiss it as not belonging altogether either.

I also get and respect the argument of not attacking limbs, but attacking center/structure/person. This is something that I really like about wing chun. How much and to the exclusion of what else is this central I think comes down to linage a bit. I don't mean that as either a good or bad remark, simply that I know some linages are more direct and some more shifty.

I don't claim to have either deep or broad knowledge and I'm not trying to further that argument, but I do have some thoughts on the subject at large. We know at this point, in part thanks to our friend Robert Chu, that not all "pure, classical" wing chun relates to Yip Man. We also know that some of what have been calling "mainland wing chun" on these boards looks different than what we yip man descendants know as pure wing chun. We also know that among Yip Man's next generation sifus, there are differences in interpretation, expression and emphasis. I personally reject the idea that any one person or linage has the real/exclusive truth that we're looking for. Not to say that I think everyone's equal, there are schools that I personally give more credence than others. I know that a Moy Yat student and a Duncan Leung student (for example) will have some different perspectives and approaches and I think we've seen some of them in this discussion alone. I respect them both and their differences don't make me think that either of them is wrong. I'm training hard to find my own connections to good wing chun and welcome all of those perspectives. I'm also interested in some of the ones that don't get expressed here and for that matter my interest extends to some of the other southern short bridge systems, just because I think there's some shared DNA. It's unfortunate that we linage squabble as much as we do, but I accept that it's part and parcel to our community at this point.

I need to think a little bit more about the kwan sao expressions from the jong. I had kind of forgotten about them. Certainly I'm finding two related (to Joy's point), but distinct ideas between what Alan Lee was suggesting and the concept of tying/untying. Both things that I'd like to spend a lot of time training in different ways to see where I settle.

For me, I had not embraced kwan sao until fairly recently. I just didn't really get it. I needed to feel a few really good people's kwan saos, which I have this year, which has what started my interest. Thanks again for responding and contributing.

YouKnowWho

07-05-2011, 09:40 PM

First the youtube clip of Alan Lee that someone posted in, I think the first response, is a good example of one of the expressions I was mentioning. I have not met Sifu Lee, but if I'm not mistaken, he is in the bronx and was a NY student of Duncan Leung. I felt this type of kwan sao somewhat recently and until I did, I wasn't really convinced, but I do think that it comes from sparring and not chi sao. I'm playing with it now and we'll see if it's something that sticks with me, but I have no doubt that it can work for some people. It wouldn't have occurred to me on my own, though.
If you compare the following 2 clips, you can see that Alan Lee tried to block the roundhouse kick with his right arm Bong Shou, and Cung Le tried to block and catch the roundhouse kick with his left arm. Please try both ways and let us know which way that you like it better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXXx01FDJIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdTCXhanxzk

ShortBridge

07-05-2011, 09:46 PM

I've done both and to be honest, I'm not crazy about either one. I'm spending time with the Alan Lee method (don't think that's what it's supposed to be called), but I'm not sure if I'll get there with it, at least not as plan A.

But to get back on track, we were talking about kwan sao and not dealing with roundhouse kicks.

duende

07-06-2011, 12:24 AM

In our SLT we have a Low and High Ying Bong Sau that rolls not lifts an opponents energy. This expresses the element of Fa or "neutralizing" energy.

Not so different from what Joy and other's here have expressed. :)

As for Kwan Sau, it appears in many different forms throughout our system.

In regards to this thread, the most appropriate description of Kwan Sau would be for "changing of the line" or "restoring the line" to gain leverage and proper facing/range.

In this sense, it is primarily a bridging structure (Kiu Sau) that is used as a hand-off tool from one line of facing to another. And also falls into the Fa (neutralizing energy) category.

Nice discussion (Sans the PB Kool-aided dogma of course)

LoneTiger108

07-06-2011, 04:10 AM

I agree with both WC1277 and Joy. In the HKM system, in the opening of the SLT, we do a roll to move from the lower X to the upper X position instead of just lifting it. This is Foundational training for the execution of the Kwun Sao technique.

I find this very inetersting, as I too do a 'similar' push/pull with the opening X arms of the forms. We do not call this Kwansau though, it's Gaansau or 'cultivating hand' and is an extension/revolution of the original HK IP Man 'linear' version. From my understanding, this was how that set was taught in the mainland too but as long as it makes sense to yourself, all is good ;)

And if some want to score kudos by posting pictures of themselves with the hieracrchy of Wing Chun, then that's okay too! We could probably all do that...

http://www.y-y-a.co.uk/db_Hong_Kong1211.jpg

That's me with my Simo, Sihing and Sije. Meeting Ip Ching and Ip Chun in Foshan was 'an experience' but has no bearing at all on who or what I represent today. They were very pleasant to us though!

Graham H

07-06-2011, 05:32 AM

LoneTiger108

07-06-2011, 07:42 AM

Ha! Yeah I know lets stick a kwan sau or a gaan sau in even before we've learnt about the ving tsun punch (tan and fook) or anything else because thats what's SLT is for.....complicated crossing actions right at the beginning! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::D:D

GH

Sorry to point out the obvious G! :D But this IS a motion and method that is taught BEFORE punching from where I come from because it is in that order. Please don't tell me your fistwork is before your cross arms in SLT? :confused: because that would explain a lot...

Graham H

07-06-2011, 08:04 AM

Sorry to point out the obvious G! :D But this IS a motion and method that is taught BEFORE punching from where I come from because it is in that order. Please don't tell me your fistwork is before your cross arms in SLT? :confused: because that would explain a lot...

Ha! You may have misunderstood my post mate!!! LOL

Of course our crossing action is before the punch but its not kwan sau or gaan sau!!

........because that would explain a lot?????? Funny!!!

GH

Grumblegeezer

07-06-2011, 08:42 AM

I agree with both WC1277 and Joy. In the HKM system, in the opening of the SLT, we do a roll to move from the lower X to the upper X position instead of just lifting it. This is Foundational training for the execution of the Kwun Sao technique.

Although I come from a different branch of Yip Man's VT, I have to agree completely. My old sifu, Leung Ting, also performed the opening movements of SNT and Chum Kiu, that is to say the crossed gaun-sau and crossed tan-sau, with an inside roll, and he specifically noted that this was training for the kwun-sau movement, even though it has a different appearance. Now I am associated with a different group, but we still view these movements this way.

Graham H

07-06-2011, 10:09 AM

Although I come from a different branch of Yip Man's VT, I have to agree completely. My old sifu, Leung Ting, also performed the opening movements of SNT and Chum Kiu, that is to say the crossed gaun-sau and crossed tan-sau, with an inside roll, and he specifically noted that this was training for the kwun-sau movement, even though it has a different appearance. Now I am associated with a different group, but we still view these movements this way.

So why introduce an action like Kwan Sau right at the start of the system before even the basic punch has been looked at???? So to justfy this BS you say that it has a different appearance?????:confused::confused::confused::eek:

Why do you train for Kwan Sau at the start of SLT and CK. What makes Kwan Sau so special???? The student hasnt even been introduced to one handed actions nevermind two at the start of SLT.

Ving Tsun is a logical system. Your idea is not!!!

I'm looking forward to the reasons why you generic) think that!!

GH

WC1277

07-06-2011, 11:34 AM

So why introduce an action like Kwan Sau right at the start of the system before even the basic punch has been looked at???? So to justfy this BS you say that it has a different appearance?????:confused::confused::confused::eek:

Why do you train for Kwan Sau at the start of SLT and CK. What makes Kwan Sau so special???? The student hasnt even been introduced to one handed actions nevermind two at the start of SLT.

Ving Tsun is a logical system. Your idea is not!!!

I'm looking forward to the reasons why you generic) think that!!

GH

Because there's two main functions in WC. Rolling, whenever you're switching between arms, you're rolling in some way, and your triangle. Despite popular belief you're not just learning one arm hand movements in SLT. Your resting arm is just as important. If you don't have proper tension/forward intent, your extended arm will lack strength in body unity. Essentially, no triangle will be developed....

Graham H

07-06-2011, 01:06 PM

Because there's two main functions in WC. Rolling, whenever you're switching between arms, you're rolling in some way, and your triangle. Despite popular belief you're not just learning one arm hand movements in SLT. Your resting arm is just as important. If you don't have proper tension/forward intent, your extended arm will lack strength in body unity. Essentially, no triangle will be developed....

Ok so we practice two totally different methods of Ving Tsun. I can't comment on your way apart from I don't agree with your rolling idea. Rolling in Ving Tsun is a training exercise not a fighting application. Forward intent comes from your whole body and the idea of intercepting and attacking your opponents attack. This doesn't come from arm contact but rather a certain skill that the system teaches you.

If I had the choice of your Ving Tsun or no Ving Tsun at all I would happily wave goodbye. ;)

GH

WC1277

07-06-2011, 01:43 PM

Ok so we practice two totally different methods of Ving Tsun. I can't comment on your way apart from I don't agree with your rolling idea. Rolling in Ving Tsun is a training exercise not a fighting application. Forward intent comes from your whole body and the idea of intercepting and attacking your opponents attack. This doesn't come from arm contact but rather a certain skill that the system teaches you.

If I had the choice of your Ving Tsun or no Ving Tsun at all I would happily wave goodbye. ;)

GH

Are you guys not rolling in some way in the over abundance of lop sau you see in almost every PB related clip?

Forward intent comes from your elbows which yes, are attached to your body....I don't know why you keep thinking it's all about the arms with us other than choice of language...

k gledhill

07-06-2011, 09:23 PM

Are you guys not rolling in some way in the over abundance of lop sau you see in almost every PB related clip?

Forward intent comes from your elbows which yes, are attached to your body....I don't know why you keep thinking it's all about the arms with us other than choice of language...

Totally different methods....lets leave it at that.

LoneTiger108

07-07-2011, 04:42 AM

Ha! You may have misunderstood my post mate!!! LOL

Of course our crossing action is before the punch but its not kwan sau or gaan sau!

That's all cool G. But what do you call this double handed posture then? Have you even got a name for it in PBVT?

I can understand why people relate it to kwan, and know 'when' it becomes kwan, but ultimately to me it will always simply be gaansau toiwan - cultivating arm to push and encircle. You will also see this method as the basis for all 'taichi' pushing hands, but you must know this already right?? You've researched other CMA systems?

Now I'm not saying that any students would have been told that in their early training. They're simply crossing arms to identify their centre line, and there is nothing wrong in that. What I'm talking of is sharing ideas as a student progresses and my suggestion to you is to look seriously at how PB learnt from WSL.

PB may never have been told anything like this if he hadn't progressed in a way WSL wanted. This happened in the Lee Shing family too. Many students passed through LS without even seeing the 1st form, let alone understanding the meaning of specific terms and, what I like to call, 'signature' postures of Wing Chun. My Sifu was a lucky one, and I consider myself to be lucky too because this stuff is WC101 basic understanding. You must see that, no?

CFT

07-07-2011, 05:09 AM

Now I'm not saying that any students would have been told that in their early training. They're simply crossing arms to identify their centre line, and there is nothing wrong in that.It also the limit of depth/range of the gaan/tan away from the body.

Graham H

07-07-2011, 05:21 AM

That's all cool G. But what do you call this double handed posture then? Have you even got a name for it in PBVT?

Does it matter what I call it? It's the concept behind it that is important! It's not an application but rather something for the new beginner to start thinking about with reference to the fixed elbow position and the behaiour of the ving tsun punch. SLT = small idea. There is nothing small about anything I have read yet. Its all a mish mash of BS!!! All of the actions in SLT are there to correct problems and address mistakes that we are prone to making. These errors need to be ironed out so that Chum Kiu can function properly. The crossing action is fundamentally about the controlling of the elbow as it is everywhere else in the forms. When a person with no prior knowledge views these movements without any prior knowledge of how and why we can turn them into anything we want!!!!

I can understand why people relate it to kwan, and know 'when' it becomes kwan, but ultimately to me it will always simply be gaansau toiwan - cultivating arm to push and encircle. You will also see this method as the basis for all 'taichi' pushing hands, but you must know this already right?? You've researched other CMA systems?

Ving Tsun is not Tai chi!!! I can't stand those that try and combine the two!!!

Now I'm not saying that any students would have been told that in their early training. They're simply crossing arms to identify their centre line, and there is nothing wrong in that.

In a round about way I agree with that statement!

What I'm talking of is sharing ideas as a student progresses and my suggestion to you is to look seriously at how PB learnt from WSL.

I have no worries about how much information was shared between PB and WSL. In fact PB is one of a very few of his students that shared his thinking and that comes from WSL's own family and friends. Get over it!!

PB may never have been told anything like this if he hadn't progressed in a way WSL wanted.

Grab those straws mate!!! You'l have nothing left to hang onto soon!!!

This happened in the Lee Shing family too. Many students passed through LS without even seeing the 1st form, let alone understanding the meaning of specific terms and, what I like to call, 'signature' postures of Wing Chun. My Sifu was a lucky one, and I consider myself to be lucky too because this stuff is WC101 basic understanding. You must see that, no?

I will tell you this Spencer...I have seen your Sifu move. I have seen other students of Lee Shing and I have watched your videos and ideas and I do not consider any of you to be lucky.

I'd like to bow out of this thread now because I'm actually getting annoyed with your WC101 nonsense!!

Take care petal!! xxx

GH

k gledhill

07-07-2011, 06:26 AM

That's all cool G. But what do you call this double handed posture then? Have you even got a name for it in PBVT?

I can understand why people relate it to kwan, and know 'when' it becomes kwan, but ultimately to me it will always simply be gaansau toiwan - cultivating arm to push and encircle. You will also see this method as the basis for all 'taichi' pushing hands, but you must know this already right?? You've researched other CMA systems?

Now I'm not saying that any students would have been told that in their early training. They're simply crossing arms to identify their centre line, and there is nothing wrong in that. What I'm talking of is sharing ideas as a student progresses and my suggestion to you is to look seriously at how PB learnt from WSL.

PB may never have been told anything like this if he hadn't progressed in a way WSL wanted. This happened in the Lee Shing family too. Many students passed through LS without even seeing the 1st form, let alone understanding the meaning of specific terms and, what I like to call, 'signature' postures of Wing Chun. My Sifu was a lucky one, and I consider myself to be lucky too because this stuff is WC101 basic understanding. You must see that, no?

Its not just 'identifying' the line , its what we fight on, an idea based on interception along an impenetrable line.

Constantly attacking , an ability to make attacks with every move striking with individual arms, arms together, arms legs.

LoneTiger108

07-07-2011, 08:42 AM

I will tell you this Spencer...I have seen your Sifu move. I have seen other students of Lee Shing and I have watched your videos and ideas and I do not consider any of you to be lucky.

I'd like to bow out of this thread now because I'm actually getting annoyed with your WC101 nonsense!!

I too have seen your Sifu, and his Sifu and as much as I respect the elders of Wing Chun there is something fundamentally wrong in your attitude towards change. Towards learning from others. Even towards simple exchange!

You can watch all you like, but if you haven't visited my Sifu or me to chat or train then you know nothing. Just as you say I know nothing about you or PB.

Best to leave it there then mate and good luck to you :)

Here's a picture for you to look at, but don't tell me, you know exactly what's being trained here don't you? And let me guess, to you it's not VT!!

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/260392_1968307481536_1058417759_1854966_856472_n.j pg

WC1277

07-07-2011, 09:09 AM

Its not just 'identifying' the line , its what we fight on, an idea based on interception along an impenetrable line.

Constantly attacking , an ability to make attacks with every move striking with individual arms, arms together, arms legs.

I think I finally understand what you PB boys mean by using one arm instead of two and get ready for this, I actually agree!

Like I said before, it's choice of language that's causing this conflict. Different names for the same thing... we just look at it as two arms simply because the rear arm strengthens the front making the triangle. Going off the center = bad/chasing. Ok to open up opponent by angling without moving forward arm off center = structure moving = reliance on triangle and not arm technique alone...

WC1277

07-07-2011, 10:22 AM

I think I finally understand what you PB boys mean by using one arm instead of two and get ready for this, I actually agree!

Like I said before, it's choice of language that's causing this conflict. Different names for the same thing... we just look at it as two arms simply because the rear arm strengthens the front making the triangle. Going off the center = bad/chasing. Ok to open up opponent by angling without moving forward arm off center = structure moving = reliance on triangle and not arm technique alone...

For instance, someone comes in with a palm. You jaam with it directly on your center and move your structure to take the line and then chop. This makes it one movement. If you were to jut you would be doing two movements regardless of moving your structure or not.

By always just setting up your attack on the line your structure will cover the line for you. No chasing. You're essentially using one arm that way. Doesn't mean you can't use the rear arm though and switch along the same line. That's not chasing either. For instance jaam on the line again but instead of chopping directly out, your rear hand shoots out on the same line. Both are right.

Graham H

07-07-2011, 10:58 AM

Here's a picture for you to look at, but don't tell me, you know exactly what's being trained here don't you? And let me guess, to you it's not VT!!

Blah, blah, blah!!! Viewing pictures is a pointless!!! Post a video of the drill and explain your thinking and I will give you opinion!

GH

WC1277

07-07-2011, 11:13 AM

For instance, someone comes in with a palm. You jaam with it directly on your center and move your structure to take the line and then chop. This makes it one movement. If you were to jut you would be doing two movements regardless of moving your structure or not.

By always just setting up your attack on the line your structure will cover the line for you. No chasing. You're essentially using one arm that way. Doesn't mean you can't use the rear arm though and switch along the same line. That's not chasing either. For instance jaam on the line again but instead of chopping directly out, your rear hand shoots out on the same line. Both are right.

In fact, now that I think about it, that's exactly the dynamics of kwan sau. Unified switching using structure.

LoneTiger108

07-07-2011, 11:31 AM

Blah, blah, blah!!! Viewing pictures is a pointless!!! Post a video of the drill and explain your thinking and I will give you opinion

Really? What's the point in that?? You're not interested and you've made that pretty clear.

You also can't name the posture or even say if you've seen it before or not in your own VT, so have a nice flowery day yourself sir! ;)

Graham H

07-07-2011, 02:38 PM

Really? What's the point in that?? You're not interested and you've made that pretty clear.

good point!!!

lance

07-08-2011, 12:25 AM

Kwan sau has puzzled me for some time. It's a name we have for a combination of hands that already have names and I felt like I must be missing something. Maybe a year ago I connected with kwan sau as a a "tying/untying hand from within a bridged position. Recently I started thinking about the elbows in the opening of biu gee as an expression of kwan sau as well.

At the moment I'm contemplating 2 different expressions of kwan sau, one from chum kiu and one from biu gee, the difference being "rolling" vs some emphasis on an elbow strike. I'm interested in feedback and reaction from some of you more senior to me in that train of thought.

No trolls please. If you're not into wing chun, that's cool, please walk away from this thread and let us have our discussion.

Jon_Ray_Brooks , youknowwho is right kwan sau is a combination of tan sao and bong sao combined together . It comes from the bil jee form , you can use kwan sao to block a right or left high kick comming to the head area . While you counter with a low kick to the attackers' supporting leg . It ' s a very useful block to me because it protects the body from an attack like a right round house comming to your head area , This type of block can be used on both sides of the body . You can use the kwan sao to block an attack like a right straight punch aiming to the head area and a low attack aimed with the low left punch going to the low area of the body like an uppercut or an left reverse punch . Once you use kwan sao to block block both punches you use trapping hands to tie up your attackers' hands . so that he can ' t retaliate against you .

And it all depends on your training in WC if the Sifu feels that you ' re ready to learn chi sao then why not , you ' ll benefit from it . Chi sao builds up the power in your legs and arms as you practice the exercises . We ' re talking about internal power now . Also a way to allow both your arms and hands to work independently against the opponent ' s attacking hands . You can use your own legs to jam the opponents' legs . Because , you won ' t be doing chi sao forever ,when you have the chance you ' ll interrupt that roll and move into your opponent .

Vajramusti

07-08-2011, 04:31 AM

Caution: Arms against legs involve good timing. A good kick can break arms.
There are other alternatives.

joy chaudhuri

k gledhill

07-08-2011, 09:16 AM

Graham H

07-08-2011, 10:21 AM

WC1277

07-08-2011, 02:14 PM

Often we see moves being invented to accomodate misunderstood hand actions. Like trying to make the dummy 1:1 application, with overturned stances, due to the idea that the dummy is man we move around.
Set pieces for "if a guy kicks this way...we block etc...".
Or if guy punches like this just stand and block like statue...
A lot of set pieces require the attacker to not follow up with takedowns, shoots. This leaves the set piece merchant vulnerable to feints, set ups, instead of 'fighting', with mobilty, distance control, intercepting....

You mixed three entirely different things into your comment about the dummy. No 1:1 application or overturned stances, just structure and distance training but some parts in the form 'are' meant to "move around", some parts aren't.

I like how you put the most vague expression in almost every one of your posts. "Fighting, with mobility, distance control, intercepting..." Why don't you just respond to everything with only that expression?........ PB seminar notes again?

k gledhill

07-08-2011, 04:08 PM

You mixed three entirely different things into your comment about the dummy. No 1:1 application or overturned stances, just structure and distance training but some parts in the form 'are' meant to "move around", some parts aren't.

I like how you put the most vague expression in almost every one of your posts. "Fighting, with mobility, distance control, intercepting..." Why don't you just respond to everything with only that expression?........ PB seminar notes again?

Not what I wrote...
We train different methods, GH understands , you dont, I could care less, your rather pompous anyway.

"Someone who is looking at Ving Tsun and has not spent enough time with a teacher, probably will not know enough footwork. He will not understand the mobility involved in Ving Tsun, the angles of attack, the kicks in all situations. He will therefore want to add kicks for all situations.He will therefore want to add something else to the style that he thinks is better for the sake of not knowing."
WSL

WC1277

07-08-2011, 04:45 PM

Not what I wrote...
We train different methods, GH understands , you dont, I could care less, your rather pompous anyway.

"Someone who is looking at Ving Tsun and has not spent enough time with a teacher, probably will not know enough footwork. He will not understand the mobility involved in Ving Tsun, the angles of attack, the kicks in all situations. He will therefore want to add kicks for all situations.He will therefore want to add something else to the style that he thinks is better for the sake of not knowing."
WSL

I am a little pompous, aren't I?

Glad to see you're back to being virtuous!

k gledhill

07-08-2011, 04:51 PM

I am a little pompous, aren't I?

Glad to see you're back to being virtuous!

I didnt understand either until I met the idea in action, you might try it one day, you might like it.

WC1277

07-08-2011, 05:37 PM

I didnt understand either until I met the idea in action, you might try it one day, you might like it.

I have tried it........our systems are more similar than you think, however, IMO one of them is complete and the other isn't of no fault to WSL, whom I respect.....It's his "grand-students" whom are really just estranged step-children that I have a problem with...

k gledhill

07-08-2011, 05:40 PM

I have tried it........our systems are more similar than you think, however, IMO one of them is complete and the other isn't of no fault to WSL, whom I respect.....It's his "grand-students" whom are really just estranged step-children that I have a problem with...

Riightttt.....now I know your full of it. :D and pompous ;)

WC1277

07-08-2011, 05:52 PM

Riightttt.....now I know your full of it. :D and pompous ;)

No, I'm serious, I really have tried it....

k gledhill

07-08-2011, 06:01 PM

No, I'm serious, I really have tried it....

who with ?

ShortBridge

07-08-2011, 06:02 PM

Caution: Arms against legs involve good timing. A good kick can break arms.
There are other alternatives.

joy chaudhuri

Yes, Joy. I agree. Though I know there are hands vs feet that can work, it still makes me nervous every time. Would prefer not to end up in that situation if possible.

WC1277

07-08-2011, 08:46 PM

who with ?

I worked out with two guys who visited from mainland China, I think it was in Beijing, I don't know? Whoever has a school there from the WSL family. They were good, don't get me wrong, but missing some of the subtitles so to speak. Too rigid, not in a good structure kind of way. Plus, the way you guys almost force your elbow into your center is easy to take advantage of IMO, at least against another WC guy. The switching too was almost always regular or break timing, which once again, against another WC guy who knows all the timings, easy to read.....

Phil Redmond

07-08-2011, 10:19 PM

Jon_Ray_Brooks , youknowwho is right kwan sau is a combination of tan sao and bong sao combined together . It comes from the bil jee form , you can use kwan sao to block a right or left high kick comming to the head area . While you counter with a low kick to the attackers' supporting leg . It ' s a very useful block to me because it protects the body from an attack like a right round house comming to your head area , This type of block can be used on both sides of the body . You can use the kwan sao to block an attack like a right straight punch aiming to the head area and a low attack aimed with the low left punch going to the low area of the body like an uppercut or an left reverse punch . Once you use kwan sao to block block both punches you use trapping hands to tie up your attackers' hands . so that he can ' t retaliate against you .

And it all depends on your training in WC if the Sifu feels that you ' re ready to learn chi sao then why not , you ' ll benefit from it . Chi sao builds up the power in your legs and arms as you practice the exercises . We ' re talking about internal power now . Also a way to allow both your arms and hands to work independently against the opponent ' s attacking hands . You can use your own legs to jam the opponents' legs . Because , you won ' t be doing chi sao forever ,when you have the chance you ' ll interrupt that roll and move into your opponent .

I agree with you on the Kwan sao being effective against an uppergate attack. Be it a kick or punch. Duncan Leung drilled us with the kwan against high kicks so much thats it's second nature to me now. REGARDLESS of the kicker. Though I have no video ;) I have stopped kicks from MT and Kyokushin fighters. But as Joy says if your timing is off so are your arms.