Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 91

Thread: Kwan Sau

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by k gledhill View Post
    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.
    .

  2. #17
    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

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by WC1277 View Post
    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

  4. #19
    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 ?

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by k gledhill View Post
    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...

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by WC1277 View Post
    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

    never mind ...

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by k gledhill View Post
    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

    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...

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by WC1277 View Post
    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

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by WC1277 View Post
    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 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 !!
    Last edited by k gledhill; 02-11-2013 at 05:15 PM.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by k gledhill View Post
    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 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 !!
    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!
    Last edited by WC1277; 07-04-2011 at 09:14 PM.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by WC1277 View Post
    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....

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,655
    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?

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    North London, England
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by CFT View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by John Ray Brooks View Post
    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??!
    Ti Fei
    詠春國術

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneTiger108 View Post
    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??!
    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

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,655
    My 'go to' Chinese online dictionary has this for 'kwan':

    http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexi...h.php?q=%AE%B9

    : tie up; bind, truss up; bundle

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •