Tan.Bong,Fok & Wu Sao

[LFJ]

Why does WC use "defense tools" instead "offense tools" to represent itself?

Clearly there is more than one "WC" and not all of them share the same concepts regarding these. From my point of view, your question is entirely a strawman.

[YouKnowWho]

Clearly there is more than one "WC" and not all of them share the same concepts regarding these. From my point of view, your question is entirely a strawman.

So by comparing to the XingYi Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng, what should WC have in parallel?

[Vajramusti]

If we look at the following:

- XingYi has Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng.
- boxing has jab, cross, uppercut, hook,
- TKD has front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick,
- Judo has hip throw, leg twist, leg lift, leg block.
- WC has Tan, Bong, Fu, Wu.

Why does WC use "defense tools" instead "offense tools" to represent itself?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

??? still cherry picking throuh styles.
Good wing chun has offensive and defensive tools.

[Sihing73]

In fighting, I don't use taan-sau, only the taan striking concept it develops in training. Same as fuk-sau and the fuk concept. The sau are only developmental tools. .

Please elaborate further.

I was always taught that Sau referred to arm, but as Chinese is not my tongue I will defer to one who speaks that language.
If my understanding of the definition of Sau is correct, then it seems you are saying that the arms are only development tools. Surely I must be mistaken.

So, please explain the different "striking concept" which is developed by Taun/Taan and then Fook/Fuk. If both are for training striking how is it that they differ?
Why do they differ?

If you do not use Taun or Fook in application then why are the shapes taught and why would they be considered part of the seeds of Wing Chun?

I admit to playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but it seems so many claim to utilize the concepts and not the shapes, yet are unable to explain how this works in application....................or at least how it works in any amount of detail.

[Sihing73]

--------------------------------------------------------
OK Dave.
Ergo- I differ from you on the path of the wu in slt and I distinguish between development and application... 3 paths in the recent discussion.
No sarcasms or put downs. Just different roads.

Joy,

While we may not always agree, I do respect your view and experience, along with others here as well.

My interest years ago was on learning Wing Chun to the best of my ability. I have been blessed to have been able to train with some very good teachers.
Some, at least one for a length of time (Roy Undem), in the same line as yourself. My original plan was to train under Leung Ting, William Cheung and Augustine Fong.

I have explored other arts, not necessarily because of any lacking in Wing Chun, I tend to agree that if one truly learns and understands the concepts then our art can provide answers to many situations encountered. My reason for exploring other arts is because I like them and enjoy them. Started with Pekiti Tirsia as I did not like Latosa Escrima which was taught with WT. Nothing against Latosa Escrima, just not my cup of tea. Now I have integrated things from the other arts I studied, and am still studying, which fit my personal needs and approach. Thus ,my Wing Chun, if you wish to still call it that, differs from that of my Sifu and others in my lineage. However, it fits my needs and has proven to be effective. At least for my needs.

Having said that, I do agree with my Sifu and his decision to reverse the Fook and Wu Sau. I do not know if there would have been any difference in my development if I had not practiced for many years the traditional method. But, I do see many of his students who seem to be able to apply things much better at an earlier point in their training.

I have had the opportunity of meeting some who were much better than I in terms of forms and structure. But sucked at application. Usually for not learning something simple. Makes me no better, just more fortunate to have been shown that "simpler" thing that made it work, at least for me.

I remember many years ago doing a seminar with my Pekiti Tirsia Guru. I showed some participants a different way of kicking. The agreed it was more economical and direct and worked great.....but they stated they would not train it as it was not how they did it. I remember thinking to myself; why attend a seminar if you were unwilling to take anything from it? Sometimes one limits themselves because they are too rigid to recognize another way.

To sum up; while I believe that Wing Chun is an excellent system and has answers to many questions, I also believe it is somewhat presumptuous to think any single system is complete and has the answers to every situation. The system is the cornerstone upon which to build and sometimes one may need to change the stones being used to build.

[FongSung]

Clearly there is more than one "WC" and not all of them share the same concepts regarding these. From my point of view, your question is entirely a strawman.

Yes, Taan Fook Bong (I have been taught) are all offensive concepts otherwise they would not be in WC. If some adapt them to be solely defensive that is another thing.

As others say above the seeds of WC are not the "sau" (hand position) but the concepts.

Siheng:

Reversing the Wu & Fuk is a mental idea. I would imagine to LFJ it is still the same:
1. The Wu Sao (shape) going out is still Fuk to him as the difference is the hand shape the arm/elbow is doing the same action.
2. The Fuk Sao (Shape) coming in is still Wu (as above)

In this so called "Sam Bai Fut" section the arm goes out so much return. If want to go out with a Keun, Jeurng, Fuk etc hand shape it doesn't matter and same returning. Just two different energies. IMHO.

???

[LFJ]

I was always taught that Sau referred to arm, but as Chinese is not my tongue I will defer to one who speaks that language.
If my understanding of the definition of Sau is correct, then it seems you are saying that the arms are only development tools. Surely I must be mistaken.

Sure, I could have used "arm" there, but I was referring specifically to the taan-sau and fuk-sau, which are only development tools used in training. Their concepts, taan (to spread) and fuk (to ambush), are what I'll actually use.

So, please explain the different "striking concept" which is developed by Taun/Taan and then Fook/Fuk. If both are for training striking how is it that they differ?
Why do they differ?

I thought I just did in my last post. Did you miss it?

"They displace while attacking. Fuk elbow contracts and cuts using the inside of the arm. Taan elbow expands and displaces using the outside of the arm. These functions are first developed with partners in daan-chi-sau. Many lineages will use this exercise to stick, listen, etc.. For me, it's to learn how to displace while striking and recycle the striking arm."

If you do not use Taun or Fook in application then why are the shapes taught and why would they be considered part of the seeds of Wing Chun?

They are training tools to develop a kind of elbow behavior which extends to different types of strikes. For example, the fuk-concept striking can be a contracting-elbow punch or a horizontal palm. The taan-concept striking can be an expanding-elbow punch or a vertical palm.

So you see, as FongSung just restated; the seeds are not the hand shapes, but the concepts. For the sake of exchanging force with a partner in development of these concepts, the training shapes are used. Only their concepts go into fighting. To take these shapes into fighting would be too literal and an entire misunderstanding of the system, the system I do, that is.

[LFJ]

Reversing the Wu & Fuk is a mental idea. I would imagine to LFJ it is still the same:
1. The Wu Sao (shape) going out is still Fuk to him as the difference is the hand shape the arm/elbow is doing the same action.
2. The Fuk Sao (Shape) coming in is still Wu (as above)

No, fuk and wu elbows are different. It doesn't make sense to me for fuk-sau to draw in.

[FongSung]

No, fuk and wu elbows are different. It doesn't make sense to me for fuk-sau to draw in.

Agreed, goes to show how easy it is to get the wrong idea over on a forum, LOL. Touch hands for 1 min all sorted ha ha.

1. The Wu "Sao" (hand shape) going out is still Fuk to him (LFJ) as the difference is only in the hand shape BUT the arm/elbow is STILL doing the FUK action.
2. The Fuk "Sao" (hand shape) coming in is still Wu to him (LFJ) [/B]as the difference is in the hand shape BUT the arm/elbow is STILL doing the WU returning action.

As you also said the Fuk (forward action) can be a palm or punch (i.e. different hand shape from a Fuk "Sao")

"Just two different ELBOW energies."

[LFJ]

Edit: I'm confused. Don't know who you're addressing or referring to, but what you describe doesn't make sense to me and is not something I agree with.

[EternalSpring]

So by comparing to the XingYi Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng, what should WC have in parallel?

Like others mentioned, Tan, bong, and fook (and Wu, Huen, Etc) are not necessarily defensive techniques. The "8 methods/Baat Faat (sp?)" in general are more like "energies" rather than "attacks" or "blocks."

But I cross train Xing Yi (primarily Shanxi) and your question is something I thought about often when I started. Personally, I feel like the 5 elements incorporate various Ving Tsun energies in each motion. This makes sense, considering that most Xing Yi people seem to agree that the 5 elements are just different methods of using energy themselves and applications of even a single element can looks quite different superficially.

(Ignore that I only know the names of the Xing YI moves in Mandaring while the VT names are in Cantonese lol)

Pi Chuan -> Tan concept punch (including twisting, similar to a method of thrusting with the long pole with both hands twisting in) followed or coupled with jum energy (which is down and forwards)

Zuan Chuan -> Lop + Chum Kiu's "uppercut punch to center"

Beng Chuan -> A straight punch incorporating a greater degree of upper body shifting (I find that the faster a Xing Yi guy cycles beng chuan, the more it looks like chong choi)

Pao Chuan -> I dont remember the exact name for this movement in Ving Tsun, but this is like the closing moving after the Bong-Wu combo in the second part of chum kiu, but the punch can be like "bong + punch"

Heng Chuan -> Tan + Punching energy using a greater degree of sideways displacement.

of course, all these moves are not just isolated upper body moves. The similarity is more clear with footwork and lower and middle body/dan tian movement

Of course, I dont consider these perfect answers to what you asked and there is the fact that there are still clear stylistic differences, such as Xing Yi's side body vs Ving Tsun's primary square facing.

and just to clarify: I'm aware that Ving Tsun is NOT Xing Yi and vice versa. But one can look at different systems and contemplate how he/she would use similar/same energies according to their art

[stonecrusher69]

Like others mentioned, Tan, bong, and fook (and Wu, Huen, Etc) are not necessarily defensive techniques. The "8 methods/Baat Faat (sp?)" in general are more like "energies" rather than "attacks" or "blocks."

But I cross train Xing Yi (primarily Shanxi) and your question is something I thought about often when I started. Personally, I feel like the 5 elements incorporate various Ving Tsun energies in each motion. This makes sense, considering that most Xing Yi people seem to agree that the 5 elements are just different methods of using energy themselves and applications of even a single element can looks quite different superficially.

(Ignore that I only know the names of the Xing YI moves in Mandaring while the VT names are in Cantonese lol)

Pi Chuan -> Tan concept punch (including twisting, similar to a method of thrusting with the long pole with both hands twisting in) followed or coupled with jum energy (which is down and forwards)

Zuan Chuan -> Lop + Chum Kiu's "uppercut punch to center"

Beng Chuan -> A straight punch incorporating a greater degree of upper body shifting (I find that the faster a Xing Yi guy cycles beng chuan, the more it looks like chong choi)

Pao Chuan -> I dont remember the exact name for this movement in Ving Tsun, but this is like the closing moving after the Bong-Wu combo in the second part of chum kiu, but the punch can be like "bong + punch"

Heng Chuan -> Tan + Punching energy using a greater degree of sideways displacement.

of course, all these moves are not just isolated upper body moves. The similarity is more clear with footwork and lower and middle body/dan tian movement

Of course, I dont consider these perfect answers to what you asked and there is the fact that there are still clear stylistic differences, such as Xing Yi's side body vs Ving Tsun's primary square facing.

and just to clarify: I'm aware that Ving Tsun is NOT Xing Yi and vice versa. But one can look at different systems and contemplate how he/she would use similar/same energies according to their art

Food for thought I read an old article in Inside kung Fu Magazine by Ip Chun. He said when his father learnt Wing Chun originally used terms like 5 elements theory,and Yin Yang if I can remember correctly. But Ip Man thought that was to old fashion took it out and used modern terms when he passed it on to his students.

[LFJ]

Food for thought I read an old article in Inside kung Fu Magazine by Ip Chun. He said when his father learnt Wing Chun originally used terms like 5 elements theory,and Yin Yang if I can remember correctly. But Ip Man thought that was to old fashion took it out and used modern terms when he passed it on to his students.

Not just old fashioned, but superstitious, which Yip Man didn't believe in, perhaps due to receiving a western education and having developed a healthy skepticism. He didn't just change terms but cleaned his system of a lot of that sort of mainland theory and just taught practical fighting skills.

[EternalSpring]

Food for thought I read an old article in Inside kung Fu Magazine by Ip Chun. He said when his father learnt Wing Chun originally used terms like 5 elements theory,and Yin Yang if I can remember correctly. But Ip Man thought that was to old fashion took it out and used modern terms when he passed it on to his students.

I wouldn't doubt it. Though as far as I understood, things like 5 Element theory and Yin Yang are applicable and within all CMA (at the least) whether they're mentioned or not by the Sifu (that's just my view though of course). I remember reading Cheng Man Ching's treatise on Tai Chi, he mentioned that the 5 elements can be seen in the direction of movement (Fire -forward, Water -back/retreat, center - earth, etc)

[YouKnowWho]

Not just old fashioned, but superstitious, which Yip Man didn't believe in, perhaps due to receiving a western education and having developed a healthy skepticism. He didn't just change terms but cleaned his system of a lot of that sort of mainland theory and just taught practical fighting skills.

But the 5 elements is the practical fighting strategies. I have use the 5 elements strategies successful in sparring:

1. metal - use hard block (or elbow and knee) to meet with your opponent's limbs.
2. wood - use long range kicks and punches.
3. water - defense fight, only respond to opponent's attack.
4. fire - move around fast, avoid contact.
5. earth - move in inch by inch with solid defense.