Have you got hands as fast as this guy? [Archive]

yellowpikachu

12-31-2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
Hendrik,

No denying that he has fast hands - on that attribute alone it is impressive I guess. I think it's awful nice of his partner to drop his hands as well.

In general, I agree with your observations. Speed has come at a price. Don't get me wrong, I doubt I could do nearly as well as he's doing. It's just too easy to critique videos; to be an armchair martial artist, so to speak.

You see, I believe in cause and effect. do one thing, will get the effect. Nothing good or bad.

However, the older I got, I cant do those stoping breathing stuffs anymore. The stop breathing stuffs cause heart and liver problem at old age. Thus, I have heard.

The reason I brought the stop breathing and rasing the shoulder is to identify different way of generating power.

You are correct about his partner. but, they are doing a practice so that is ok. you might not want to train the same way to face a grapper. IMHO

anyway, the guy did spend alots of time in his training that we need to give him a clap of encouragement on the great job.

Mr Punch

01-01-2005, 03:11 AM

I agree with Edmund (at the bottom of your sig, Nick)! :D

Nah, only kidding...

but I'm not far off that fast in doing the same kind of thing: stopping strikes against a defenceless 'opponent', and I tend to agree with Hendrik when he says the guy isn't breathing and is tensing his shoulders.

Also with Vankuen's second point and with reservation his third (I don't think it's a given that your successive strikes get more tense and less powerful but it's probably commonly so).

I'm not slating the guy, of course it's only a demo, and I've never felt it, but I think I have more important things to work on in my wing chun than closing the gap between my speed and his.

It would be interesting to see his speed and body connection hitting a heavy object full power... like a heavy bag, or God forbid :rolleyes: a live resisting opponent.

I much prefer the bottom vid in that selection: Sifu Henning was it (?) and his chi sao. Slow, careful, connected, controlled. Though again, it would be interesting to see him chi saoing with someone of more experience.

t_niehoff

01-01-2005, 07:55 AM

It is easy to get really "good", really fast, really sharp, etc. doing a drill. But, of course, the goal isn't to "look good" doing a drill; so the question is: do these "skills" transfer to genuine fighting skills. In other words, has this drill helped him become a better fighter (increased his fighting performance)? That can't be determined by looking at the performance of the drill, it can only be determined by seeing him fight.

Moreover, oftentimes many of these very "qualites" that are admired in the performance of drills are actually counter-productive to increasing one's fighting performance.

So what does that clip mean to me? Nothing. It shows nothing more than someone who has gotten very fast doing a cooperative drill. And it says nothing more than that.

Matrix

01-01-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
In other words, has this drill helped him become a better fighter (increased his fighting performance)? If I were a betting man, I would say "No". Unless you're fighting someone who is willing to just stand there and take some punishment. I just don't like the odds of that ever happening. You can be fast with your hands, but they need to be coordinated with the body and feet. I'd rather see clean strikes.

Moreover, oftentimes many of these very "qualites" that are admired in the performance of drills are actually counter-productive to increasing one's fighting performance. On this point, I absolutely agree. Like I said in my previous post, this demonstration of "speed has come at a price". At least that's how I see it.
However, if the guy is just trying to show off his hand speed that's fine as well - for what that's worth.

Like I said, it's easy to be critical. ;)

SAAMAG

01-01-2005, 06:32 PM

for sure....I liked what I saw from the bald guy in the chi sao vid. He seemed very connected and rooted, and was very superflous. To me it shows more skill in movement then the hand flurry from the other guy. Although the other guy did have a nice demo vid on that site too....

I just don't believe in the flurry stuff. There is a maxim in wing chun....

"hit when you should, and do not when you shouldn't"

Using a flurry goes against that because your body is going off of predetermined pattern memorized from practicing that same flurry in drills just like the one we saw.

Just my two cents.

Matrix

01-01-2005, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Vankuen
He seemed very connected and rooted, and was very superflous. To me it shows more skill in movement then the hand flurry from the other guy. Yes, I agree with your assessment that more skill is being shown in that clip. If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by "superfluous"- since that term means "having no useful purpose"? I'd like to know what you meant to say.

Thanks,

SAAMAG

01-01-2005, 08:00 PM

It's also used to describe something that flows well.

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin superfluus, literally, running over, from superfluere to overflow, from super- + fluere to flow -- more at FLUID

Fluid would've been another word to use...

Matrix

01-01-2005, 08:04 PM

Van,

Thanks for the clarification.

t_niehoff

01-02-2005, 07:43 AM

The problem with "evaluating" chi sao, especially from a video clip, is that the drill can be done numerous "ways", with each "way" focusing on certain aspects/qualites (with perhaps little involvement in other aspects/qualities). And there is nothing wrong with that -- that's exactly what drills do: permit us to shift our focus and concentrate our practice on some aspect(s) by ignoring others. This is why chi sao, regardless of how one practices it, no mattter how "combatively" one thinks one is doing it, is nothing like fighting -- because certain aspects that are a significant part of fighting are by definition being ignored.

So when I hear folks talk about a "lack of root" or some other thing, that can be a conscious decision by the trainee to work on some other aspect. In this case, the trainee may be concentrating on hand speed or something else.

As I said, we can't evaluate the effectiveness of our training except in our using it (has our training given us the results we're after?) -- which means by fighting. It is easy to get what I call chi sao blind, get lost in the drill, and use the drill as the goal itself -- to measure "results" by how "good" one gets at the drill. But chi sao skills are not fighting skills; chi sao skills need to be "tweaked" or modified to be effectively used in fighting, especially against skilled opponents. Someone can have the "best" chi sao and not be able to fight a lick (and can have a completely erroneous idea of application). This can only be appreciated from experience (by fighting).

Phil Redmond

01-02-2005, 08:06 AM

Not that you need my endorsement :) but that was a very good post Terrence.
Phil

Matrix

01-02-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
So when I hear folks talk about a "lack of root" or some other thing, that can be a conscious decision by the trainee to work on some other aspect. In this case, the trainee may be concentrating on hand speed or something else. While it is certainly good to concentrate on one or more aspects of your training, doing so at the expense of the fundamentals is counter-productive in my opinion. What's the point of concentrating on hand speed if you're sacrificing everything else?? To focus on one attribute of your skill set should not be at the total expense of everything else.

Someone can have the "best" chi sao and not be able to fight a lick (and can have a completely erroneous idea of application). This can only be appreciated from experience (by fighting). I disagree. If they cannot fight, then their chi sao is not the "best". While I agree that chi sao is not fighting, something is missing from the chi sao if it does not translate into fighting skill. And like I said before, I have fighting experience, I just have a different perspective than you do. Why can't you at least acknowledge that there may be more than one way to reach the goal? You speak of being chi sao blind, and I find that interesting coming from someone who appears to be sparring blind. Oh well, back to the "folk dancing".........

t_niehoff

01-02-2005, 10:22 AM

Matrix,

You've missed the entire point of my posts.

Chi sao, as in any drill, does not involve the integration of all fundamental aspects of our method -- rather, it requires sacraficing one thing to develop another (and it leaves some things out entirely regardless of how you do the drill). That's what drills do by their very nature. Do a drill to develop stability, then you are not developing (ie., sacrificing) mobility.

The *belief* that chi sao translates into fighting skill is the cornerstone of the theoretician POV. It absolutely does not. And it is a very simple thing to appreciate -- but it only comes from experience. What chi sao does is give one "the feeling" of what they should be trying to do, some limited experience in the method, etc. but that won't translate directly into higher level fighting skill. It can't.

I'm not "fighting blind" because deveoping greater fighting skills (performance) is the goal of our training -- its the results we're after. One can't be "result blind."

Matrix

01-02-2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
You've missed the entire point of my posts.
As you seemed to have missed mine.

Do a drill to develop stability, then you are not developing (ie., sacrificing) mobility. In each case, whether mobility or stability I still maintain my balance and other fundamental attributes. And let's stick to the example from the previous post if you don't mind. I don't need to sacrifice stability(root), form or structure for hand speed. Let's not try and confuse the issue with mutually exclusive qualities.

The *belief* that chi sao translates into fighting skill is the cornerstone of the theoretician POV. It absolutely does not. You keep saying that. Rather, let's say this.......... You do not believe that chi sao translates into fighting skill, therefore in your opinion it absolutely does not. You seem to think that your POV is "the truth" and you are certainly entitled to that perspective. I just don't share your view.

And it is a very simple thing to appreciate -- but it only comes from experience. Once again, based one your experience. Not mine. I have "experience" too you know...

What chi sao does is give one "the feeling" of what they should be trying to do, some limited experience in the method, etc. but that won't translate directly into higher level fighting skill. It can't. I am sorry to hear that your experience in chi sao has been so limiting. In that case, Keep on sparring........

One can't be "result blind." Agreed.
Same conclusion, different path. Go figure. ;)

t_niehoff

01-02-2005, 04:26 PM

Matrix,

It has nothing to do with personal views but evidence -- provable results of increased performance fighting. If from doing chi sao you have developed fighting skills that enable you to hold your own with highly skilled fighters, then great. You've accomplished what no one else has been able to do. I look forward to meeting you someday so you can demonstrate that ability.

Matrix

01-02-2005, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
It has nothing to do with personal views but evidence -- provable results of increased performance fighting. If from doing chi sao you have developed fighting skills that enable you to hold your own with highly skilled fighters, then great. You've accomplished what no one else has been able to do. I look forward to meeting you someday so you can demonstrate that ability. Terence,
I am not "highly-skilled", but I would say that my skill has improved through chi sao. I too look forward to the time when we can meet. By the way, are you one of those highly skilled fighters of whom you speak?

By the way, my name is Bill. Feel free to use it. :)
Peace,

chisauking

01-02-2005, 07:47 PM

N_iehoff sez: This is why chi sao, regardless of how one practices it, no mattter how "combatively" one thinks one is doing it, is nothing like fighting -- because certain aspects that are a significant part of fighting are by definition being ignored.

(One can argue just as well that BJJ, Western boxing, Thai boxing, etc, etc. is nothing like fighting. Indeed, many, many people's idea of fighting isn't considered to be fighting by others. A punch in the face isn't fighting. A kick in the teeth isn't fighting. Why state the obvious?)

It is easy to get what I call chi sao blind, get lost in the drill, and use the drill as the goal itself -- to measure "results" by how "good" one gets at the drill.

(One can also be just as blinded with BJJ drills, Boxing drills)

But chi sao skills are not fighting skills; chi sao skills need to be "tweaked" or modified to be effectively used in fighting, especially against skilled opponents.

(Every technique in existance would need to be "tweaked" to a certain extend -- unless you are fighting an identical twin all the time. Nobody knows the size and height of their opponent(s))

Someone can have the "best" chi sao and not be able to fight a lick (and can have a completely erroneous idea of application). This can only be appreciated from experience (by fighting).

(Bull5hit statement. Who do you personally know of that is remotely the best at chisau but can,t fight well? If you purport to be the best at chisau and can't apply it in combat, then you know chisau not at all)

Your fighting may not be fighting (michael yan choi)

Mr Punch

01-03-2005, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Matrix
You do not believe that chi sao translates into fighting skill, therefore in your opinion it absolutely does not.If you use the word 'directly', as Terence does later... then I don't believe so either.
I am sorry to hear that your experience in chi sao has been so limiting. In that case, Keep on sparring...I don't think this follows. I don't believe in general that a lot of people who are good at chi sao are necessarily good at fighting. And I've sure met some people who were good at fighting (in wing chun and other MAs) who weren't so good at chi sao. It doesn't then follow that I think that my experience of chi sao has been limiting.

Chi sao gives us some abilities which should be translatable into fighting... but a lot is often lost in translation, and often I think, through overemphasis on chi sao. That doesn't mean my experience of chi sao is limiting... on the contrary, it means I think the chi sao of many other wing chunners I've met has been limiting to them!
chisauking
Bull5hit statement. Who do you personally know of that is remotely the best at chisau but can,t fight well? If you purport to be the best at chisau and can't apply it in combat, then you know chisau not at allThis is a circular argument. Objectively I can judge, by my skills, that someone is better than me (or if I have felt the chi sao, or watched closely the chi sao of both of these people... than somebody else) at chi sao. It doesn't mean I am competing with them and therefore missing the point of chi sao, nor does it mean I am necessarily bad.

And then I can judge whether they are better than me or somebody else at sparring (which is also not fighting, but just as close if not closer as chi sao). This is not difficult unless your judgment is clouded by having a particular POV to support in the first place.

I love chi sao, it's very useful. And the same about sparring.

The few fights I've been in and scrapes I've defused have also given me insight which I've been able to apply to my MA, but not to my chi sao. Fighting and chi sao are not interchangeable.

Phil Redmond

01-03-2005, 06:30 AM

>>chisauking
Bull5hit statement. Who do you personally know of that is remotely the best at chisau but can,t fight well? If you purport to be the best at chisau and can't apply it in combat, then you know chisau not at all.<<

In my nearly 35 years of consistant training in WC I have seen MANY who a really good at chi sau but cannot fight. I know because when I was training under Yoel Judah I use to spar with lots of WC people. I was better conditioned and could take a good hit. They couldn't. If you've never been hit really hard during sparring do you know if you'll be able to continue? I've seen the guys good at Chi Sau catch a good punch/kick to the head or body during sparring and then are unable to continue.
Chi Sau is a cooperative training tool. I've seen to many people who think because they "tapped" you a few times during Chi Sau practice they are also good at fighting as well. Chi Sau teaches contact reflexes. Many of the techniques in Chi Sau are not directly applicable in real situations. You need to transpose the principles you learn in Chi Sau into sparring against an uncooperating partner using FULL power from different ranges. Also, real fighting requires heart, conditioning, power, and maybe even luck. There are many good fighters who know nothing of Chi Sau but they do have skill training, conditioning and most important, heart.
PR

Nick Forrer

01-03-2005, 07:55 AM

Heres an interesting clip about alive vs dead training:

SBG clip (http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv )

Phil Redmond

01-03-2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Heres an interesting clip about alive vs dead training:

SBG clip (http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv )

Thanks Nick. That clip was on the money. I'm a muscian and I believe that Jazz musicians are better than classically trained musicians who depend on sheet music. They can't solo to save their lives. They have no improvisational skills.
PR

Matrix

01-03-2005, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Chi Sau is a cooperative training tool. Training for what? If chi sao does not translate into fighting skill, then we are all wasting our time.

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
I've seen to many people who think because they "tapped" you a few times during Chi Sau practice they are also good at fighting as well. I've seen similar things in sparring. People jumping around, kicking and throwing punches and think this is "fighting". The point is that I think we need all the pieces of the puzzle together. Chi Sao is not the end all and be-all, but neither is sparring.

Chi Sau teaches contact reflexes.
Does this translate into fighting skill? By the way, I think Chi Sau teaches more than just contact reflexes, but I appear to be wrong - again.

Many of the techniques in Chi Sau are not directly applicable in real situations. You need to transpose the principles you learn in Chi Sau into sparring against an uncooperating partner using FULL power from different ranges. If they are not directly applicable, how do you transpose them? It sounds like we can't get to fighting from chi sao, but we can get to fighting through sparring. Why are we even bothering with Chi Sao if it's so impractical? Let's just spar all the time. Heart, conditioning and power are required regardless of the training methods used so I don't see how that's an issue here.

There are many good fighters who know nothing of Chi Sau but they do have skill training, conditioning and most important, heart. There are many good fighters who know nothing of Wing Chun at all. You don't need Wing Chun to be skilled or conditioned, and heart is an individual thing - nothing to do with a specific art. Why bother with chi sao or for that matter Wing Chun? It's the man, not the art right???

monkeyspoon

01-03-2005, 10:53 AM

Nick, I enjoyed that video, the chess analogy was good, also phil, i love your jazz/classical analogy, its bang on.

As well as wing chun i have done some training in tae kwon do, im not a MMArtist, and i certainly hope im not a partial artist. But the cooperative set sparring and somtimes meaningless movements within patterns aside, the free sparring (although with too many constricting rules....im dying to kick their standing legs as they bounce around legs in the air) has always kept me in check, the other guy doesnt know wing chun, he doesnt know what im trying to accomplish, its a whole world apart from chi sau.

However, it also makes me realise just how flexible the fundamental wing chun principles are and these are things that are trained to death in drills and chi sau.

I think everything has its place but its up to us to realise what that place is in our own minds.

I am lucky to have a training partner who has just started wing chun, and he is not afraid to test theories and ask awkard questions. The result is a no-ego training environment that often brings out interesting discussion points and a more realistic attitude.

AndrewS

01-03-2005, 02:10 PM

FWIW,

the clip, technical notes- some of the shots are linked, others powered locally, backed by bodyweight. Not every hit is full-body, all the time, nor is the best way to get into a full body 'linked' structure to move everything into place as a full body motion. This seems to be a basic Wing Chun premise, and is part of what differentiates us from Xing Yi and the other neijia. Lan, or in this case, biu, can be driven in by arm and back, but then be supported by body on the end. If you watch, this guy is kicking out reps doing a drill- the initial strike leads the body, the fast local shots are backed by body as he moves forward, and the finishers he's doing use the hip and turn. This *isn't* demo tape; he's doing reps for his own training purposes.

As Terence nicely puts it, you don't know what he's working on, or the relationship of this to this guy's fighting skills, so this is like watching someone work a bag or a focus mit drill.

Phil and Terence are dead on- there are loads of people out there who can look slick in chi sao, or can 'hang' in chi sao with decent fighters, but who will get murdered by the same people they can 'hang' with when it comes to fighting. Chi sao has much use but little meaning in and of itself.

The guy in the clip- one of my main training partner's old teachers, sifu Morten. This guy has been part of the danish full-contact WT program for well over a decade- probably fifteen years, and has, if memory serves, spent a good bit of time on the door. Everything I've heard is that he has an excellent set of skills. The Danes, by the way, have been doing a bit of BJJ lately, working with some guy who knows a little Jiujitsu- Marcello Garcia.

The technique- I've been caught by that piece of Biu Tze chi sao when I've been doing heavy-contact with one of my seniors, so at least once, someone has pulled it off against a resisting opponent.

Andrew

YoungMaster

01-03-2005, 03:31 PM

Training for what? If chi sao does not translate into fighting skill, then we are all wasting our time.

Yes a very good question indeed and i am sure many Wing Chun practitioner after years of dedicated training have asked this same question ! In most cases after they have dared to venture out of their WC closet and exchanged hands with other decent practitioner of another style using their Chi Sau.

The fact is, Chi Sau Does translate into fighting skills but its an important part of a whole system, its not a STAND ALONE fighting tool.

So back to the Question, Are we wasting our time?

In my opinion and it has been stated in this forum already, there are a minority of lineages who can make their Chi Sau work. And its also a fact that there are different levels of understanding in Chi Sau and different lineages have different takes on thier Chi Sau. Those who claim their Chi Sau can be used in real fighting are really talking about a much more comprehensive Chi Sau system than your average 5 year 'Joe' practitioner who only knows Luk Sau engagement.

I guess any confident Chi Sau 'Artist' could always step into the ring with any boxer and try to engage him. But the mere fact that some WC fully extend one or both hands out to engage contact is impractical straight away. If you are just using just Chi Sau sucessfully in free fighting and not using a Ying (inside) Yang (outside) bridge configuration then i would to love to enroll as your student. As against a competent shoalin stylist like Mantis or Pak Mei who specialise in breaking and engaging bridges......how long will your Chi Sau bridge last ?

The fact is most people who learn WC are taught from day one to straight punch and to yield to power. So they are conditioned to engaging people who punch straight and yield, though admittedly the odd Sifu may teach consistently how to defend against hooked punches. but does anyone know more than one WC drill that involves an angled punch ? (spare me the straight punch lecture). If one does not train against a charged angled attack then its not an in-built reflex. And its also a fact that many other Kung Fu styles do not yield to pressure or strength nor punch straight and on top have impressive power delivery, not to mentioned conditioned hands as well !

Why are we even bothering with Chi Sao if it's so impractical? Let's just spar all the time.

Cos fights are not always clean and there is sometimes grappling of the arms or wresling is involved and that is where the Chi Sau comes in handy. Its pointless stepping in to Chi Sau an opponent if you can dispose of him at arms reach with San Sou. So that's where the sparring training comes in..................So in short, anyone who claimed they can win real fights against non WC using just Chi Sau can in my books have their claim to fame :D

(Bull5hit statement. Who do you personally know of that is remotely the best at chisau but can,t fight well? If you purport to be the best at chisau and can't apply it in combat, then you know chisau not at all)

Sadly i dont know many people who claim to be remotely the best in Chi Sau, but i have come across a few who reckoned they were hot but even thier Chi Sau fell apart when i switched out of WC. Oh yes there is Victor Khan who claim they called him 'King of Chi Sau' though i dont see him mentioned as one of the good fighters of the older Yip Man camp.

chisauking

01-03-2005, 07:50 PM

Hiya, Phil. Just to address some of your points...

PR:In my nearly 35 years of consistant training in WC I have seen MANY who a really good at chi sau but cannot fight.

Chisauking: Every one of us has the ability to fight -- the only question is how good can we fight. Also, our standard of chisau may differ. What may be considered good to you may be rubbish to me.

PR:I know because when I was training under Yoel Judah I use to spar with lots of WC people. I was better conditioned and could take a good hit. They couldn't. If you've never been hit really hard during sparring do you know if you'll be able to continue? I've seen the guys good at Chi Sau catch a good punch/kick to the head or body during sparring and then are unable to continue.

Chisauking: A tolerance to pain is obvously an important, mental fighting attribute, and I can assure you that anyone that purports to have reach a high level in chisau would have surpassed this mental stage.

PR:Chi Sau is a cooperative training tool. I've seen to many people who think because they "tapped" you a few times during Chi Sau practice they are also good at fighting as well. Chi Sau teaches contact reflexes. Many of the techniques in Chi Sau are not directly applicable in real situations. You need to transpose the principles you learn in Chi Sau into sparring against an uncooperating partner using FULL power from different ranges. Also, real fighting requires heart, conditioning, power, and maybe even luck. There are many good fighters who know nothing of Chi Sau but they do have skill training, conditioning and most important, heart.

Chisauking: Chisau is only cooperative at a basic and intermediate level. Once you have reached a proficient level, the only limit is your ability and ruthlessness -- in other words, how much do you want to punish your opponent. You may place limits and cooperation in your chisau, many other practitioners don't.

As regards to that "realistic training clip" many, many wing chun practitioners already train more realistic than that anyway. In fact, to me, it was VERY unrealistic and dead. Quick examples: Gloves and no shoes. Who do you know that fights with gloves and no shoes on the street? I spar with no gloves and wearing Dr. Martin shoes, and sometimes a freemeal in the hospital is provided courtesy of the NHS for some of the particapants. No big deal. How about the stick clip. How many people on this forum that's been in a full-out gang fight seen the fighters hitting out only once with sticks and iron bars? You will find in reality that people using sticks or bars -- any weapon for the matter -- will not stop until their opponent is down and out -- sometimes they will continue even when the guy is knocked unconscious! Why don't they -- in the clip -- train like that than if they claim to be realistic and alive?

At the end of the day, no matter how realistic I think I train, I can't match the realitity of training that occured at an earlier time by our wing chun ancestors. But unlike some on this forum pointing to that clip for reference, I don't delude myself otherwise. And I don't poke fun or ridicule others for choosing to train at a lesser intensity. As I have said before, your fighting may not be fighting.

One last time: Does anyone know of a prominant wing chun practitioner that's reach the "BEST" in chisau but can't fight?

Mr Punch

01-03-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Chisauking
Chisau is only cooperative at a basic and intermediate level. Once you have reached a proficient level, the only limit is your ability and ruthlessness -- in other words, how much do you want to punish your opponent. You may place limits and cooperation in your chisau, many other practitioners don't.
Then I would argue it isn't chi sao! Chi sao, the way I've been taught in different lineages, is sensitivity drill for developing forward energy, reading weakness and openings in your partner's posture, responding by reflex, working set-ups to create weakness and openings etc., and on occasion going over the things you got wrong or working particular patterns with your partner. Using Mat Thornton's criteria I would say it's a semi-live drill... there is resistance and it's not usually in a set pattern but it's not usually full resistance.

After that, if you are working with an opponent not a partner, and you are including factors like 'ruthlessness' and 'how much do you want to punish your opponent' I would say you are not doing chi sao, you are sparring. Using the chi sao positions to start, and as a rough framework, but sparring.

And sure, I can mix it up in chi sao... I can get brutal, and have ended up injured in chi sao... but I would argue that it was at that point One last time: Does anyone know of a prominant wing chun practitioner that's reach the "BEST" in chisau but can't fight?Why do you keep asking this? Originally Terence Niehoff put 'best' in quotation marks, obviously alluding to not really thinking THE best but 'of a generally high level'.

Of course, there is no THE best. And I would agree with Terence, that many I've met who have been good at chi sao have not been able to hold their own in sparring.

Here's a question back to you:
I spar with no gloves and wearing Dr. Martin shoes, and sometimes a freemeal in the hospital is provided courtesy of the NHS for some of the particapants. No big deal.I usually spar and chi sao (to many levels of resistance and 'liveness') in army boots, trainers, civvies, and no gloves, and although I've had a biu jee in the back of my eye, several broken noses, bruises, scrapes, cuts etc, I've never put anyone in hospital and never been put in hospital... Tell us some of the times when you or your training partners have had a free meal courtesy of the NHS...!

I'm not calling you out on this one, but I'm genuinely interested... I will probably argue that I think it's a daft way to train, but let's see!

t_niehoff

01-03-2005, 10:09 PM

This is my perspective --

Chi sao is a drill. The skills one develops in chi sao are not fighting skills (anyone who fights regularly will see that immediately) but they are *precursors* to fighting skills. No one can become a significantly better fighter doing just chi sao (or forms or san sao or a combination of the three). This is not to say chi sao isn't important (though I could make a good argument that the drill is grossly overrated) but it is a step toward the objective. The drill has unfortunately become the centerpiece of WCK because WCK has been taken over by nonfighters, just as push hands is the centerpiece of that other nonmartial art, tai ji.

Chi sao is a cooperative drill and not an "alive" drill because folks are *not behaving* like they would in a fight (and if you think you are behaving like you would in a fight with your chi sao - "my chi sao is combat ready" - then you are crusin' for a bruisin'! Go give it a try by fighting with someone *good* and after your regain consciouness I'll wager you feel differently.) -- the intensity is not there, the resisitance is not there, the intention is not there as they all would be in a fight. And this is crucial to understand because if the mainstay of your training is chi sao then you are training poor fighting habits -- you're making yourself a worse fighter-- because your are inculcating habits that won't be productive in a fight and you aren't developing the attributes, like sensitivity, to the level they are needed (in fighting). To develop greater fighting skill you need to take from the drill and then leave the drill behind.

Now, I know some folks will respond with "I've been in a few fights and have done OK" or "I've sparred with my classmates" or "I've sparred in tournaments" or what have you as some evidence that chi sao alone did work. But the problem is that they are judging by their ability to deal with crappy folks; the test of skill isn't that someone can beat crap but deal with skilled folks. Go fight with folks that have proven higher-level skills. That's the only way to know.

chisauking

01-04-2005, 07:44 AM

Mat sez: Then I would argue it isn't chi sao! Chi sao, the way I've been taught in different lineages, is sensitivity drill for developing forward energy, reading weakness and openings in your partner's posture, responding by reflex, working set-ups to create weakness and openings etc., and on occasion going over the things you got wrong or working particular patterns with your partner. Using Mat Thornton's criteria I would say it's a semi-live drill... there is resistance and it's not usually in a set pattern but it's not usually full resistance.

Chisauking: You can argue all you want, Chisau, in the context of wing chun, encompases dan-chi, luk-sau, gor-sau, etc., and there's no restriction on resistance or techniques at the highest level. I can't help the fact that large % of practitioners haven't reach that level, and their chisau has to be governed by the limitations of the lower levels.

Mat: After that, if you are working with an opponent not a partner, and you are including factors like 'ruthlessness' and 'how much do you want to punish your opponent' I would say you are not doing chi sao, you are sparring. Using the chi sao positions to start, and as a rough framework, but sparring.

Chisauking: See above regarding chisau and gor-sau. Also, only beginers would think that chisau has to be applied in a particular position and place.

Mat: And sure, I can mix it up in chi sao... I can get brutal, and have ended up injured in chi sao... but I would argue that it was at that point [bad chi sao... the structures were failing, the sloppy techs were coming out, it was ending up like bad grappling. So sure, fighting isn't pretty, but my point is at that point it was less like chi sao and more like sparring.

Chisauking: Again, see above regarding gor-sau. Just because YOUR chisau starts to fall apart at a higher intenisity doesn't mean other people's chisau are the same.

Mat: And as for the live training clip, they're ways of making your training more and more live, and still being able to train for a long long time without having serious injuries. You have to draw the line somewhere or you don't have any training partners left.

Chisauking: you missed my point completely. Some of the FIGHTERS on this forum is repeatedly advocating that you have to fight to get better at fighting, and they pointed to the Mat Thorton clip as an example. I merely observed that lots of wing chun practitioners already practice to that intensity, and for some, far above that intensity. Although I love fighting, I would be the first to admit that what I'm doing isn't realistic fighting as such, and I don't feel you need to fight in order to get good at fighting. There are excellent methods to improve your fighting skills without actual FIGHTING and getting badly injuried, and that framework is CHISAU within the style of wing chun. All the so-called fighters that laugh at this statement and start to talk about BJJ and how realistic the training is compared to chisau is simply deluding themselves. NO style in the world actually fight for real in training, no matter how intensive they SPAR.

Mat:Why do you keep asking this? Originally Terence Niehoff put 'best' in quotation marks, obviously alluding to not really thinking THE best but 'of a generally high level'.

Chisauking: I asked twiced, and still no one has given me a name yet.

Mat: Of course, there is no THE best. And I would agree with Terence, that many I've met who have been good at chi sao have not been able to hold their own in sparring.

Chisauking: Your chisau may not be my chisau, and our standards obviously differ

Mat: Here's a question back to you: I usually spar and chi sao (to many levels of resistance and 'liveness') in army boots, trainers, civvies, and no gloves, and although I've had a biu jee in the back of my eye, several broken noses, bruises, scrapes, cuts etc, I've never put anyone in hospital and never been put in hospital... Tell us some of the times when you or your training partners have had a free meal courtesy of the NHS...!

Chisauking: As I have said, it's no big deal. I have been training for quite a long time now, and I love to train with everybody and anybody, to whatever level they like to go: rules, no rules, grass, tarmac, stop when down, continue until one is unable or knock out. All I ask people is that if they are better than me, show me a little mercy. The point is, when it's time for the fist and legs to "talk", and my opponent tries to knock me out, I'm not holding back. In that moment, anything can happen. Over the years, people have gone to the hospital with dislocated joints, torn ligaments, damaged knee, concussion, etc. No big deal, it is all part of the game. As the Chinese saying goes: Kune Guerk Mo Ann (fist and legs has no eyes)

Mat: I'm not calling you out on this one, but I'm genuinely interested... I will probably argue that I think it's a daft way to train, but let's see!

Chisauking: Training for years and years for maybe 2-seconds of use is daft, so what? Besides, if you face violent people, you have to train in violent ways.

Happy new year to everybody. I may have to cut down on my participation on this forum soon, because I'm resuming on training and flying, so I may not be able to respond to replies

Your fighting may not be fighting; your chisau may not be chisau

Mr Punch

01-04-2005, 09:24 AM

Chisauking: You can argue all you want...

Mat: Cheers! :D

CSK: Chisau, in the context of wing chun, encompases dan-chi, luk-sau, gor-sau, etc.

Mat: so you say gor sao = a form of chi sao, I say gor sao = a form of sparring. So apart from the Chinese terminology we agree, except that I evidently believe the framework for practice in gor sao to be different to that of chi sao.

CSK: and there's no restriction on resistance or techniques at the highest level.

Mat: You missed my point entirely; You said yourself: there is no FIGHTING in any martial art. It isn't NHB. You don't use lethal or even excessive force, you just finish the job.

CSK: I can't help the fact that large % of practitioners haven't reach that level, and their chisau has to be governed by the limitations of the lower levels.

Mat: so the problem is either semantics (gor sao vs sparring) or quality control... in which case you're of course the chi sao king and part of the small percentage that are getting the real high level stuff...? :D

Chisauking: Also, only beginers would think that chisau has to be applied in a particular position and place.

Mat: Don't understand this. I didn't suggest this, and I don't know who would.

Chisauking: Again, see above regarding gor-sau. Just because YOUR chisau starts to fall apart at a higher intenisity doesn't mean other people's chisau are the same... Your chisau may not be my chisau, and our standards obviously differ...

Mat: So again, what you're saying is I'm crap!? :D Fair enough, I can live with that. I've met and trained with a lot of people, some of whom are better than me, and some who aren't, but I would have to disagree with you!

My standards are obviously gonna be different to yours or anybody else's, but as I said, what you call gor sao, I'm more likely to call sparring than chi sao. I hope I can pressure test my WC structure in sparring, but it's gonna be different to a co-operative chi sao drill.

Mat: And as for the live training clip, they're ways of making your training more and more live, and still being able to train for a long long time without having serious injuries. You have to draw the line somewhere or you don't have any training partners left.

Chisauking: you missed my point completely. Some of the FIGHTERS on this forum is repeatedly advocating that you have to fight to get better at fighting, and they pointed to the Mat Thorton clip as an example. I merely observed that lots of wing chun practitioners already practice to that intensity, and for some, far above that intensity...

Mat: OK, yeah, I did miss that. I agree. I'm not sure why Nick linked to the Mat Thornton (tho I did enjoy it I also recognize some of my own drills in wing chun in there) when he put up the fast hands guy in the first place. The fast hands guy was not to me a good example of live drilling... tho I'm still not making any comment about his skills cos I've never met him, but there were no live drills on that site, other than maybe the chi sao at the end... but then we're back to my original point, which is that that kind of chi sao (as distinct from gor sao , sparring etc) is only semi-live.

Mat: Why do you keep asking this? Originally Terence Niehoff put 'best' in quotation marks, obviously alluding to not really thinking THE best but 'of a generally high level'.

Chisauking: I asked twiced, and still no one has given me a name yet.

Mat: Of course, there is no THE best.

Mat: Twice is 'keeping' asking. And I just answered: there is no THE best and Terence wasn't implying there was I don't think... maybe he'll clear it up for you.

As for the rest of your post, I'd be more than happy to meet up with you and chi sao, gor sao, spar, lam the crap out of each other, whatever, one day... that's more what I'm about outside of the limits of these net 'chats'. Cheers :D.

Knifefighter

01-04-2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by chisauking
Chisauking: you missed my point completely. Some of the FIGHTERS on this forum is repeatedly advocating that you have to fight to get better at fighting, and they pointed to the Mat Thorton clip as an example. I merely observed that lots of wing chun practitioners already practice to that intensity, and for some, far above that intensity. There is a thread regarding posting of video clips. Maybe you could post just ONE single clip of some quality WC being used at high intensity against a resisting opponent who is also going at high intensity... because, so far, no one has ever been able to so.

Nick Forrer

01-04-2005, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Mat
Mat: OK, yeah, I did miss that. I agree. I'm not sure why Nick linked to the Mat Thornton (tho I did enjoy it I also recognize some of my own drills in wing chun in there) when he put up the fast hands guy in the first place.

Because im slightly contrary like that:D Seriously it was more to compare and contrast. I think theres a balance to be struck between so called 'alive' and 'dead' training. If you just fight all the time and dont drill you will have little or no technique and your fights will be scrappy. If you dont fight/spar against a resisting opponent you'll never be able to apply your perfect technique in a real fight. I think Mr Thortons chess analogy is a lttle off since gross motor movements, kinesthetic awareness, coordination, accuracy etc. are all things which have to be internalised through repitition (sp?). Even Boxers skip, run, shadow box, hit the speed bag, heavy bag etc. none of which involve a resisting opponent. Also In BJJ we do a lot of drilling against a non resisting opponent.

Originally posted by Mat
The fast hands guy was not to me a good example of live drilling... tho I'm still not making any comment about his skills cos I've never met him, but there were no live drills on that site, other than maybe the chi sao at the end... but then we're back to my original point, which is that that kind of chi sao (as distinct from gor sao , sparring etc) is only semi-live.

Unlike the others on this forum Ive seen Morton 'go at it' and like Andrew S can attest to his skill so I posted the clip with that (private) knowledge already. Its inevitable that some people (not you) will draw conclusions about the mans ability from a clip. No problem. As you point out you never really know until you have a go with someone.

t_niehoff

01-04-2005, 11:30 AM

Nick,

IMO Matt Thornton isn't saying there is no benefit to "dead" training -- as you correctly point out, everyone does dead reps. He places those things as a part of "conditioning", that you are preparing your body in some way, building coordination, etc. While necessary, those "dead" drills things won't *by themselves* translate to fighting skill -- the "alive" training is what does that. His point is that without "alive" training, one will never develop significant improvements in fighting skill.

Phil Redmond

01-04-2005, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by YoungMaster
The fact is most people who learn WC are taught from day one to straight punch and to yield to power. So they are conditioned to engaging people who punch straight and yield, though admittedly the odd Sifu may teach consistently how to defend against hooked punches. but does anyone know more than one WC drill that involves an angled punch ? (spare me the straight punch lecture). If one does not train against a charged angled attack then its not an in-built reflex. . . . .
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/woodchi.asp#chi
Lop Da with Hook Punch
Lop Da with Low Punch
PR

Paniero

01-06-2005, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Nick Forrer Have you got hands as fast as this guy?

Only for about six or seven seconds every evening.

Frank Exchange

01-07-2005, 03:31 AM

Only for about six or seven seconds every evening.

ROFL! :)

foolinthedeck

01-07-2005, 11:00 AM

not only does he hold breath and tense shoulder, he look very tense while rolling and first move to open opponent look tense. not so good, if opponent hit him while he doing fast he gone.

sihing

01-11-2005, 11:34 PM

LOL...Something’s never change around here.

First we have people complaining that having fast hands is a defect in fighting and then we have people talking about how we don't need chi-sao to develop fighting skills and that chi-sao teaches nothing useful. Wrong on all parts IMO.

The questions on fast hands, if you can move and punch/strike fast at the same time then you have something, if not you have much less but still you do have a tool at your disposal (otherwise all fighting methods in stationary places would be useless).

Chi-sao is a drill, yes, but it does have fighting applications and uses. Besides learning contact reflexes, we train chi-sao to learn footwork, forward intention, close range eyesight, short force/power, proper positioning of all parts of body in relation to opponent (not talking about single arm or double arm chi-sao necessarily here), etc.. We don't train to get hit, and training to get hit is stupid IMO. If someone out weighs you by 80+ lbs then one shot may be all he needs to cause serious damage for yourself.
But training just chi-sao is not recommended either. One has to learn how to fight from a non-contact distance and how to bridge the gap and close in on an opponent without exposing themselves to attack and simultaneously obtaining superior positioning if possible and learn how to read their opponents movements from non-contact.

James

Matrix

01-12-2005, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by sihing
First we have people complaining that having fast hands is a defect in fighting and then we have people talking about how we don't need chi-sao to develop fighting skills and that chi-sao teaches nothing useful. Wrong on all parts IMO. James,
No one said fast hands is a defect. I can see that you haven't changed much either. ;) The criticisms were specific to what we saw in the video, unknown factors not withstanding. Speed can be a defect if it comes at the expense of other fundamental attributes, IMO.

sihing

01-12-2005, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
James,
No one said fast hands is a defect. I can see that you haven't changed much either. ;) The criticisms were specific to what we saw in the video, unknown factors not withstanding. Speed can be a defect if it comes at the expense of other fundamental attributes, IMO.

I can agree with you here Bill, sacrificing one attribute for another can be to ones determent. Is positioning more important than speed of punch/kick? Both are great, but I'd rather have superior skills at positioning myself in relation to the opponent than super fast hands, just due to the fact that positioning gives me more time to attack and its easier with the proper position to land those attacks.

Regarding the video, I viewed that video months ago and yeah he is fast in it , but like allot of WC out there lacks good positoning, IMO. Fighting down the middle or centerline will only leave you vulnerable to both arms if the person decides to hook, but on the blindside allows easier access for your own tools and less access for his. But its only a demo of a particular technique or attribute, and I'm sure the gentlemen demonstrating it has more tools than just that.

James

P.S. I like who I am, so why change?