3 Seeds of wing chun

[LoneTiger108]

SLT, CK, BG.... the 3 seeds of VT, from these we 'may with the right ideas', grow a mighty tree...not a weedy little shrub of tan bong fok..besides you left out jum.

Hmm you're still missing the point.

Jum is the name of a specific technique. Tan, bong and fook are NOT. It is these three 'seeds' I am referring to, NOT the three forms as the three seeds! Besides, without adopting the seed idea into the forms from the beginning, your tree will be weak imho.

You have to have a creative cycle first too, of which tan, bong, fook is not. Learning how to fight only is also not so creative...

[JPinAZ]

tan wrist ? tsk tsk.

push , pull , redirect....sounds like 'chi-sao heads' ...trying... to explain vt .

try sparring more with VT ...try motion , striking force, tactics.....

Yeah, this was my thinking as well.

IF there are 3 seeds in WC they are:
Evade, control and Destroy.

Kids...*shakes head*.

I like this one, this is more the line of thinking I'd agree with.
Along these lines, I think I'd have to go with: Engage, neutralize and maintain.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I like this one.
I think I'd have to go with: Engage, neutralize and maintain.

I can live with that one too

[k gledhill]

Hmm you're still missing the point.

Jum is the name of a specific technique. Tan, bong and fook are NOT. It is these three 'seeds' I am referring to, NOT the three forms as the three seeds! Besides, without adopting the seed idea into the forms from the beginning, your tree will be weak imho.

You have to have a creative cycle first too, of which tan, bong, fook is not. Learning how to fight only is also not so creative...

this just shows your not doing jum in the beginning of SLT....its there Spencer..just because YOU don't do it ...blame your teacher not me.....jum is Tans opposite in striking .....outside arm/inside arm
each strikes along the line.... EACH, 1 punch followed by another, you need either side of the arm trained to deflect as it strikes ....

your doing moves....

SLT is X along the line , make punch on the line , train punch energy ...tan, huen, jum elbows in, relax elbow out a little do wu sao back, from wu sao release energy from wrist, hand flops down , push elbow out forwards and to the the line, bringing elbow to line ...

tan huen jum SLT how to bring elbows in then how to start using tan elbow spreads off line as it hits, jum elbow goes in as it hits....dan chi, tan strike v jum strike...

What better exercise to develop opposite energies ? one is inside yours ony for a drill ie tan is inside for drilling against jums natural inward energy....

[anerlich]

Judging by some of the responses here, it doesn't sound like these three seeds are going to turn into Jack's beanstalk. More like a thicket of twisted poisonous briars, useless for anything.

Why isn't T on this thread? He seems enjoy protracted and ultimately pointless disputes over minutae.

[LoneTiger108]

Judging by some of the responses here, it doesn't sound like these three seeds are going to turn into Jack's beanstalk. More like a thicket of twisted poisonous briars, useless for anything.

That's the sad thing about this forum sometimes.

Simple discussion turns into an online teaching thread that basically has nothing to do with the initial subject!

SLT is X along the line , make punch on the line , train punch energy ...tan, huen, jum elbows in, relax elbow out a little do wu sao back, from wu sao release energy from wrist, hand flops down , push elbow out forwards and to the the line, bringing elbow to line ...

I have no need to know this, as nothing in my SLT 'flops' anywhere and we're discussing the three seeds. Until this is understood we're going nowhere fast.

The three seeds (I'm talking of!) are anything but useless

[t_niehoff]

We know that there are three families of wing chun; the tan, bong, and fook.

No. There are no "familes" of WCK techniques.

In short these are techniques that use the radial edge, the ulnar edge, and the middle part of the hand / forearm, respectively.

No.

Anyone have any other not so obvious applications using wing chun "seeds"?

Tan, bong, fook comprise the "starting" point of the YKS and YM chi sao training platform (the signature drill/exercise of WCK), hence the reference to "seeds".

Tan, bong, fook -- like all WCK tools -- are actions not shapes. Tan, for example, is the action of spreading, and has nothing to do with any "edge" of your arm.

[k gledhill]

so you 'think' ....doesnt make it so....tan sao doesnt 'leave' the line in SLT or did I miss that part ? for a very fundamentally important reason....I used to do the tan spreads but then learned the error...common among VT'ers ....a drill used in VT uses the tan and jum as we pivot, looks like tan is leaving to do a spreading block...its not. So unless someone explains the system to you , you will think its a 2 arm extended strike n block

Let me know what part of the SLT the tan hand/wrist spreads off the line .....Im waiting.

then try to use it to block a punch and pivot inside the guys arms...its your nose..

Spencer , the lessons arent for you its for guys with open minds.... your a 'follower'

[CFT]

Tan, bong, fook -- like all WCK tools -- are actions not shapes. Tan, for example, is the action of spreading, and has nothing to do with any "edge" of your arm.

Isn't the action of "turning over" the forearm the tan/spreading action?

[t_niehoff]

Isn't the action of "turning over" the forearm the tan/spreading action?

Sure, that's part of the action.

[CFT]

What's the rest of the action?

I think Van's classifications are OK to a point - those are just the contact points though - not the actions. You need both (range and elevation too) to be correct for it to work.

[t_niehoff]

so you 'think' ....doesnt make it so....tan sao doesnt 'leave' the line in SLT or did I miss that part ? for a very fundamentally important reason....I used to do the tan spreads but then learned the error...common among VT'ers ....a drill used in VT uses the tan and jum as we pivot, looks like tan is leaving to do a spreading block...its not. So unless someone explains the system to you , you will think its a 2 arm extended strike n block

There are no lines except in your imagination (do you see any lines?).

Tan (spreading) sao isn't a "block" or deflection or parry -- it is a bridge hand. Bridge hands manipulate the (opponent's) bridge to our advantage.

Too many people believe their ears (when "someone explains the system to you") and not their eyes.

Let me know what part of the SLT the tan hand/wrist spreads off the line .....Im waiting.

Again, there is no line except in your imagination.

A simple ilustration -- have your partner put his right palm on your chest and press. Take your left arm and put it inside/underneath his arm making contact with his wrist and with your thumb facing your chest and your fingers pointed up (which necessitates your elbow being down). Now while keeping your elbow down, rotate your palm upward while moving your hand slightly toward your opponent. Viola! You've just performed a tan sao -- you've used a bridge hand to spread the opponent's bridge to your advantage.

Spencer , the lessons arent for you its for guys with open minds.... your a 'follower'

Any "follower" has a closed mind.

[t_niehoff]

What's the rest of the action?

I think Van's classifications are OK to a point - those are just the contact points though - not the actions. You need both (range and elevation too) to be correct for it to work.

The action comes from the whole body, not just the arm.

[CFT]

^^
OK, that's fine. Thought I was missing something else.

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer , the lessons arent for you its for guys with open minds.... your a 'follower'

Takes one to know one I suppose!

Although I wouldn't class myself a follower these days.

I was a student who 'served' his master, I couldn't disagree with that and in fact I'm very proud of what I accomplished with him too, but now I'm out there (with a brother) researching and coaching as best we can to a very select audience.

I think a mirror is required for that 'closed mind' comment dude, as you seem to be far more closed than I could ever be...