published technique

[Tongue_of_Colibob]

I was always tought to shoot straight in against a hook, and following up with chain punches.

[fa_jing]

Could you please explain the use of the lan sao + punch against the hook? Are you referring to blocking with the elbow side or the hand??
I went to the site but I couldn't find the picture. Sorry if this is off-topic but I tend to block hooks with my face.

[reneritchie]

Hi,

No, we make contact with the outer forearm, just past the wrist bone. There's two basic ways it can be done. The first attacks the attacking arm using short force through a Lan Sao. The mechanics are roughly similar to the turning Lan Sao near the beginning over Chum Kiu (after the double Biu Jee), but angled to 'x' the opponent's arm. This can injure an attacking arm (as the punch breaks the balance and finishes the attacker behind it). The second is with a Ngoi Liem (Outer Sickle), which is an outside verticle Fook Sao (opposite of the inside Fook you'd see in Luk Sao Chi Sao matching a Bong Sao). This just makes contact with the opponent's arm, lets them think they're doing what they want to do (so they don't change, which is what clashing force often will 'tell' them to do), and adds or subtracts just enough force to make it ineffective and over or underextend their balance.

Both ways, however, the palm faces down on the intercepting arm.

Rgds,

RR

[CanadianBadAss]

u guys dont use a bong sao? thats the only way I've been taught to deal with a hook. A bong sao that turns into a punch

[cobra]

I'll have to disagree with you on that one. I think that structure and softness are equally important, because when we are "soft", we get our strength from our structure. That's WT! The tan dar is not much different than the way we are taught with the fook sau and punch with the chum kiu step. Of course, if you're on the ball, stepping in and punching is best. I've even heard of one in our lineage using the tan dar against someone throwing a hook in a real situation and severing their bicep. See ya!

Scott

[straightblast5]

Hello Hunt1,

No offense interpreted. Good question, and I will do my best to answer.

First of all, I like to mention that the captions for all the picture sequences were taken out by the editors due to space constrains, but I thought the pictures are pretty self-explanatory.

Second, I know it is nearly impossible to accurately portray the dynamics of a real fight with words and pictures alone, so the article was never intended as such.

As I had stated in my article,
"The following sequences should not be mistaken as a step-by-step guide to defeating particular styles. If so, it would defeat the purpose of this essay. Rather, the following sequences should be viewed as general examples of how Ving Tsun’s principles remain constant no matter the opponent’s fighting methods."

What I had attempted to do with the sequence in question was to illustrate that a Ving Tsun practitioner would respond to an opponent’s attack by attacking or intercepting, rather than slipping or blocking (which we consider passive movements that do not threaten or impede your opponent from continuing their attack).

The sequences included in my article are just general examples, as there are no "standard" or set responses in Ving Tsun. Ving Tsun practitioners will merely take the most direct, simple, and efficient route to incapacitate their opponent. This concept is discussed with greater detail in my article.

To answer your question of “is this a standard response that most of you have been taught somewhere in your WC history?” My response is no, as there are no “standard” or set series of responses in Ving Tsun. Using or not using the Tan Da technique against a hook is something of relative context. It depends how the hook is thrown and where you are in relation to your opponent when the attack is initiated. Sometimes a strike down your opponent’s center is enough to take away his base for further attack, sometimes not. A fight is dynamic, and picture sequences in a magazine definitely are not. However, I thought I did well to warn the reader.

As with any physical activity, it is difficult to describe in words and pictures alone. I wrote the article not as a means to teach Ving Tsun “sequences”, but to introduce the fact that a Ving Tsun practitioner will adhere to the core principles of simplicity, efficiency, and directness under any and all fighting situations.

In short, please try not to dwell on the picture sequences (which are, in essence, "dead") or it would defeat the purpose of my essay.

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association

[fgxpanzerz]

I've learned this technique of the tan sau blocking a hook punch. I've seen many do this so I guess it's a regular occurence in the wing chun world. A fok sau can be used as well and a bil gee is also good for blocking a hook punch. The metal element as well.

[AndrewP]

Hey Phil,

It was nice to meet you the other night at Sifu Tony's place. He talks about you guys all the time. I'll go later this week and pick up the magazine and read your article then. I'm sure it's good.

See ya,

Andrew

[S.Teebas]

The metal element as well.

I dont know what you mean??... care to expand?

[straightblast5]

Hello Andrew,

It was nice to meet you as well. I'm sure I'll see you again soon. Say hello to your Sifu for me.

Take Care,

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association

[hunt1]

What is STANDARD? I agree there is no standard response.However i have now seen you Philip,Alan Lamb,Emin Boztepe,Randy Williams to name just a few to use this exact sequence as an illustration of WC.I have seen many others use it as well.You all have different WC backgrounds therefor my comment of standard response.

This sequence as shown if used in a fight is almost guaranteed to get you hit.It also makes very poor use IMHO of WC concepts.

WC motions have a dual nature offense and defense.The exception being when a motion is used to cover an area.If the step in is moving on motion than using the tan as a cover is prefectly acceptable.If he step in begins after the punch begins than the tan should be of a thrusting variety.I prefer a Bil or Wu type of motion but have used tan as well.

The tan should be an attack to the arm if not a covering motion.Limb destruction when closing the gap is part of chum kiu and most clearly used in the sword form.

Another thing that is overlooked is the fighting truth that THE OTHER HAND ALWAYS COMES.The opponents other hand will surely be moving at you once the first attack is stopped.My preference would be to use the first punching arm not to pak trap the already spent hurt hooking arm but to turn to an inside lop sau/fook sau to protect against the other hand.The tan hand turns into an attacing spade hand for example and attacks .Also because the arm has inside position it covers/gives protection vs the opening hook arm.Thus again negating the need to pak/trap this arm.

If an inside lop is used you also achieve the basic goal of opposite energies used at the same time.The lop pulling the opponent one way while the palm stike sends him the other way.This also cleanly opens the pressure points on the neck and side of the head to attack and if one were skiled enough always manipulation of the necessary Dim Mak points in the wrist/arm as well.

Again I understand it is just an illustration but so many from diverse backgrounds seem to think it is a good one to use.Yet from my perspective it is clearly flawed.I consider my explanations above to be basic.There are many possiblities.

[straightblast5]

Hello Hunt1,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as I’m sure they are valid interpretations and work well for you.

However, from what I’ve found to work through my personal experiences (and what I have learned from my instructors), chasing an opponent’s limbs will get me hit more often than if I just focused my efforts to striking down my opponent’s center to nullify his base for generating more attacks. If my strikes to my opponent’s center are well placed, than the Tan Sao would probably be unnecessary. However, the illustration I used in my article assumes that my opponent’s attacking arm (his hook) is already in motion with the intent of knocking me out, so the Tan Sao acts as an interception to check and prevent the strike from continuing on its intended path to even graze me. Regardless of the illustration, my primary objective is to take away my opponent’s ability to effectively attack or counter attack by initiating my own strikes down his center. I apologize if the illustration or my logic in this matter seems flawed.

You also made an interesting comment regarding blade usage. From what I was taught, the concepts governing the bladed weapons are rather different that those governing the fists. For example, though Ving Tsun weapons are based on the structure of the empty-hand technique, weapon-based principles differ from that of the empty hand in important areas. For example, when unarmed (and your opponent is unarmed also), VT concepts encourages us to strike our opponents down their centerline in simple, direct and efficient ways that do not include chasing your opponents’ hands. So despite popular beliefs, VT practitioners do not aim to trap their opponent’s arms in an engagement (unless it is the most simple, efficient, and direct option at the given moment), rather, they will aim to strike and incapacitate their opponent without wasted effort and time. However, when facing an armed opponent with a pair of Bat-Jum-Do (Ving Tsun double blades) in your hands, VT will tell you to attack or actively guard against your opponent's weapon hand(s). The reasons for these discrepancies are simple. The fist is blunt, and if you are able to place in a clean hit to your opponent's center, he will be blasted back to a position that is hard to counter-strike from. With the blades it is different. If you stab or slash someone, he will not be blasted back by an implanted blade. If they are not incapacitated by the strike immediately, they are still in position to strike you back. That is why your opponent's weapon hand is also an important target when using the Bat-Jum-Do. However, chasing your opponent’s limbs during an empty-handed struggle is definitely NOT prescribed in the method of Ving Tsun that I practice.

Once again, thank you for your comments. I will think harder about my methods of illustrating my ideas, so the next time I do so, my ideas will hopefully be presented more clearly.

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association

[vingtsunstudent]

hunt1
how many times have you used these responses in real situations or how many times has your instructor.(without being rude)
tan punch maybe standard against roundhouse type punches for one reason-it works. i have personally used it more than once & can honestly say that their other limb doesn't come anywhere near striking.
to my knowledge phil was taught or shown this by wong shun leung who fought more than probably most of us on this forum put together.
my sifu was also taught & used these in challenge matches when he fought for wong.
i'd also like to ask how the simultaneous attack & defence of tan punch does not in your opinion go with wing chun concepts.
vts

[whippinghand]

Of course, practically everything can work on someone who doesn't understand martial art.

[hunt1]

straightblast5-I may not have been clear either.I agree I always go to hit my opponent not chase hands.However i fell that if both ahnds go forward both are attacking.Theefore in the example one hits the opponents body the other strikes the limb.I agree with covering ,its just that I believe that whenever contact is made I want to cause damage.


vingstunstudent-pehaps you didnt read my whole post,it was long,I have nothing against the tan punch technique.it is very usefull in some situations.Myquestion have more to do with the follow up techniques.
I have used what i have described more times than I like to admit.It has always worked.
Do not focus on the tan punch its what comes after that will get you hurt if you face a skilled adversary.