How many different types of "sao" are there?

[LaterthanNever]

Is there a fixed number or is it the kind of thing which evolves as time goes on?

In the book by Sifu Wayne Blenoha(sp?) I count 13 total sao arm movements(I think..typing this from memory and don't have the book in front of me).

Grandmaster William Cheung lists 15 in his Biu Jee book.

and Master Samuel Kwok lists (again from memory..I'll have to check)..I think it was 22?

Do they number of Sao arm movements differ between lineages or increase or decrease depending on what form is used?

Thank you,
LTN

[wingchunIan]

Is there a fixed number or is it the kind of thing which evolves as time goes on?

In the book by Sifu Wayne Blenoha(sp?) I count 13 total sao arm movements(I think..typing this from memory and don't have the book in front of me).

Grandmaster William Cheung lists 15 in his Biu Jee book.

and Master Samuel Kwok lists (again from memory..I'll have to check)..I think it was 22?

Do they number of Sao arm movements differ between lineages or increase or decrease depending on what form is used?

Thank you,
LTN

You'll never get a consistent answer because the names attributed to shapes and energies are just labels. Some describe the physical shape, some describe the energy employed. The same shape can therefore be described in different ways depending upon how it is being used, the same energy can be employed in different shapes etc. The names of things have also changed over the years, some deliberately in moves away from the more colourful traditional naming and some for other reasons. Some lineages give different names to every single hand position and different names to the same shape and energy if it is applied on the inside rather than the outside or high rather than low, some have different labels depending upon what the other hand is doing or what the legs are doing etc
Ultimately I personally don't think it matters how many labels there are or what they are as long as what they are describing meets the core principles of Wing Chun and you under stand what it is for and the key aspects of making it work.

[LFJ]

Well let's see, I've counted 22 in the three forms and dummy. This is not counting tok-sau 托手 || propping arm, because it's called dai-jeung 提掌 || lifting palm here. I've also not counted other palm or punching actions, only those called "sau". Adding palm and punching actions, elbows, and kicks the total number of concepts or "techniques" in the system which can be applied in an infinite number of ways is about 30.

I can't comment on many other lineages that have extra and more complex forms which might contain more than the following in their system. By whatever and however many names these may be called I don't know, but single names are given here for the same shape regardless of multiple varient uses of energy or application, inside vs. outside, high vs. low, etc..

Siu-nim-tau:

1. taan-sau 摊手 || spreading arm
2. hyun-sau 圈手 || circling arm
3. wu-sau 护手 || guarding arm
4. fuk-sau 伏手 || subduing arm
5. paak-sau 拍手 || clapping arm
6. cho-sau 挫手 || repressing arm
(Although the pronunciation is not exact, this is the closest character I've found to the meaning+pronunciation of so-sau in the Fat-saan dialect, which gam-sau 揿手 || pressing arm is used for in most Hong Kong lineages.)
7. laan-sau 拦手 || barring arm
8. faak-sau 拂手 || whisking arm
9. jam-sau 沉手 || sinking arm
10. jat-sau 窒手 || jerking arm
11. biu-sau 镖手 || darting arm
12. naat-sau 捺手 || descending arm
13. daan-sau 弹手 || springing arm
14. gaang-sau 耕手 || plowing arm
15. bong-sau 膀手 || upper arm
16. seuk-sau 削手 || scraping arm

Cham-kiu:

17. yi-ying-sau 移影手 || center-shifting arm

Biu-ji & Muk-yan-jong:

18. sap-ji-sau 十字手 || (character 10) crossing arm
19. man-sau 问手 || asking arm
20. laap-sau 擸手 || pulling arm

Double arm actions from Cham-kiu, Biu-ji & Muk-yan-jong:

20. jit-sau 截手 || cutting arm (jat-sau + dai-jeung)
21. jaam-sau 斩手 || chopping arm (jam-sau + gaang-sau)
22. kwan-sau 滚手 || rolling arm (taan-sau + bong-sau)

[Eric_H]

In the end, counting techniques is a meaningless exercise.

There is only one technique to WC - leverage and position.

[LaterthanNever]

Thank you all for your replies..

Good point about the energy..( a concept which I feel is not mentioned in enough in all martial arts styles).

If one cannot transmit and absorb energy it's a waste of time..

[Lee Chiang Po]

I can speak of only my own, which I do call Lee Chiang Po Wing Chun Kung Fu. There are only 12 true Sao's in this system. Anything else is going to be variations of these, which do not bare naming. All these are purely defensive, and yet each and every one can have an entire fighting system built up around it. It is the Conceptual part of Wing Chun.
When we practice our Sil Lim, we practice each and every one of these concepts, but we only occasionally apply a palm strike or whatever, but you can add and take from that as you see fit in order to develop these to your best ability to perform. Thus the " Use a little imagination" thing. That is all you have to do. Keeping Sil Lim as traditional from one student to the next is nothing more than an attempt at that very thing. Sil Lim, Chum Kil, and of course, Bil Gee, are all designed to be altered at your own descresion to meet your own needs.
If you keep it simple, you can learn the system very quickly. However, you will not learn it in most modern day kwoons or gyms that teach Wing Chun. You need to be started from absolute scratch from day one and taught properly. Most will start you in an intermediate class and you start learning somewhere in the middle. You usually give up from frustration. They will have you sparring day one before you even know how to punch or defend.

[Yoshiyahu]

Tan Sau, Fook Sau and Bong Sau....Everything else is simply a variation of those three!

Tan is Palm Energy
Fook is Wrist energy
Bong is Elbow energy

[anerlich]

Only one:

http://images.calorieking.com.au/branding/dc/runtime/portionsense/105.jpg

[JPinAZ]

Tan Sau, Fook Sau and Bong Sau....Everything else is simply a variation of those three!

If this is true, which of the 3 categories do techniques like faat sau, biu sau, gaan sau, saat or chum sau fall into? IMO this is an over simplified view and is the result of viewing Wing Chun as a technique based system, which it isn't.


Tan is Palm Energy
Fook is Wrist energy
Bong is Elbow energy

Sorry, but totally disagree.

Tan is typically forearm bridge contact driven by the elbow thru to the finger tips (straight wrist), so it is whole-arm energy.

Fook is wrist contact, but energy is primarily driven from the elbow (but some could argue forearm, wrist only or whole arm energy).

Bong CAN be elbow energy I guess, but not always:
For Ying/Eagle Bong (straight wrist), contact is usually at the wrist, elbow higher than wrist with fwd energy thru the whole arm elbow to fingers, but can be view as elbow driven if not whole-arm.

For Hok/Crane Bong (bent wrist), typically mid forearm/Kiu Sau contact with wrist, elbow and shoulder all on the same horizontal plane, but energy is driven by coiling energy out thru the fingertips on centerline, not elbow.

And if you count laan sau in the bong family, it is wrist energy in application.

But then, these are just general mechanics and I'd have to agree with what Eric said earlier on the subject of counting techniques:


In the end, counting techniques is a meaningless exercise.

There is only one technique to WC - leverage and position.

[Yoshiyahu]

You are correct...its an extremely over simplified view...I agree...If you question was real...Let me reinterate...

Nope I digress..I will basically use your analogy to piggyback off of.

"Tan is typically forearm bridge contact driven by the elbow thru to the finger tips (straight wrist), so it is whole-arm energy.

Fook is wrist contact, but energy is primarily driven from the elbow (but some could argue forearm, wrist only or whole arm energy).

Bong CAN be elbow energy I guess, but not always:
For Ying/Eagle Bong (straight wrist), contact is usually at the wrist, elbow higher than wrist with fwd energy thru the whole arm elbow to fingers, but can be view as elbow driven if not whole-arm."


Is your bil sau or biu sau driven by hand, wrist or whole arm?

In either case we can speak on applications and proper usage and agree or disagree on explanations...But at the end of the day all that really matters in spur of the moment is did I get hit? But i digress again...At the end of the day no matter how you define a technique there will be similiaries to Tan, Fook and Bong...An some techniques will have elements of all of them or two of them...But this is MUTE point. I agree to disagree...just sharing a little of what i believe as concerning my wing chun...As for the


If this is true, which of the 3 categories do techniques like faat sau, biu sau, gaan sau, saat or chum sau fall into? IMO this is an over simplified view and is the result of viewing Wing Chun as a technique based system, which it isn't.



Sorry, but totally disagree.

Tan is typically forearm bridge contact driven by the elbow thru to the finger tips (straight wrist), so it is whole-arm energy.

Fook is wrist contact, but energy is primarily driven from the elbow (but some could argue forearm, wrist only or whole arm energy).

Bong CAN be elbow energy I guess, but not always:
For Ying/Eagle Bong (straight wrist), contact is usually at the wrist, elbow higher than wrist with fwd energy thru the whole arm elbow to fingers, but can be view as elbow driven if not whole-arm.

For Hok/Crane Bong (bent wrist), typically mid forearm/Kiu Sau contact with wrist, elbow and shoulder all on the same horizontal plane, but energy is driven by coiling energy out thru the fingertips on centerline, not elbow.

And if you count laan sau in the bong family, it is wrist energy in application.

But then, these are just general mechanics and I'd have to agree with what Eric said earlier on the subject of counting techniques:

[JPinAZ]

Not mean't as a slam, but I really have no idea what you just said, if you said anything at all (?) maybe you got stuck in your digressed state? :confused:

[Yoshiyahu]

Not mean't as a slam, but I really have no idea what you just said, if you said anything at all (?) maybe you got stuck in your digressed state? :confused:

agree to disagree

[LFJ]

But this is MUTE point.

A "mute" point because you're not really saying anything? :p







I think you mean a "moot" point. ;)

[Yoshiyahu]

i meant a moot point!