Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 122

Thread: Is the modern Wck structure and chi sau a problem in reality?

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    The original tan sau is not the high tan sau.
    The original tan sau is the type of tan sau as shown in the above video clip in my previous post
    Well, that's the Tan Sau I've been doing for years! The height varies depending on the application and need. I really don't see the need to give it a different name if I end up using it higher than shoulder level.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    So you can fight without moving your feet. That's amazing!
    That's not what he's saying. Don't you understand the stages of development? You learn a body dynamic and power expression before you ever even take a step. But wait, maybe you don't do that in your Wing Chun?

  3. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    So you can fight without moving your feet. That's amazing!
    Feet dynamic on seven bows force flow handling doesn't have to step out, and it doesn't mean stand still. There are x y z axis and straight or spiral handling action and reaction force dynamic as in the attach photo.

    At close body short strike art, one stick into the opponent body, without those micro feet movement dynamic how is a short strike art suppose to work without force flow axis develop?



    If one doesn't develop the seven bows, force flow, and the dynamic axis, what does one develop in snt?
    Just moving arm around in a limited range in that lock up stance which break ones body into two parts?
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Hendrik; 04-22-2014 at 10:31 AM.

  4. #109
    [QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1265892] However I feel turning away from the facing principle, not in side body but completely away, and having two of my hands and even entire body committed to one of the opponent's arm to be far from applying wing chun principles.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Navin our understanding and perceptions are different on this point and that is ok with me.. The two hands are committed to controlling the other person not just one arm.

  5. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    Well, that's the Tan Sau I've been doing for years! The height varies depending on the application and need. I really don't see the need to give it a different name if I end up using it higher than shoulder level.

    Tan is a chest horizontal forward with spiral movement.

    Zhao yang is a ~ 45(? )degree forward and upward movement .

    Different force flow type.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Tan is a chest horizontal forward with spiral movement.

    Zhao yang is a ~ 45(? )degree forward and upward movement .

    Different force flow type.
    Ok. Yes. That makes sense. Thanks!

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, canada
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    1
    [QUOTE=Vajramusti;1265928]
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    However I feel turning away from the facing principle, not in side body but completely away, and having two of my hands and even entire body committed to one of the opponent's arm to be far from applying wing chun principles.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Navin our understanding and perceptions are different on this point and that is ok with me..
    Agreed Joy! but that's the great thing in a discussion forum

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajramusti View Post
    The two hands are committed to controlling the other person not just one arm.
    The question is would sifu Fong attempt such a technique in a real life or death situation, I highly doubt that, I think he was just playing around to make the footage more flashy and interesting. The problem I see with such techniques is that it would take way to long to recover if the opponent counter's it, you would end up in a bad position, and won't be able to recover in time before being hit. The principles of wing chun are there to protect us by keeping our movements simple direct and economical when followed. Of course there are always exceptional individuals who can pull things off that most of us can't such as a Muhammed Ali or Bruce Lee, perhaps sifu Fong is such an individual.

  8. #113
    [QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1265932]
    Quote Originally Posted by Vajramusti View Post

    Agreed Joy! but that's the great thing in a discussion forum



    The question is would sifu Fong attempt such a technique in a real life or death situation, I highly doubt that, I think he was just playing around to make the footage more flashy and interesting. The problem I see with such techniques is that it would take way to long to recover if the opponent counter's it, you would end up in a bad position, and won't be able to recover in time before being hit. The principles of wing chun are there to protect us by keeping our movements simple direct and economical when followed. Of course there are always exceptional individuals who can pull things off that most of us can't such as a Muhammed Ali or Bruce Lee, perhaps sifu Fong is such an individual.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Navin-he is showing development of TIMING....the technique is not the most important thing.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Tan is a chest horizontal forward with spiral movement.

    Zhao yang is a ~ 45(? )degree forward and upward movement .

    Different force flow type.
    Only for your snake+crane wing chun maybe - but for mine this is utter nonsense.
    Again, this is the downfall of those that no longer practice or apply thier WC with a partner, their 'conclusions' are not based on actual experience - only guesswork and conjecture.
    Last edited by JPinAZ; 04-22-2014 at 01:27 PM.
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, canada
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    Only for your snake+crane wing chun maybe - but for mine this is utter nonsense.
    Again, this is the downfall of those that no longer practice or apply thier WC with a partner, their 'conclusions' are not based on actual experience - only guesswork and conjecture.

    It's not only guesswork and conjecture, Hendrik has done his homework. Before even meeting Hendrik i knew in YKSWC Tan sau is also a chest horizontal forward with spiral movement. same in Kulo side body boxing, Same in Yik Kam wing chun and snake crane wing chun. I suspect the same in PFLWC. do you see a pattern here lol.

    When tan sau is done above chest level without the spiral horizontal forward movement, it does not function the same way.
    Last edited by kung fu fighter; 04-22-2014 at 01:47 PM.

  11. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    It's not only guesswork and conjecture, Hendrik has done his homework. Before even meeting Hendrik i knew in YKSWC Tan sau is also a chest horizontal forward with spiral movement. same in Kulo side body boxing, Same in Yik Kam wing chun and snake crane wing chun. I suspect the same in PFLWC. do you see a pattern here lol.

    When tan sau is done above chest level without the spiral horizontal forward movement, it does not function the same way.


    When ones full set of snt doesn't have the chest level tan sau. That is the signature of modern evolution.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    It's not only guesswork and conjecture, Hendrik has done his homework. Before even meeting Hendrik i knew in YKSWC Tan sau is also a chest horizontal forward with spiral movement. same in Kulo side body boxing, Same in Yik Kam wing chun and snake crane wing chun. I suspect the same in PFLWC. do you see a pattern here lol.

    When tan sau is done above chest level without the spiral horizontal forward movement, it does not function the same way.
    There was a visitor to HFY headquarters years back that tried telling our practitioners that the high tan sau in our form was incorrect and that it wouldn't pass this his supposed 'structure tests'. Needless to say, he couldn't budge our high 'straight' tan sau when put to his 'test'

    That said, the usage of a tool is dictated by WC principle and concept - contact point on the kiu, position and leverage, etc - not because it's done a certain way in a form. In our lineage we have 5 total tan sau - 3 'tan sau's (1 center-line and 2 5-line) and also 2 'tan kiu's, and yes, one has more of a spiralling/twisting nature than the other.But, the energetic and position is based upon the things I mentioned above once contact is made. You can do both spiral and non-spiral tan sau to the high reference. While we do both to our upper/high reference in our forms, I also know they work at this position from training them in application against live partners. Having someone like Henrdik, who never trains this way, come and say something can't work is utter nonsense.

    Which is why any discussion that is to be had on low vs. hi tan in application (spiral or otherwise) simply can't be had with Hendrik - as he does not train partner applications and admittedly doesn't spar. Which, BTW, are the only ways to know what is right/wrong or works/doesn't work in any MA system. So no, he hasn't done his homework
    Last edited by JPinAZ; 04-24-2014 at 12:26 PM.
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    That's not what he's saying. Don't you understand the stages of development? You learn a body dynamic and power expression before you ever even take a step. But wait, maybe you don't do that in your Wing Chun?
    It's called sarcasm. If Hendrik can understand that SNT is to develop specific skills and we don't actually fight in that stance with one arm out, then why doesn't he understand that chi-sau is to develop specific skills and we don't actually fight in that stance with both arms equally extended? It's like all he has ever learned is SNT.

  14. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    It's called sarcasm. If Hendrik can understand that SNT is to develop specific skills and we don't actually fight in that stance with one arm out, then why doesn't he understand that chi-sau is to develop specific skills and we don't actually fight in that stance with both arms equally extended? It's like all he has ever learned is SNT.
    Most of this discussion revolves around people thinking the model is the application or that the model is what is important.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    The original tan sau is not the high tan sau.
    If your opponent is 7 feet tall. When he punches at your head, do you have to raise your arm a bit higher in order to block it? The height of your block dose not depend on you but depend on your opponent's punch.
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 04-24-2014 at 10:27 AM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

Posting Permissions

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