published technique

[hunt1]

First this post is not intened as a flame.So please dont take it that way.Also I am splitting this question into 2 parts to avoid any appearance of flaming.Responses will determine if i post the 2nd half.

In the latest issue of KungFu Qigong magazine is an article by Philip Ng,I realize you post here Philip and again this is not a critisicm but on honest question.

I believe in the 2nd set of photos the following is shown.Opponent punches with a lead hook/haymaker.The WC person replies by stepping in with a tan sau and intercepting the punch at the elbow/bicep area the other hand punches to the face.This is followed by the punching hand trapping the haymaker hand and the Tan hand palm striking to the face.I have seen this same sequence used as a demonstration by Alan lamb and several others in other Martial Arts magazines over the years.I never paid it much attention until i saw someone from a WC background I respect do it.

My question is, is this a standard response that most have you have been taught somewhere in your WC history?

I know it is just an example but it seems to be a popular example of WC and I find this curious.I believe you fight the way you pracitice

[Wingman]

The techniques described above is practical against a hook/haymaker. I probably would do the same thing under similar conditions. However, there is no such thing as a standard response in wing chun. There are other techniques that are as equally effective against a hook/haymaker.

Not all hooks/haymakers are the same. If the opponent throws the hook/haymaker at a closer distance, I would probably do the technique described above. If the opponent throws the hook/haymaker at a longer distance, I would probably move a little out of range and let him "finish" his haymaker. Then after he has "finished" his haymaker, I charge in and attack.

I will end my post with a quote from Bruce Lee, "Your style is my technique, and your technique is my conclusion".

[whippinghand]

That is an amazingly good question... LOL

[reneritchie]

Hi,

Haven't seen the Mag or Phillip's demo, so can't comment on it, but FWIW, when I learned, Tan Sao was not considered a viable reaction to a hook (due to its path and the nature of its Ging). Like you, however, I have seen lots of other folks doing it this way.

Rgds,

RR

[stuartm]

I have seen a high tan used but i would prefer a high rounded biu sau whilst stepping in. If your punch connects properly then the hook punch is not going to have any power in it anyway.

Its the same principle with a roundhouse kick - you move straight in.

Hooks are something that should be practised regular in any class as it is the one attack that most WC people have problems with. Lut sau jik chung training shoulod also be practised regularly so you can learn to go straightforward when youlose the bridge.

Regards, Stuart

[black and blue]

I was practising this only the other night in class. The guy punching me was one huge son of a b*tch. Much heavier than me, longer reach, pretty fast punches and... much to my discomfort, very heavy punches.

Against a tight hook I found a strong pivoting action with my weight sunk deep in the knees and the willingness to apply a solid tan sau (which needs to relax immediately afterwards)... works well. The risk is being knocked off balance because the strike is heavy, comes in with a swing, and follows an awkward line.

Against a really exaggerated hook, I found it is easier to simply nullify the attack by stepping forward with a fut sau to the throat. The hook sails away behind you and half of his pain is caused by his own forward motion as he runs onto the hand strike.

The thing I came away with... hooks are bast*rds to deal with. There is no one who simply throws a hook. It's always followed up with a jab, another hook, or an uppercut to the chin. IMHO, closing down the distance to restrict the follow up is the key.

I simply love man geng sau in these situations. No one likes having their neck slapped/pulled, pulling them onto a strike.

[hunt1]

I appriciate all the replies so far but i dont want to stray from the question.

I dont want this to be a discussion of how to deal with a hook.there are many ways and not the point i am driving at.

Is the technique shown/described a method commonly taught?


Please look at the whole sequence just not the tan aspect.

Stepping in with a tan may be appropriate under certain conditions what about everything else?

[Frank Exchange]

To our way of thinking, once the first punch has connected, you dont necessarily have to cross over and cover the hook with the punching hand, you would just continue to punch with the other hand. If your hit is solid, as someone else has mentioned, if negates a large amount of his incoming force. You may still get scraped, or even take a bit of a hit, but you will have given two solid ones on his conk.

If you feel exceptionally threatened, then yes, pak if necessary. Otherwise, just hit the bugger.

So, the first part is commonly taught, but we place less emphasis on the follow up cover, and more emphasis on hitting.

[Nichiren]

Frank Exchange: It is a quite common technique in boxing to catch a jab on the forehead to get in a distance to land a hook. With this I mean that there is a risk ignoring the hook if the wrong person is standing in front of you but isn't there always... ;)

[vt108]

"Is the technique shown/described a method commonly taught?"
I'm sure it is. This is one of the best responses to the hook punch. But don't forget that the most important thing in Tan sao is....punch.

"Tan Sao was not considered a viable reaction to a hook"
Really??? In what school? Don't get me wrong but it is very odd to me. What was the better response?

[reneritchie]

vt108 - I learned Sum Nung (Yuen Kay-San) Wing Chun from Ngo Lui-Kay sifu. We tend to use Lan Sao Chung Choi (Barring Arm Thrusting Punch), similar to how I've seen others use/term Biu Sao Chung Kuen (Darting Arm Thrusting Punch).

There should be some pictures of it up at http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung

Rgds,

RR

[whippinghand]

I think that sequence of techniques( tan da to counter a hook) is just meant to be a demonstration sequence to illustrate how "this" typical Wing Chun technique can be used against an "everyday attack" such as the hook.

Tan da is not an appropriate attack for the hook, not inside nor outside.

[Frank Exchange]

Yep, I would never trade a jab for a hook, I have too much respect for boxers!

So, if I do hit like this, I have to really go in to ensure that Im hitting with full body weight. I dont just jab their forehead, but drive the chin up and back, take them off balance, and keep going, the second or third hits are the ones that will do the damage.

And then, of course keep them off balance, so they can't counter.

Personally, I like insults, melvins, custard pies in the face, soda syphons, that sort of thing. :)

[Kuen]

I find myself in agreement with Mr. Hand. :confused:

Besides shouldn't we be concerned with principles as opposed to techniques?

[rubthebuddha]

i've actually been taught to avoid using a tan sau as a block, especially in cases like this. one of the major ideas behind this is if some gigugic (gigantic + huge = gihugic) beast of a man decides to throw that hook, my reasonably strong but still only 5'9" frame isn't going to do too much to it.

so no, i haven't been taught to do that. i've been instructed to steery away from that. but this is a major difference, one that can be discussed on a different thread, between WC and WT. WC seems more concerned with structure and WT (what i study) more with softness. not a statement of right or wrong, but rather one of contrast.

cheers,

-rtb

[Tongue_of_Colibob]

I was always tought to shoot straight in against a hook, and following up with chain punches.

[fa_jing]

Could you please explain the use of the lan sao + punch against the hook? Are you referring to blocking with the elbow side or the hand??
I went to the site but I couldn't find the picture. Sorry if this is off-topic but I tend to block hooks with my face. :(

[reneritchie]

Hi,

No, we make contact with the outer forearm, just past the wrist bone. There's two basic ways it can be done. The first attacks the attacking arm using short force through a Lan Sao. The mechanics are roughly similar to the turning Lan Sao near the beginning over Chum Kiu (after the double Biu Jee), but angled to 'x' the opponent's arm. This can injure an attacking arm (as the punch breaks the balance and finishes the attacker behind it). The second is with a Ngoi Liem (Outer Sickle), which is an outside verticle Fook Sao (opposite of the inside Fook you'd see in Luk Sao Chi Sao matching a Bong Sao). This just makes contact with the opponent's arm, lets them think they're doing what they want to do (so they don't change, which is what clashing force often will 'tell' them to do), and adds or subtracts just enough force to make it ineffective and over or underextend their balance.

Both ways, however, the palm faces down on the intercepting arm.

Rgds,

RR

[CanadianBadAss]

u guys dont use a bong sao? thats the only way I've been taught to deal with a hook. A bong sao that turns into a punch

[cobra]

I'll have to disagree with you on that one. I think that structure and softness are equally important, because when we are "soft", we get our strength from our structure. That's WT! The tan dar is not much different than the way we are taught with the fook sau and punch with the chum kiu step. Of course, if you're on the ball, stepping in and punching is best. I've even heard of one in our lineage using the tan dar against someone throwing a hook in a real situation and severing their bicep. See ya!

Scott

[straightblast5]

Hello Hunt1,

No offense interpreted. Good question, and I will do my best to answer.

First of all, I like to mention that the captions for all the picture sequences were taken out by the editors due to space constrains, but I thought the pictures are pretty self-explanatory.

Second, I know it is nearly impossible to accurately portray the dynamics of a real fight with words and pictures alone, so the article was never intended as such.

As I had stated in my article,
"The following sequences should not be mistaken as a step-by-step guide to defeating particular styles. If so, it would defeat the purpose of this essay. Rather, the following sequences should be viewed as general examples of how Ving Tsun’s principles remain constant no matter the opponent’s fighting methods."

What I had attempted to do with the sequence in question was to illustrate that a Ving Tsun practitioner would respond to an opponent’s attack by attacking or intercepting, rather than slipping or blocking (which we consider passive movements that do not threaten or impede your opponent from continuing their attack).

The sequences included in my article are just general examples, as there are no "standard" or set responses in Ving Tsun. Ving Tsun practitioners will merely take the most direct, simple, and efficient route to incapacitate their opponent. This concept is discussed with greater detail in my article.

To answer your question of “is this a standard response that most of you have been taught somewhere in your WC history?” My response is no, as there are no “standard” or set series of responses in Ving Tsun. Using or not using the Tan Da technique against a hook is something of relative context. It depends how the hook is thrown and where you are in relation to your opponent when the attack is initiated. Sometimes a strike down your opponent’s center is enough to take away his base for further attack, sometimes not. A fight is dynamic, and picture sequences in a magazine definitely are not. However, I thought I did well to warn the reader.

As with any physical activity, it is difficult to describe in words and pictures alone. I wrote the article not as a means to teach Ving Tsun “sequences”, but to introduce the fact that a Ving Tsun practitioner will adhere to the core principles of simplicity, efficiency, and directness under any and all fighting situations.

In short, please try not to dwell on the picture sequences (which are, in essence, "dead") or it would defeat the purpose of my essay.

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[fgxpanzerz]

I've learned this technique of the tan sau blocking a hook punch. I've seen many do this so I guess it's a regular occurence in the wing chun world. A fok sau can be used as well and a bil gee is also good for blocking a hook punch. The metal element as well.

[AndrewP]

Hey Phil,

It was nice to meet you the other night at Sifu Tony's place. He talks about you guys all the time. I'll go later this week and pick up the magazine and read your article then. I'm sure it's good.

See ya,

Andrew

[S.Teebas]

The metal element as well.

I dont know what you mean??... care to expand?

[straightblast5]

Hello Andrew,

It was nice to meet you as well. I'm sure I'll see you again soon. Say hello to your Sifu for me.

Take Care,

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[hunt1]

What is STANDARD? I agree there is no standard response.However i have now seen you Philip,Alan Lamb,Emin Boztepe,Randy Williams to name just a few to use this exact sequence as an illustration of WC.I have seen many others use it as well.You all have different WC backgrounds therefor my comment of standard response.

This sequence as shown if used in a fight is almost guaranteed to get you hit.It also makes very poor use IMHO of WC concepts.

WC motions have a dual nature offense and defense.The exception being when a motion is used to cover an area.If the step in is moving on motion than using the tan as a cover is prefectly acceptable.If he step in begins after the punch begins than the tan should be of a thrusting variety.I prefer a Bil or Wu type of motion but have used tan as well.

The tan should be an attack to the arm if not a covering motion.Limb destruction when closing the gap is part of chum kiu and most clearly used in the sword form.

Another thing that is overlooked is the fighting truth that THE OTHER HAND ALWAYS COMES.The opponents other hand will surely be moving at you once the first attack is stopped.My preference would be to use the first punching arm not to pak trap the already spent hurt hooking arm but to turn to an inside lop sau/fook sau to protect against the other hand.The tan hand turns into an attacing spade hand for example and attacks .Also because the arm has inside position it covers/gives protection vs the opening hook arm.Thus again negating the need to pak/trap this arm.

If an inside lop is used you also achieve the basic goal of opposite energies used at the same time.The lop pulling the opponent one way while the palm stike sends him the other way.This also cleanly opens the pressure points on the neck and side of the head to attack and if one were skiled enough always manipulation of the necessary Dim Mak points in the wrist/arm as well.

Again I understand it is just an illustration but so many from diverse backgrounds seem to think it is a good one to use.Yet from my perspective it is clearly flawed.I consider my explanations above to be basic.There are many possiblities.

[straightblast5]

Hello Hunt1,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as I’m sure they are valid interpretations and work well for you.

However, from what I’ve found to work through my personal experiences (and what I have learned from my instructors), chasing an opponent’s limbs will get me hit more often than if I just focused my efforts to striking down my opponent’s center to nullify his base for generating more attacks. If my strikes to my opponent’s center are well placed, than the Tan Sao would probably be unnecessary. However, the illustration I used in my article assumes that my opponent’s attacking arm (his hook) is already in motion with the intent of knocking me out, so the Tan Sao acts as an interception to check and prevent the strike from continuing on its intended path to even graze me. Regardless of the illustration, my primary objective is to take away my opponent’s ability to effectively attack or counter attack by initiating my own strikes down his center. I apologize if the illustration or my logic in this matter seems flawed.

You also made an interesting comment regarding blade usage. From what I was taught, the concepts governing the bladed weapons are rather different that those governing the fists. For example, though Ving Tsun weapons are based on the structure of the empty-hand technique, weapon-based principles differ from that of the empty hand in important areas. For example, when unarmed (and your opponent is unarmed also), VT concepts encourages us to strike our opponents down their centerline in simple, direct and efficient ways that do not include chasing your opponents’ hands. So despite popular beliefs, VT practitioners do not aim to trap their opponent’s arms in an engagement (unless it is the most simple, efficient, and direct option at the given moment), rather, they will aim to strike and incapacitate their opponent without wasted effort and time. However, when facing an armed opponent with a pair of Bat-Jum-Do (Ving Tsun double blades) in your hands, VT will tell you to attack or actively guard against your opponent's weapon hand(s). The reasons for these discrepancies are simple. The fist is blunt, and if you are able to place in a clean hit to your opponent's center, he will be blasted back to a position that is hard to counter-strike from. With the blades it is different. If you stab or slash someone, he will not be blasted back by an implanted blade. If they are not incapacitated by the strike immediately, they are still in position to strike you back. That is why your opponent's weapon hand is also an important target when using the Bat-Jum-Do. However, chasing your opponent’s limbs during an empty-handed struggle is definitely NOT prescribed in the method of Ving Tsun that I practice.

Once again, thank you for your comments. I will think harder about my methods of illustrating my ideas, so the next time I do so, my ideas will hopefully be presented more clearly.

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[vingtsunstudent]

hunt1
how many times have you used these responses in real situations or how many times has your instructor.(without being rude)
tan punch maybe standard against roundhouse type punches for one reason-it works. i have personally used it more than once & can honestly say that their other limb doesn't come anywhere near striking.
to my knowledge phil was taught or shown this by wong shun leung who fought more than probably most of us on this forum put together.
my sifu was also taught & used these in challenge matches when he fought for wong.
i'd also like to ask how the simultaneous attack & defence of tan punch does not in your opinion go with wing chun concepts.
vts

[whippinghand]

Of course, practically everything can work on someone who doesn't understand martial art.

[hunt1]

straightblast5-I may not have been clear either.I agree I always go to hit my opponent not chase hands.However i fell that if both ahnds go forward both are attacking.Theefore in the example one hits the opponents body the other strikes the limb.I agree with covering ,its just that I believe that whenever contact is made I want to cause damage.


vingstunstudent-pehaps you didnt read my whole post,it was long,I have nothing against the tan punch technique.it is very usefull in some situations.Myquestion have more to do with the follow up techniques.
I have used what i have described more times than I like to admit.It has always worked.
Do not focus on the tan punch its what comes after that will get you hurt if you face a skilled adversary.

[yuanfen]

Excuse the abbreviations-cant keep up with all the AKA-s and the skimpy profiles.
WH is correct that if you have an incompetent opponent things can work. But Blast5(Ng?) is on target IMO. VS is also correct that if you do the tan da with good timing-the power structure for the other hand will be destroyed or weakened. If the other hand comes up you can tan da on the other side to intercept the other hand-if you have the inside line. WSL knew what he was doing with the tan da. Whether the tan da or biu motion is better is a
contextual question...and somewhat technique oriented...the same technique is not for all occasions. Very good chi sao skills trains you to judge the nature of the incoming force- angle, power,
speed etc.As Ng pointed out - in an article one shows a possible scenario in the way of illustration of a principle. Magazines would not publish a 100 different examples of each principle.
So in this case I do not agree with Hunt's critique of the tan da.
Besides a good wc can change a motion at the slightest touch
to control the force- so the tan can easily change to lop da. Of coursea tight short hook should not be underestimated- but practice practice- there is an old wc saying-there is no unstoppable move. Beginners can be frightened by hooks, kicks lots of things. BTW Alan lamb has gone through some major health problems- but in actuality he is a very knowledgeable guy-
though he is ina different lineage from me.

[mun hung]

After looking at the photos I disagree more with the first set of photos than the second. First, I would have to agree with hunt1 that the tan sau should be used as an attacking hand against the attacking limb. It's also in my opinion that if you are going to tan on the inside, it would be wise to expect the second free arm to attack you. Therefore I would'nt waste any further energy on the first arm, but would concentrate instead on covering the open area that the free arm still poses a threat. And whether or not the opponent chooses to strike or not - I would still cover the area that is open to attack and strike with whatever I thought suitable.

IMO - striking to the root/center to weaken a strike against you does'nt always work. Sometimes you can still end up on the losing side of an exchange.

Just different schools of thought, I guess.

[fa_jing]

Thanks Rene, I wanted to PM you to continue the discussion, but yours is not enabled. I was at first confused by your explaination, but now I realize that the technique is very similar to the main block to a hook I learned during my 6 months of studying northern mantis. In mantis, you grab the inside of the elbow or slightly higher on the arm, while using the outside of your forearm against the inside of the forearm of the incoming hook. Your elbow is slightly lower than the opponent's forearm in the vertical plane, while the top of your hand is slightly above the arm in the vertical plane, obviously since your hand is grabbing the opponents arm/elbow. The difference in the lan sao version being that your hand is kept open, palm facing down, apparently resting on the opponents upper arm just above the elbow. Is my assessment correct? I found the Praying Mantis block to be highly effective in stopping a hook, and can visualize that the Lan Sao would be the same. However, this is one of those techniques that is impossible to execute with boxing gloves on, the glove would bounce off of the upper arm and create too much space between yours and the opponent's forearm.
Thanks for the info!
-FJ

[AndrewP]

Hi phil,

Missed you at the school last Thursday. Heard you came again. I read the article. I think it was a very good article. The pictures are okay. Pictures give soooo little information that it shouldn't be argued over. Hey, tell Keith that he looks 20 pounds heavier in the photo. Hope he's doing well. In fact you look a little beefed up in the photo. Photos add so much false weight. See ya!

Andrew