published technique

[hunt1]

First this post is not intened as a flame.So please dont take it that way.Also I am splitting this question into 2 parts to avoid any appearance of flaming.Responses will determine if i post the 2nd half.

In the latest issue of KungFu Qigong magazine is an article by Philip Ng,I realize you post here Philip and again this is not a critisicm but on honest question.

I believe in the 2nd set of photos the following is shown.Opponent punches with a lead hook/haymaker.The WC person replies by stepping in with a tan sau and intercepting the punch at the elbow/bicep area the other hand punches to the face.This is followed by the punching hand trapping the haymaker hand and the Tan hand palm striking to the face.I have seen this same sequence used as a demonstration by Alan lamb and several others in other Martial Arts magazines over the years.I never paid it much attention until i saw someone from a WC background I respect do it.

My question is, is this a standard response that most have you have been taught somewhere in your WC history?

I know it is just an example but it seems to be a popular example of WC and I find this curious.I believe you fight the way you pracitice

[Wingman]

The techniques described above is practical against a hook/haymaker. I probably would do the same thing under similar conditions. However, there is no such thing as a standard response in wing chun. There are other techniques that are as equally effective against a hook/haymaker.

Not all hooks/haymakers are the same. If the opponent throws the hook/haymaker at a closer distance, I would probably do the technique described above. If the opponent throws the hook/haymaker at a longer distance, I would probably move a little out of range and let him "finish" his haymaker. Then after he has "finished" his haymaker, I charge in and attack.

I will end my post with a quote from Bruce Lee, "Your style is my technique, and your technique is my conclusion".

[whippinghand]

That is an amazingly good question... LOL

[reneritchie]

Hi,

Haven't seen the Mag or Phillip's demo, so can't comment on it, but FWIW, when I learned, Tan Sao was not considered a viable reaction to a hook (due to its path and the nature of its Ging). Like you, however, I have seen lots of other folks doing it this way.

Rgds,

RR

[stuartm]

I have seen a high tan used but i would prefer a high rounded biu sau whilst stepping in. If your punch connects properly then the hook punch is not going to have any power in it anyway.

Its the same principle with a roundhouse kick - you move straight in.

Hooks are something that should be practised regular in any class as it is the one attack that most WC people have problems with. Lut sau jik chung training shoulod also be practised regularly so you can learn to go straightforward when youlose the bridge.

Regards, Stuart

[black and blue]

I was practising this only the other night in class. The guy punching me was one huge son of a b*tch. Much heavier than me, longer reach, pretty fast punches and... much to my discomfort, very heavy punches.

Against a tight hook I found a strong pivoting action with my weight sunk deep in the knees and the willingness to apply a solid tan sau (which needs to relax immediately afterwards)... works well. The risk is being knocked off balance because the strike is heavy, comes in with a swing, and follows an awkward line.

Against a really exaggerated hook, I found it is easier to simply nullify the attack by stepping forward with a fut sau to the throat. The hook sails away behind you and half of his pain is caused by his own forward motion as he runs onto the hand strike.

The thing I came away with... hooks are bast*rds to deal with. There is no one who simply throws a hook. It's always followed up with a jab, another hook, or an uppercut to the chin. IMHO, closing down the distance to restrict the follow up is the key.

I simply love man geng sau in these situations. No one likes having their neck slapped/pulled, pulling them onto a strike.

[hunt1]

I appriciate all the replies so far but i dont want to stray from the question.

I dont want this to be a discussion of how to deal with a hook.there are many ways and not the point i am driving at.

Is the technique shown/described a method commonly taught?


Please look at the whole sequence just not the tan aspect.

Stepping in with a tan may be appropriate under certain conditions what about everything else?

[Frank Exchange]

To our way of thinking, once the first punch has connected, you dont necessarily have to cross over and cover the hook with the punching hand, you would just continue to punch with the other hand. If your hit is solid, as someone else has mentioned, if negates a large amount of his incoming force. You may still get scraped, or even take a bit of a hit, but you will have given two solid ones on his conk.

If you feel exceptionally threatened, then yes, pak if necessary. Otherwise, just hit the bugger.

So, the first part is commonly taught, but we place less emphasis on the follow up cover, and more emphasis on hitting.

[Nichiren]

Frank Exchange: It is a quite common technique in boxing to catch a jab on the forehead to get in a distance to land a hook. With this I mean that there is a risk ignoring the hook if the wrong person is standing in front of you but isn't there always...

[vt108]

"Is the technique shown/described a method commonly taught?"
I'm sure it is. This is one of the best responses to the hook punch. But don't forget that the most important thing in Tan sao is....punch.

"Tan Sao was not considered a viable reaction to a hook"
Really??? In what school? Don't get me wrong but it is very odd to me. What was the better response?

[reneritchie]

vt108 - I learned Sum Nung (Yuen Kay-San) Wing Chun from Ngo Lui-Kay sifu. We tend to use Lan Sao Chung Choi (Barring Arm Thrusting Punch), similar to how I've seen others use/term Biu Sao Chung Kuen (Darting Arm Thrusting Punch).

There should be some pictures of it up at http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung

Rgds,

RR

[whippinghand]

I think that sequence of techniques( tan da to counter a hook) is just meant to be a demonstration sequence to illustrate how "this" typical Wing Chun technique can be used against an "everyday attack" such as the hook.

Tan da is not an appropriate attack for the hook, not inside nor outside.

[Frank Exchange]

Yep, I would never trade a jab for a hook, I have too much respect for boxers!

So, if I do hit like this, I have to really go in to ensure that Im hitting with full body weight. I dont just jab their forehead, but drive the chin up and back, take them off balance, and keep going, the second or third hits are the ones that will do the damage.

And then, of course keep them off balance, so they can't counter.

Personally, I like insults, melvins, custard pies in the face, soda syphons, that sort of thing.

[Kuen]

I find myself in agreement with Mr. Hand.

Besides shouldn't we be concerned with principles as opposed to techniques?

[rubthebuddha]

i've actually been taught to avoid using a tan sau as a block, especially in cases like this. one of the major ideas behind this is if some gigugic (gigantic + huge = gihugic) beast of a man decides to throw that hook, my reasonably strong but still only 5'9" frame isn't going to do too much to it.

so no, i haven't been taught to do that. i've been instructed to steery away from that. but this is a major difference, one that can be discussed on a different thread, between WC and WT. WC seems more concerned with structure and WT (what i study) more with softness. not a statement of right or wrong, but rather one of contrast.

cheers,

-rtb