Tension

[guy b.]

Does anyone use any tension or moving tension exercises in their wing chun? If so what do you do and why?

 

[Danny T]

Not understanding what you are asking.
We do use strength and tension exercises to understand the difference in being tense and stiff verses being relax and using proper body & elbow structure.

 

[wckf92]

Does anyone use any tension or moving tension exercises in their wing chun? If so what do you do and why?

Yes, but it's more about developing power thru these type of exercises

 

[guy b.]

Like the way tid sin kuen is often done in hung gar, or sarm bo gin and grinding arm in southern mantis. Many south Chinese MA use it. Does anyone do it in their wing chun?

 

[guy b.]

Yes, but it's more about developing power thru these type of exercises

How do you do it?

 

[Danny T]

Like the way tid sin kuen is often done in hung gar, or sarm bo gin and grinding arm in southern mantis. Many south Chinese MA use it. Does anyone do it in their wing chun?

No. WC, in the manner I learned, is about releasing tension rather than building it. Within form training one should be learning where there is tension in the body, what is causing the tension and how to release it rather than creating tension.

 

[Eric_H]

In Hung Fa Yi we have muscle/tendon/bone style training (Siu Lam influence) referred to as "Dip Gwat" which is similar to dynamic tension in the early stages. It's very different to what I've seen in Chris Chan's WC... who i think is the only person I've known to speak of dynamic tension in WC?

 

[wckf92]

Does anyone use any tension or moving tension exercises in their wing chun? If so what do you do and why?

Just so I'm not misunderstanding what you're asking. ..can you clarify with an example or...?

 

[KPM]

Like the way tid sin kuen is often done in hung gar, or sarm bo gin and grinding arm in southern mantis. Many south Chinese MA use it. Does anyone do it in their wing chun?

Do you? You seem to have an odd conception of Wing Chun.

 

[guy b.]

Do you? You seem to have an odd conception of Wing Chun.

I haven't seen it in wing chun, but I have seen it in very similar southern Chinese MA. Sounthern Mantis would be a good example. The reason for doing it is to build nerve pathways and muscle recruitment in particular directions of movement. I wondered if anyone did anything similar in wing chun? Is there any particular reason not to?

The wing chun I have learned derives from WSL, so a pretty standard interpretation. What do you find odd about it?

 

[guy b.]

Do you? You seem to have an odd conception of Wing Chun.

I haven't seen it in wing chun, but have seen it in very similar southern Chinese MA like southern praying mantis. It is difficult to think why it shouldn't be used in wing chun, unless anyone has a particular reason?

The wing chun I have learned is derived from WSL, a pretty standard interpretation. What do you find odd about it?

 

[KPM]

I haven't seen it in wing chun,

--I haven't really either. But I do remember reading something about Victor Kan doing some of this. Anyone know?

but I have seen it in very similar southern Chinese MA. Sounthern Mantis would be a good example. The reason for doing it is to build nerve pathways and muscle recruitment in particular directions of movement. I wondered if anyone did anything similar in wing chun? Is there any particular reason not to?

---Wing Chun usually emphasizes relaxed movement. But as a training method, I agree with you. I don't see any reason not to use it. This would be consider a "Wei Dan" method of Chi Gung/conditioning or "external" as opposed to a "Nei Dan" method or "internal." Lots of CMAs have these kinds of "external" conditioning exercises.

The wing chun I have learned derives from WSL, so a pretty standard interpretation. What do you find odd about it?

---I found your comment that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole to be somewhat odd. That, along with your comment that the knives are "very different." If you go by the legends (which are not necessarily facts), Wong Wah Bo shared empty-hand methods with Leung Yee Tai, who shared the Pole methods. That says that Wing Chun empty-hands existed prior to any contact with the pole methods. And the Pole methods are very different from the empty-hands.....different body dynamic...different stances....etc. The history of the knives is a bit unclear, but as you said on the other thread they seem to have been a much later "add on." Since the double knives were very common in southern CMAs, it makes sense to me that at some point a good Wing Chun man decided that if his Hung Kuen buddy could use the knives, so could he! So he started training the knives and simply adapted his empty-hand methods to the knives. I've always heard it said that the knives were simply an extension of the hands. Which does make sense. And I've always found it odd when I've heard WSL lineage people say that there is no Tan Sau and that it is only a shape for training. From what I've seen, this idea is unique to WSL lineage...which makes it a bit "odd" as well.

 

[geezer]

KPM -- I agree with what you said regarding the pole and knives. Like you I was a little surprised by Guy's assertion that WC was a pole based system. To me, the pole seems more distinct from the empty handed system than the Bart Cham Dao. I don't take the old legends as factually reliable, but in this case they seem to contain a kernel of truth. I suspect that the pole was such a universally available and widely used weapon in Southern China in the 19th Century, that WC had to adopt it. And then they found that it was really useful for training even after it's practical use in fighting faded. But that's just speculation on my part.

As far as being odd goes... pretty much everything about WC is a little odd, depending on your perspective. As are most of the practitioners. It's one of the things I like about it!

 

[guy b.]

I found your comment that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole to be somewhat odd. That, along with your comment that the knives are "very different." If you go by the legends (which are not necessarily facts), Wong Wah Bo shared empty-hand methods with Leung Yee Tai, who shared the Pole methods. That says that Wing Chun empty-hands existed prior to any contact with the pole methods. And the Pole methods are very different from the empty-hands.....different body dynamic...different stances....etc.

I would disagree. The pole principles are exactly the same as the empty hands, and in terms of methods the pole is essentially one handed empty hand wing chun. The body methods are the same, although the stance is not.

The fact that the pole methods existed (and still do exist) independently of wing chun, coupled with the identical nature of some pole and hand methods, points to the pole coming before the hands.

The history of the knives is a bit unclear, but as you said on the other thread they seem to have been a much later "add on." Since the double knives were very common in southern CMAs, it makes sense to me that at some point a good Wing Chun man decided that if his Hung Kuen buddy could use the knives, so could he! So he started training the knives and simply adapted his empty-hand methods to the knives. I've always heard it said that the knives were simply an extension of the hands. Which does make sense.

The knives, as discussed in recent knife threads, are obviously a later addition. Since the empty hand principles are not the same as the knife principles, they are at heart different things. Treating knives as an extension of empty hand is a recipe for failure with the knives in a blade combat situation. Personally I don't find the knives to be very important in terms of wing chun, especially compared to the pole.

And I've always found it odd when I've heard WSL lineage people say that there is no Tan Sau and that it is only a shape for training. From what I've seen, this idea is unique to WSL lineage...which makes it a bit "odd" as well.

How would you use the Tan sau shape? How would it be applied? In my experience the tan trained elbow is directly applicable, just not the whole shape. Much like fook.

I have found most things in wing chun are training the elbow energy and the structure above all else, tan no different.

 

[wckf92]

I haven't seen it in wing chun,

I think Duncan Leung teaches some sort of dynamic tension in his applied wing chun video....

 

[wckf92]

I would disagree. The pole principles are exactly the same as the empty hands, and in terms of methods the pole is essentially one handed empty hand wing chun. The body methods are the same, although the stance is not.

The fact that the pole methods existed (and still do exist) independently of wing chun, coupled with the identical nature of some pole and hand methods, points to the pole coming before the hands.

Just my .02 but to me, embedded in the pole (among other things) are the ideas of "the hand that hits also cancels" (or whatever); long-bridge WC ideas; kicking ideas; etc. Whether these were seeded in the pole form "from" WC empty hand; or vice versa...who knows.

 

[dudewingchun]

I think Duncan Leung teaches some sort of dynamic tension in his applied wing chun video....

yea from a video iv seen he teaches a bit of tension ( dynamic tension ) for building tendon strength. Its the same principle as tendon changing exercises im pretty sure

 

[KPM]

I would disagree. The pole principles are exactly the same as the empty hands, and in terms of methods the pole is essentially one handed empty hand wing chun. The body methods are the same, although the stance is not.

----The Pole shares just as many principles with modern Olympic fencing, and actually more actual techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty hands. Does that mean that Pole and Olympic fencing are the same system?


The fact that the pole methods existed (and still do exist) independently of wing chun, coupled with the identical nature of some pole and hand methods, points to the pole coming before the hands.

---No it doesn't. It only points to the Pole being an independent system from the empty hands. And there are no Pole techniques that are "identical" to the hand methods. Standing sideways and using only one side makes them quite different. The deeper stances and use of different stances makes the body dynamic different. Where is your "back up" Wu Sau hand with the Pole? Where is your trap with one hand while hitting with the other with the Pole? Where is your Chi Sau with the Pole? The Pole shares a lot more with modern fencing's foil and epee techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty-hands.


The knives, as discussed in recent knife threads, are obviously a later addition. Since the empty hand principles are not the same as the knife principles, they are at heart different things.

---The knives share more with empty-hands than the Pole. You DO have a back-up Wu Sau hand with knives. You DO have a trap with one knife while hitting with the other. You have the equivalent of Tan Sau, Pak Sau, Gan Sau, Kwan Sau, etc with the knives. Sure, you have to adapt things to the knives to avoid cutting your own arms. But the knives are essentially an extension of the hand techniques. This is not true of the Pole.


How would you use the Tan sau shape? How would it be applied? In my experience the tan trained elbow is directly applicable, just not the whole shape. Much like fook.

---In contact with an opponent and he presses forward on my bridge I can pivot and deflect his force with a Tan while striking with my other hand. I flank the opponent and step into him and press with a Tan and a Palm to turn him and disrupt his base/balance (right out of the dummy form). I can think of lots of applications for the Tan shape. There is more to Wing Chun than chain punching!

I have found most things in wing chun are training the elbow energy and the structure above all else, tan no different.

----And that whole idea is unique to WSL lineage. Which makes it a bit different and therefore odd in the world of Wing Chun! ;-) Because I have learned Tan and applications for Tan from 3 different versions of Wing Chun as well as from one version of Weng Chun. The idea that it is ONLY for training the elbow energy is simply....odd!

 

[Danny T]

How would you use the Tan sau shape? How would it be applied? In my experience the tan trained elbow is directly applicable, just not the whole shape. Much like fook.

I have found most things in wing chun are training the elbow energy and the structure above all else, tan no different.

I agree with your assertion that most of the postures train the elbow and the structures.
The tan shape is used to redirect or disperse force on the thumb side of the arm. Jum structure cannot be used for pressure on the thumb side but the elbow is used the same. As well the Jum structure redirects force on the little finger side of the arm and the tan structure doesn't but again the elbow is used the same. Elbow is extremely important and so too are the different arm structures.

 

[wckf92]

And there are no Pole techniques that are "identical" to the hand methods.

Ummm...WTF?!??!

Standing sideways and using only one side makes them quite different.

Right tool...right job...right time...

Where is your "back up" Wu Sau hand with the Pole? Where is your trap with one hand while hitting with the other with the Pole? Where is your Chi Sau with the Pole?

Oh dear.....

You DO have a trap with one knife while hitting with the other.

There is more to Wing Chun than chain punching!

Did he mention 'chain punching'?

----And that whole idea is unique to WSL lineage.

No, it is not...