Lan Sao--does it violate the WC law of economy of motion?

[trubblman]

Wing Chun is a pretty lawless town.

Same thing I was thinking. Wing Chun has laws in the same way grammar has laws. People use ungrammatical language quite frequently.

[Happy Tiger]

Same thing I was thinking. Wing Chun has laws in the same way grammar has laws. People use ungrammatical language quite frequently.

And some times, to powerful, effective result!!!

[KPM]

a.) The applications I remember in Chum Kiu are to transition from arm out straight(ie: Biu Ji?) to a right angle over the top of the opponents arm.

--Not exactly how I would describe it. Section One of the form has a transition motion from Bong to Lan with a pivot. The idea I learned was that this represents how to deflect and dissipate force applied to your bridge/forearm. If your arm is out in front and someone is applying force, if the force is more towards your wrist you pivot with Bong to deflect...if the force is more towards your elbow you pivot with Lan to deflect. In this case Bong and Lan are equivalent techniques, just applied in different directions. While there may be a bit of an arc in the motion because you are pivoting, the force is traveling in a straight line as it is deflected away from you. The Lan can also simply represent having your arm in a lower position when an attack comes at you from the side. You have to quickly pivot and lift up and forward with the Bong to "make a bridge" with the incoming attack to deflect it. Again, there is a bit of an arc due to the fact that you are pivoting. But the line of force is still a straight line. Likewise, the Bong could represent having your hands up when at attack suddenly comes from a low position at your side. So you have to quickly pivot and drop your arm down and outward with a Lan to stop it. Same comments apply.

---Section Two of the form starts with a pivot to the side as you thrust the Lan outward. This is most certainly a straight line with no arc at all. It represents pushing someone in close contact away from you to "make space" so you can deliver a follow on strike...in the case of the form it is a kick.

Well..my understanding in my training is that circular movements(ie: roundhouse punch? uppercut?) are not valued due to the fact that circles or semi circles take longer to transmit.

---I think the guiding concept you are referring to is "economy of motion." But this does not say that there are no arcing or circle motions in Wing Chun. After all, a Huen Sau is a circular motion, is it not? If there is an obstacle stopping you, there are two options. You can force yourself past the obstacle using a straight line path. If the resistance you meet is not that great this will work. If not, you are meeting force with force and violating another Wing Chun concept. Your other option is to simply go around the obstacle using an arcing or circular motion. So which is more economical...to blast through using force and a straight line, or to go around using an arc? In the absence of an obstacle, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. So most things in Wing Chun will travel on that straight line to follow the concept of economy of motion. Even then, there are a few exceptions.


c.)I've seen a "wan lan sau" in GM Ip Chuns' writings whereby the lan sau is done with both arms. Therefore, it seems as iif there are two traveling yet superimposed arcs with the arms(one on top of the other).

---In Section One the pivoting action back and forth with the arms out in front in a Lan Sau position is typically considered elbow strikes as well as a way to practice a full pivot to each side and train balance. As more of a "secondary application" one could see each arm being independently applied much like the "pressing" Lan already mentioned.

---Hope that helps!

[Happy Tiger]

The idea of the 'straight' line in VT is kind of an illusion. My VT has little to do with this absolute , total ruling. straight may be the general path. but missing out on all the advatages of curves for stratagy, structure and of course power is a shame.

[Happy Tiger]

The idea of the 'straight' line in VT is kind of an illusion. My VT has little to do with this absolute , total ruling. straight may be the general path. but missing out on all the advatages of curves for stratagy, structure and of course power is a shame.

Rebellion is built right in to the matrix of VT. Those that feel that are the best players

[LaterthanNever]

Thank you Sifu Meyers!

[Robinhood]

Rules are their as guidelines as you are learning, later they disappear if you have progressed enough.

[wingchunIan]

a.) The applications I remember in Chum Kiu are to transition from arm out straight(ie: Biu Ji?) to a right angle over the top of the opponents arm. If I am understanding correctly..the line then becomes the equivalent of a left turn or right turn if one were driving in their car straight and then made a turn around a corner. Well..my understanding in my training is that circular movements(ie: roundhouse punch? uppercut?) are not valued due to the fact that circles or semi circles take longer to transmit.

there are far more applications (and more practical application IMO) of lan sau than this,

b.) In Chum Kiu there is a segment where the defender turns body while arm is in lan sau sideways so the whole body makes a semi circle..presumably to ward off an attack done to either the side or posterior of the torso. Well..doesn't the turn aspect of lan sau(in addition to example "a") listed above violate the "straight line" concept of WC?

not sure on your understanding of the reason for the movements in question but although the body is rotating the elbow is moving forward not round. When recovering from bong to lan the elbow again moves in a straight line
c.)

I've seen a "wan lan sau" in GM Ip Chuns' writings whereby the lan sau is done with both arms. Therefore, it seems as iif there are two traveling yet superimposed arcs with the arms(one on top of the other).

which writings? the two lan saos done at the same time in the form are two single armed actions performed at the same time not some weird two handed version of lan sao.
It sounds like you don't currently have a teacher. If so I'd suggest finding one and going through chum kiu with them. If you do have a teacher then these are questions that he/she should be answering.

[LaterthanNever]

Just curious, did you ask these questions to your SiFu?"

No. I don't currently study WC..but I did do it for a year a while back.

As for asking my sifu? Well, he passed on last year(the late Jesse Glover..first student of Bruce) so there is that problem. I don't ever remember him referring to the moves as "sao" per se..

[KPM]

No. I don't currently study WC..but I did do it for a year a while back.

As for asking my sifu? Well, he passed on last year(the late Jesse Glover..first student of Bruce) so there is that problem. I don't ever remember him referring to the moves as "sao" per se..

I hope you'll seek out another teacher and give Wing Chun another shot. Don't let the attitudes of some of the people around here put you off.

[Graham H]

You should find somebody that knows what they are talking about. For starters all of the above are way off the mark.

[KPM]

You should find somebody that knows what they are talking about. For starters all of the above are way off the mark.

Yeah, sure Graham. I'm sure the only person that knows what he is talking about is Phillip Bayer.

[Graham H]

Yeah, sure Graham. I'm sure the only person that knows what he is talking about is Phillip Bayer.

No he isn't. He has many students.

[Happy Tiger]

You should find somebody that knows what they are talking about. For starters all of the above are way off the mark.

I'm not 'way off'.

[KPM]

No he isn't. He has many students.

Oh. So only PB lineage people know the "real" Wing Chun? Is that it? Still pushing the angle that PB was the only one that learned what WSL really meant to teach? How about you explain to us all how what I wrote was "WAY off the mark"!!!!