The hands we use...

[BPWT]

In the WSL rant thread :) Graham posted something interesting from a PB article about what some of the Sau motions are for in his teaching.


Yes there is only one Tan Sau. It trains the punch...
Here are some ideas in his own words............

Tan sau trains your punch
Bong sau open the way for striking
Fook sau trains your punch
Pak sau open the way for striking
Kwan sau trains your punch
Tok sau (we dont have)
Poon sau (exchange of force)
Fak sau (striking)
Lap sau (open the way for striking)
Yee gee kim yum ma (training stance .. to conditioning the foot
and knee position for supporting the punch)
Jum sau trains your punch

Which made me think about what we use in our Chi Sau training, and how this might translate to actual use. Of course, it's clear that different lineages do Chi Sau with different reasoning in mind, but in my lineage (as an example), we're looking to learn how to strike whilst dealing with force. The Chi Sau training leads to the Lat Sau training which leads to the sparring, which (one hopes) gives a good foundation for real world use.

So my question is (to anyone, not just the PB guys), when you train Chi Sau and when you train whatever other drills to help you put your WC/VT/WT into real world use, what 'hands' (so to speak) are you using?

I said of the PB training:


Yes, I read that interview with PB, and it's an interesting take on things for sure.

From the list you quote, it makes me think that PB's method really is focused on punching, with only a few of the art's hand/arm movements/motions as support. So primarily: punching, with just pak and lap as main support (with bong used also in the lap sau drill/cycle).

So in my lineage, our Chi Sau training (and here I include the Bong/Lap cycle and its progressions, Poon Sau, our Chi Sau sections, Gor Sau, and so on), and thus also in our Lat Sau training, we look to understand and learn how to use (often based on handling force), the following:

Tan Sau Bong Sau Fook Sau Wu Sau Man Sau Kau Sau Jum Sau
Gaun Sau Gwat Sau Jut Sau Huen Sau Pak Sau Lan Sau Tok Sau
Tie Sau Gum Sau Kwan Sau Biu Sau

Plus, of course, the various striking techniques using the hands, feet, knees, elbows, shoulder.

[k gledhill]

Left out the most important one ; )
The punch.

[BPWT]

:eek::eek::eek::eek: That sure is a lot of sau's to...er.. use.

All the things from the forms, you know ;) (some of which have an obvious use, some of which perhaps are more conceptual, some training devices that also include conceptual use and obvious application).


Left out the most important one ; )
The punch.

Of course :) But that's a strike with the hand (closed hand) :)

[guy b.]

Why ask the question about drills rather than fighting?

[BPWT]

Why ask the question about drills rather than fighting?

Just because if you can't use these things in drills (set drills, free-flowing drills based off of cycles, etc), you probably won't be able to use them in fighting either.

We start with drills, to aid us in our fighting.

[BPWT]

Right.... To have ready to apply against all the possible moves the other guy might do eh?

I wouldn't say "to apply against all possible moves", as this implies technique against technique - which most lineages would say is wrong.

I'd rather say it is to help you understand how to deal with different force (direction of force, amount of force) and the varying positions that lead to this and come from this.

[BPWT]

Well.... Good luck with that :)

Ummm... thanks (I think). :D

So, what do you use in your training? From the PB clips, I see a lot of Pak Sau and punch. Lots of Wu Sau, some Bong Sau, some Lap.

What else do you guys train in class (in Chi Sau or whatever other training)?

Tell me about your hands!!! :D

[guy b.]

Just because if you can't use these things in drills (set drills, free-flowing drills based off of cycles, etc), you probably won't be able to use them in fighting either.

We start with drills, to aid us in our fighting.

Why do you assume that what you do in drills is directly transferable to fighting?

[BPWT]

We certinly don't have anywhere near the variety of stuff you guys do.

In comparison, I'm sure you would be quite bored with the simplistic approach of WSLPBVT. :)

http://www.northwalesvingtsun.com/North_Wales_Ving_Tsun/Philipp_Bayer_Articles/Entries/2012/12/17_Basics.html

Well, everything should start simple :) But working the basics is never really that boring, I think (if you're working them with a partner).

Thanks for the link - interesting read... but don't understand PB's take on WT at all. ;) We spend far more time hitting wall bags, heavy bags, pads and partners wearing pads than we do hitting the 'air'. Though punching the air does have its place too.

Edit: I'm forever forgetting to pack the chest protector we often use in training. My chest is constantly bruised as a result - when I go the gym I have to wear t-shirts rather than a vest for fear of looking like I get mugged countless times a week.

[BPWT]

Why do you assume that what you do in drills is directly transferable to fighting?

The drills start off light and set (following a pattern), and then progress to using more force (hitting harder) and being less set (being free to move off in whatever direction is needed - that is to say, outside of what was previously the set pattern).

The aim is train this in a way that becomes transferable to fighting (as much as is possible of course).

But you have to start somewhere. If you taught a beginner how to punch (the technical punching method in your system), and then said "Now try to fight with it," the results would be, well, not so good.

Better to start the beginner with how to punch, and then get them working on drills that incorporate timing, intercepting, footwork, distancing, etc... and then see how they do in a more open setting.

But... tell me about your hands! :D Which do you train within your CS, for example?

[Shads]

Why do you assume that what you do in drills is directly transferable to fighting?

If your drills don't translate to fighting then what the fcuk are you doing them for:confused: let me guess its abstract:rolleyes:

[JPinAZ]

Ummm... thanks (I think). :D

So, what do you use in your training? From the PB clips, I see a lot of Pak Sau and punch. Lots of Wu Sau, some Bong Sau, some Lap.

What else do you guys train in class (in Chi Sau or whatever other training)?

Tell me about your hands!!! :D

I think this can be one problem with watching videos online - people sometimes only focus on shapes and techniques and not catch what's most important: things like strategy, tactics, body methods/mechanics, etc.

I often times run class where I don't mention ANY techniques except maybe what kind of attack your partner is throwing. But, I do mention things like reference points, leverage, centerline occupation, gate & box theories, descriptions of body mechanics, facing, etc.

Sure, I have to give descriptors for shapes when asked, like 'this is a tan for disapating pressure on the bridge', or '5-line pak sau' or 'use biu jong sau to occupy space on center'. But like in my examples, everytime I have to give a technique name, I stress the concept behind the tool so they don't focus only on the tool. I do this because I've learned that the more I talk about the shapes/techniques, the more the student focuses on only that and start thinking in terms of 'doing moves' vs. understanding and focusing on what's really important - the core principles/concepts of WC. Similar to when people watch clips on youtube, see what techniques are being used and then ask what 'hands' people focus on in class. :p (sorry, couldn't resist)

Simple answer: all of them and none of them. But then, that's not really a simple answer either ;)

[k gledhill]

So after I stopped laughing , still laughing !! Are these your hands in chi sao ? ; )

http://youtu.be/faDIYG6QZsY

[LFJ]

so after i stopped laughing , still laughing !! Are these your hands in chi sao ? ; )

http://youtu.be/fadiyg6qzsy

ROFL :D

rofl

[lance]

If your drills don't translate to fighting then what the fcuk are you doing them for:confused: let me guess its abstract:rolleyes:

Shads , this guys all have their own way of doing chi sau , chi sau is the wing chun version of pushing hands like in tai chi , the difference is that tai chi you would push against eachother , that ' s why its called pushing hands for tai chi . Trying to push our partners off balance , but in return our partners can disolve our pushing and send the power back to us and we send it back vise versa .

Chi Sau we roll as we are doing chi sau both clock wise and counter wise , during those rolls we can attempt to throw our partners off balance by trapping their hands , and apply hand strikes to any part of their upperbody like face , chest , or we can just choose to throw our partners off balance . By using our hands and arms .

And the way they ' re explaining their own way of doing chi sao is confusing , to me a punch is a punch . For chi sao the bong , taun , fook is used , if you know your wing chun hand strikes you can use it too .

Shads , if you ' re training in WC now ? Use what your sifu has taught you . Some of these WC hand techniques taun , bong , fook , downward and cross pak sao , bil jee , low bong , kwan sao , are all used for certain defensive moves , while the vertical fist , back fist , vertical , horizontal , downward palm , bil jee , side of the hand , elbows , knees , as you know is used for striking . bil jee as an example can be used for blocking and jabbing at your opponents eyes or any weak spots .
If you know your WC kicks too , you should have no problem .

The Sil Lum Tao , Chum Kiu , and Bil Jee all have different qualities and techniques , design for anybody to learn and use if they need to . But like any other martial arts system or style practice is the mainthing . People can make people confusing so if you know the WC hand defensive techniques , striking techniques , kicks , and how to use elbows and knees , you should have no problem . So if you know WC in and out you should be able to know what I ' m really talking about .

[BPWT]

So after I stopped laughing , still laughing !! Are these your hands in chi sao ? ; )

http://youtu.be/faDIYG6QZsY

Well, I can't comment on the Italian lovers in the lake... :)

But the WT in the clip is primarily just working Bong, Lap and Punch (so not an attempt to use all the hands). The point of the drill, in this case, is to do it at speed - to get you to 'touch and go'. It is simply a drill/exercise for reaction.

So it takes one of the ideas behind Bong, and gets you to play with it without the 'prolonged contact' that people sometimes feel, incorrectly IMO, is in Chi Sau. So just one drill (actually, just a part of a drill) and done in a particular way.

Here's a clip that shows a slower, more teaching-based approach, to using some WT ideas in Bong/Lap. And these included a few "add ins" to get you playing with a few different 'hands'. This type of drill will also be ramped up once you've got the basics down.

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

And little more detail here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTxsd9CRKQ

[BPWT]

I think this can be one problem with watching videos online - people sometimes only focus on shapes and techniques and not catch what's most important: things like strategy, tactics, body methods/mechanics, etc.

I often times run class where I don't mention ANY techniques except maybe what kind of attack your partner is throwing. But, I do mention things like reference points, leverage, centerline occupation, gate & box theories, descriptions of body mechanics, facing, etc.


Yes, I agree. :)

I simply mention the 'hands' as this is a way we can talk online and reference something particular. So I was saying the training is really about understanding how to deal with different force (direction of force, amount of force) and the varying positions that lead to this and come from this. (so yes, strategy, tactics, body methods and mechanics, etc, are a part of this).

[Shads]

Shads , this guys all have their own way of doing chi sau , chi sau is the wing chun version of pushing hands like in tai chi , the difference is that tai chi you would push against eachother , that ' s why its called pushing hands for tai chi . Trying to push our partners off balance , but in return our partners can disolve our pushing and send the power back to us and we send it back vise versa .

Chi Sau we roll as we are doing chi sau both clock wise and counter wise , during those rolls we can attempt to throw our partners off balance by trapping their hands , and apply hand strikes to any part of their upperbody like face , chest , or we can just choose to throw our partners off balance . By using our hands and arms .

And the way they ' re explaining their own way of doing chi sao is confusing , to me a punch is a punch . For chi sao the bong , taun , fook is used , if you know your wing chun hand strikes you can use it too .

Shads , if you ' re training in WC now ? Use what your sifu has taught you . Some of these WC hand techniques taun , bong , fook , downward and cross pak sao , bil jee , low bong , kwan sao , are all used for certain defensive moves , while the vertical fist , back fist , vertical , horizontal , downward palm , bil jee , side of the hand , elbows , knees , as you know is used for striking . bil jee as an example can be used for blocking and jabbing at your opponents eyes or any weak spots .
If you know your WC kicks too , you should have no problem .

The Sil Lum Tao , Chum Kiu , and Bil Jee all have different qualities and techniques , design for anybody to learn and use if they need to . But like any other martial arts system or style practice is the mainthing . People can make people confusing so if you know the WC hand defensive techniques , striking techniques , kicks , and how to use elbows and knees , you should have no problem . So if you know WC in and out you should be able to know what I ' m really talking about .
WTF?????? how does your post relate in any way to my previous post????:eek:

[GlennR]

So after I stopped laughing , still laughing !! Are these your hands in chi sao ? ; )

http://youtu.be/faDIYG6QZsY

Thats pretty funny...... how did you get PB and LT in a lake at the same time??

[BPWT]

Thats pretty funny...... how did you get PB and LT in a lake at the same time??

They told LT there was a new franchise opportunity there, and they told PB he'd learn the secret to using more than just Pak Da.

:eek::D:D

Larry.

[GlennR]

They told LT there was a new franchise opportunity there, and they told PB he'd learn the secret to using more than just Pak Da.

:eek::D:D

Larry.

Bwahahahahahhahahah!

[tc101]

In the WSL rant thread :) Graham posted something interesting from a PB article about what some of the Sau motions are for in his teaching.



Which made me think about what we use in our Chi Sau training, and how this might translate to actual use. Of course, it's clear that different lineages do Chi Sau with different reasoning in mind, but in my lineage (as an example), we're looking to learn how to strike whilst dealing with force. The Chi Sau training leads to the Lat Sau training which leads to the sparring, which (one hopes) gives a good foundation for real world use.

So my question is (to anyone, not just the PB guys), when you train Chi Sau and when you train whatever other drills to help you put your WC/VT/WT into real world use, what 'hands' (so to speak) are you using?

I said of the PB training:



So in my lineage, our Chi Sau training (and here I include the Bong/Lap cycle and its progressions, Poon Sau, our Chi Sau sections, Gor Sau, and so on), and thus also in our Lat Sau training, we look to understand and learn how to use (often based on handling force), the following:

Tan Sau Bong Sau Fook Sau Wu Sau Man Sau Kau Sau Jum Sau
Gaun Sau Gwat Sau Jut Sau Huen Sau Pak Sau Lan Sau Tok Sau
Tie Sau Gum Sau Kwan Sau Biu Sau

Plus, of course, the various striking techniques using the hands, feet, knees, elbows, shoulder.

Here is what I learned and when I say learned I do not mean told but what I have observed to be true though my own experience.

A lot of the problems I see in these discussions come from not looking at things fom a fighting perspective but from a practice perspective which is this is what and how I practice so it must be like that when I fight. Things do not work that way.

When you fight you are going to either be on the outside or the inside, and the tactics and techniques are different for each. For example when on the outside GENERALLY you want to use one hand techniques and not throw both hands into action like simul blocks and strikes with a tan da or guan da or whatever. Those are very difficult and risky to pull off and leave you exposed. The mun sau as taught with a leading and a rear guarding hand references wing chun on the outside. There are exceptions to the general rule including if the opponent telegraphs or is slow or you use the two hands to wedge in.

On the inside GENERALLY you want and need to use both hands at the same time. This is where the simul blocks and strikes work, where bridging actions and controls are used and so forth.

I often see wing chun inside tactics and techniques demonstrated and taught when the practitioner is on the outside. Then they try to make those things work in sparring, finds they do not work, and throw the baby out.

Chi sau is a drill or practice that references wing chun on the inside because here it comes here it comes when you do chi sau you ARE on the inside. As I learned wing chun the preference range was on the inside and in the pocket so we had chi sau to practice inside and a drill called dop sau which was practice using wing chun outside techniques and tactics to get inside or what some call closing or bridging the gap. I saw a A Fong video where he had a similar drill but he called it mun sau drill. A rose though is still a rose.

PB seems to focus his system mainly on outside wing chun tactics and techniques. Nothing wrong with that.

[Yoshiyahu]

I agree, very very good response...


Here is what I learned and when I say learned I do not mean told but what I have observed to be true though my own experience.

A lot of the problems I see in these discussions come from not looking at things fom a fighting perspective but from a practice perspective which is this is what and how I practice so it must be like that when I fight. Things do not work that way.

When you fight you are going to either be on the outside or the inside, and the tactics and techniques are different for each. For example when on the outside GENERALLY you want to use one hand techniques and not throw both hands into action like simul blocks and strikes with a tan da or guan da or whatever. Those are very difficult and risky to pull off and leave you exposed. The mun sau as taught with a leading and a rear guarding hand references wing chun on the outside. There are exceptions to the general rule including if the opponent telegraphs or is slow or you use the two hands to wedge in.

On the inside GENERALLY you want and need to use both hands at the same time. This is where the simul blocks and strikes work, where bridging actions and controls are used and so forth.

I often see wing chun inside tactics and techniques demonstrated and taught when the practitioner is on the outside. Then they try to make those things work in sparring, finds they do not work, and throw the baby out.

Chi sau is a drill or practice that references wing chun on the inside because here it comes here it comes when you do chi sau you ARE on the inside. As I learned wing chun the preference range was on the inside and in the pocket so we had chi sau to practice inside and a drill called dop sau which was practice using wing chun outside techniques and tactics to get inside or what some call closing or bridging the gap. I saw a A Fong video where he had a similar drill but he called it mun sau drill. A rose though is still a rose.

PB seems to focus his system mainly on outside wing chun tactics and techniques. Nothing wrong with that.

[LaRoux]

Chi sao teaches fighting techniques that are only utilized in non-sporting, life and death situations in which there are no video recording capabilities around. If it is a sporting event, or not a life and death situation, or a video is recording it, the principles learned in chi sao cannot be performed in fighting situations.

[lance]

WTF?????? how does your post relate in any way to my previous post????:eek: Shads , I ' m explaining to you the way WC is ?
WTF do you think I was explaining to you ??? WTF are you really doing on this thread ??? You criticize the other people on this thread ? You more confusing you don ' t know a **** thing about WC , I know about WC because I do it .
Don ' t be a WC wannabe you ' ll get into trouble ? But I won ' t waste my time on wannabes like you ?

[trubblman]

I dont think Tan Sau (only ) trains the punch. What a tan sau is to me: it takes the line, it's an entry, its a limb break ( in conjunction with another hand ), it releases a wrist grab, it redirects a strike, it transforms to a push or a strike. To say Tan Sau trains the punch means you have already placed a limit on your VT in my humble opinion. Besides if Tan Sau trains a punch, why are there punches in the form?

[wtxs]

I dont think Tan Sau (only ) trains the punch. What a tan sau is to me: it takes the line, it's an entry, its a limb break ( in conjunction with another hand ), it releases a wrist grab, it redirects a strike, it transforms to a push or a strike. To say Tan Sau trains the punch means you have already placed a limit on your VT in my humble opinion. Besides if Tan Sau trains a punch, why are there punches in the form?

How dare you go against the popular believe!:p

[GlennR]

I dont think Tan Sau (only ) trains the punch. What a tan sau is to me: it takes the line, it's an entry, its a limb break ( in conjunction with another hand ), it releases a wrist grab, it redirects a strike, it transforms to a push or a strike. To say Tan Sau trains the punch means you have already placed a limit on your VT in my humble opinion. Besides if Tan Sau trains a punch, why are there punches in the form?

Very well put.......... now prepare for a PB boy frenzied attack! ;)

[Graham H]

Whatever Glenn. You know as much as them. It's understandable

[GlennR]

Whatever Glenn. You know as much as them. It's understandable

Gee, the frenzied attack took 30 seconds................ youre late!

[JPinAZ]

Tan trains the elbow for the punch.

I'm confused, I always thought the punch trains the mechanics for the punch... so much for WC being simple and efficient ;)

[k gledhill]

Tan trains the elbow for the punch.


I'm confused, I always thought the punch trains the mechanics for the punch... so much for WC being simple and efficient ;)

Many are too. You can't see a conditioned punch in vt. That's what all the abstract ideas do. They redefine your punch from its original state into a multitasking action with drills to enable it to function at speed with power and angles on both sides of either leading arm. After a while the punch is just a punch again. But that middle part many never understand because they can't see it in clips or have coaching hands on. It's not secret or exclusive , best etc... Just not easy to be made clear by words alone because we all have varied ideas about tan / Jum. Instead of tan defining a portion of the arm used and elbow to define it in drills. Same with fook/ Jum another side of a punching arm / elbow unity.

[k gledhill]

I dont think Tan Sau (only ) trains the punch. What a tan sau is to me: it takes the line, it's an entry, its a limb break ( in conjunction with another hand ), it releases a wrist grab, it redirects a strike, it transforms to a push or a strike. To say Tan Sau trains the punch means you have already placed a limit on your VT in my humble opinion. Besides if Tan Sau trains a punch, why are there punches in the form?

Abstract ideas aren't very clear because we can't see them as a tangible action like your list.

[JPinAZ]

Many are too. You can't see a conditioned punch in vt. That's what all the abstract ideas do. They redefine your punch from its original state into a multitasking action with drills to enable it to function at speed with power and angles on both sides of either leading arm. After a while the punch is just a punch again. But that middle part many never understand because they can't see it in clips or have coaching hands on. It's not secret or exclusive , best etc... Just not easy to be made clear by words alone because we all have varied ideas about tan / Jum. Instead of tan defining a portion of the arm used and elbow to define it in drills. Same with fook/ Jum another side of a punching arm / elbow unity.

I don't mean this as a slam, but I have no idea what you are going on about. Is this more of that abstract thought process? :confused: Again, why over complicate things? If you want to train a punch, practice punching with proper mechanics & body methods and be done with it!


Just not easy to be made clear by words alone

Lol, can't argue with you there

[k gledhill]

I don't mean this as a slam, but I have no idea what you are going on about. Is this more of that abstract thought process? :confused: Again, why over complicate things? If you want to train a punch, practice punching with proper mechanics & body methods and be done with it!



Lol, can't argue with you there

Yes it's abstract, trying to explain it without hands on is confusing. Can't blame you ; )

[LFJ]

Yes it's abstract, trying to explain it without hands on is confusing. Can't blame you ; )

Can probably blame you though.

[k gledhill]

Can probably blame you though.

For what ?

[LFJ]

Not being able to explain your method.

There are plenty of example videos of PB doing his thing online and other resources that can be drawn from. It's easy to point to the ideas being used to compliment your explanation as if in person and then not use overly vague expressions that obscure your message when you do so.

There's no need to for condescension telling people they just can't understand, it's too "abstract". It's just that you are unable to clearly explain your method. If that's the case you don't know it deeply enough to be a teacher... imo

[BPWT]

A few hand techniques that are not, strictly speaking, often found in WC/VT/WT, but pretty useful nonetheless :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSNe2kIQKc&list=PLH5ufC2Hs5xhBKgMcPCqVcv7Ibz2MbHgj

[Graham H]

Not being able to explain your method.

There are plenty of example videos of PB doing his thing online and other resources that can be drawn from. It's easy to point to the ideas being used to compliment your explanation as if in person and then not use overly vague expressions that obscure your message when you do so.

There's no need to for condescension telling people they just can't understand, it's too "abstract". It's just that you are unable to clearly explain your method. If that's the case you don't know it deeply enough to be a teacher... imo

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! :D

You now think that just because you don't understand it, it's because Kev can't teach or explain it properly? :D :eek:

There is no problem with Kevs explanations. I understand him perfectly. Like I keep saying time and time and time and time and time again, the problem here is with you not us! The reason is because you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

I wonder if this will be the longest thread ever? If it is you still won't have a clue by the end :D

[LFJ]

I didn't say I can't understand. And the only reason you do is because you're from the same school. So you know what he's talking about beforehand. I'm familiar with WSLVT and I'm sure it could be explained more clearly so that people outside our lineage can understand. Kevin is just not very gifted in this department. That or he purposefully obscures his message in order to seem like he has something great that other people are unable to understand, but he's making it that way.

[k gledhill]

Not being able to explain your method.

There are plenty of example videos of PB doing his thing online and other resources that can be drawn from. It's easy to point to the ideas being used to compliment your explanation as if in person and then not use overly vague expressions that obscure your message when you do so.

There's no need to for condescension telling people they just can't understand, it's too "abstract". It's just that you are unable to clearly explain your method. If that's the case you don't know it deeply enough to be a teacher... imo

It's a hands on process , iow I need to explain by actions and exchanges. You think you can learn from a DVD. A boxing coach shows a jab to a new boxer, a hook can explained but the use and timing distances , elbow angles need hands on coaching. Like trying to describe an apple online has its limits.

[BPWT]

It's a hands on process , iow I need to explain by actions and exchanges. You think you can learn from a DVD. A boxing coach shows a jab to a new boxer, a hook can explained but the use and timing distances , elbow angles need hands on coaching. Like trying to describe an apple online has its limits.

For sure, hands-on is important to learn how things are really used.

But it shouldn't be necessary to describe something to people who study the same art (either via another WSL lineage or via Yip Man Wing Chun outside of the WSL lineage).

You're a VT guy talking to other VT guys. People might disagree with your ideas or conclusions, but it should be possible for you to accurately convey those ideas and conclusions.

[k gledhill]

For sure, hands-on is important to learn how things are really used.

But it shouldn't be necessary to describe something to people who study the same art (either via another WSL lineage or via Yip Man Wing Chun outside of the WSL lineage).

You're a VT guy talking to other VT guys. People might disagree with your ideas or conclusions, but it should be possible for you to accurately convey those ideas and conclusions.

But the process is everything, iow I have to to have you in person like old Kung fu was done , face to face , not YouTube : )
Another hurdle is word association and actions, what you have now as tan, for example, will be, to you, a chi sao hand, a block , a wrist escape , etc...
I have to , hands on strike and use the techniques along with tactical explanations in a fighting scenario. Like a boxing coach shows timing to use an action or walks up to you and places arms a certain way rather than talking for five minutes. ( or typing ) ; )

[LFJ]

I have to , hands on strike and use the techniques along with tactical explanations in a fighting scenario.

Or you could make up for that by showing parts of PB's clips where he's showing the same thing you're trying to express. Then use a few simple words to explain. Really not that hard. It would be like students crowded around to watch and listen to your explanation on one student in class. Really not that hard to do. People might then need hands-on aid in putting it to practice, but your meaning should have been expressed quite clearly. Would you like me to demonstrate as an example? :p

[k gledhill]

Or you could make up for that by showing parts of PB's clips where he's showing the same thing you're trying to express. Then use a few simple words to explain. Really not that hard. It would be like students crowded around to watch and listen to your explanation on one student in class. Really not that hard to do. People might then need hands-on aid in putting it to practice, but your meaning should have been expressed quite clearly. Would you like me to demonstrate as an example? :p

I have member only tutorial clips, loads. But we deliberately don't put them up with explanations.


Knock yourself out ; ).

[trubblman]

Abstract ideas aren't very clear because we can't see them as a tangible action like your list.

Not sure what you mean by abstract ideas arent very clear because we cannot see them. Must be a martial arts thing. Take algebra, the distributive property. a(b + c) = ab + ac. It's an abstract idea but I clearly understand what it means. When one cannot explain abstract ideas clearly and succinctly, it's probably stuff and nonsense. ( That's my paraphrasing Einstein who people would say clearly explained a complex abstract idea or two in his day )

However I can tell you that I have seen ( not in person in video ) WSL and his student Gary Lam also used a tan sau as a release from a wrist grab. It's very simple. Its not the only use, just one. Same thing as with other VT hands. They are tools but they are more than just one-use tools.

My sifu who has ten plus years in Baltimore City corrections has shown me various ways VT hands can be used, apart from punching.

[k gledhill]

Not sure what you mean by abstract ideas arent very clear because we cannot see them. Must be a martial arts thing. Take algebra, the distributive property. a(b + c) = ab + ac. It's an abstract idea but I clearly understand what it means. When one cannot explain abstract ideas clearly and succinctly, it's probably stuff and nonsense. ( That's my paraphrasing Einstein who people would say clearly explained a complex abstract idea or two in his day )

Cool, Einstein would have understood vt , ; )

[BPWT]

I'm beginning to think that when PB students use the term 'abstract idea' it is simply a way of explaining away something that is in the VT system for everyone else, but not actually used in PB VT. :)

i.e., Tan Sau and Fook Sau. Outside of Poon Sau you don't use them as Tan and Fook (dispersing or covering) and so for you they become an 'abstract idea' for something else - a primary function that was mentioned elsewhere. So Tan and Fook, for you guys, simply become a method for training the elbow - but only a method for training the elbow.

And so returning to the original point of the thread, it means (I think) that you actually use a very limited number of WC/VT/WT's 'hands'.

From the videos you guys post, mostly we see punching, Pak Sau and Bong Sau (supported with Wu Sau) and combined with angling and footwork.

Would it be fair to say that?

That PB VT works almost exclusively with these four things:

Punching
Bong
Pak
Wu

[k gledhill]

I'm beginning to think that when PB students use the term 'abstract idea' it is simply a way of explaining away something that is in the VT system for everyone else, but not actually used in PB VT. :)

i.e., Tan Sau and Fook Sau. Outside of Poon Sau you don't use them as Tan and Fook (dispersing or covering) and so for you they become an 'abstract idea' for something else - a primary function that was mentioned elsewhere. So Tan and Fook, for you guys, simply become a method for training the elbow - but only a method for training the elbow.

And so returning to the original point of the thread, it means (I think) that you actually use a very limited number of WC/VT/WT's 'hands'.

From the videos you guys post, mostly we see punching, Pak Sau and Bong Sau (supported with Wu Sau) and combined with angling and footwork.

Would it be fair to say that?

That PB VT works almost exclusively with these four things:

Punching
Bong
Pak
Wu


You're on the right track. Lin sil di da. Loi Lau Hoi sung lat sao Jik chun baby !
Delivered like lightning from a mountain.

[trubblman]

You're on the right track. Lin sil di da. Loi Lau Hoi sung lat sao Jik chun baby !
Delivered like lightning from a mountain.

Sounds like chain punch city to me...ugh

[anerlich]

Lightning doesn't come from mountains.

[Wayfaring]

They were all in love with dying
They were drinking from a fountain
That was pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain