Is Chi Sau for fighting? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

t_niehoff

04-03-2007, 04:05 PM

Sometimes it is easier to understand the categories into which a thing does not fall. Chi sao (sticking) in and of itself, is not fighting, neither is it for fighting. This brings us to a quandary. If it is neither of these then how does it fit into the fighting equation. Well, it can be said that Chi Sao is a tool designed to elicit and train one aspect of fighting; touch.

No, it is a training platform that has degenerated into something else.

It creates habits whereby one reacts in the most appropriate way dependant upon the messages received through feeling the opponent’s body.

No, just the opposite -- it creates poor fighitng habits.

Does Chi Sao mimic a fight? No.
Does it help you as a fighter? Absolutely.

Yes in that it allows a trainee to learn skills in a somewhat dynamic environment.

It creates the correct neuro-muscular conditioning that allows you to react (counter-attack) once you have bridged a connection with an opponent.

No, it allows a trainee to practice skills while in contact in a nonfighting (unrealistic) environement. No conditioning takes place.

Examples of where it can help include clinch position to enable dirty boxing as well as the elbow to elbow range favoured by Wing Chun men.

Is it a just a drill. Yes and no.

It is trained in a drill like fashion, but one must view it as being organic or 'alive'.

As I said, it was a learning platform that has degenerated into something else. If I want to teach a trainee the "running" skill (let's say that when your hand is pressed downward, you circle to the outside and hit or cover or whatever), for instance, I'll first show it to him, then perhaps give him a fixed drill to practice it with -- let's say I punch, you tan, I press, you run and punch, I tan, you press, I run and punch, etc. Once they can perform that comfortably. I'll then put it into chi sao to make it more dynamic (some things I'll start teaching from chi sao). At that point, the trainee will have learned the skill but it will not be a fighting skill since it hasn't been trained in a realistic environment.

Why do you think so many people in WCK can do and look very good in chi sao but can't do any of those things in realistic fighting?

Jeff Bussey

04-03-2007, 04:08 PM

Hey Knifefighter,

Here's one of the major drawbacks of chi sao:

You are generally hitting to the chest, and oftentimes, with less than full force. Chi sao becomes a game of tag with the "winner" getting the most hits to the chest. Many "chi sao experts" think that they are good at fighting because they get good at hitting people in the chest from chi sao.

The problem is that fighting is nothing like this. Many people who spend most of their time doing chi sao will be very surprised to learn that being able to hit someone for real and putting them down is very, very different than hitting someone in the chest when doing chi sao training.

Hitting someone, as well as getting hit, is completely differerent than hitting and getting hit in the chest during chi sao drills.

Your right if people are using chi sao to add up points for how many times you can hit your opponents chest then they are doing it wrong and not working on their wing chun.
It's really easy to hit someone in the chest plain and simple, I'm nobody special and I'm willing to bet that I could hit pretty much anyone in the chest doing chi sau.
So what, chi sao is about control and how to control your opponent with your footwork and structure. It's about shutting them down.

J

Vajramusti

04-03-2007, 04:09 PM

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 04:38 PM

Here's one of the major drawbacks of chi sao:

((An example of non wc trolling and misplaced pontification. Chi sao is not a mechanical drill with only hitting the chest. The forum posts are inundated
with a combination of repetitive posting and non wc trolling,...))

OK, I'm ready to be enlightened. Tell me how chi sao is different than I am pontificating about it.

Are you hitting full force to the face from chi sao?
Are you hitting full force to the abdominal area?
Are you only working chi sao as part of a full contact sparring session that starts from various ranges?
What am I missing?

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 04:44 PM

So what, chi sao is about control and how to control your opponent with your footwork and structure. It's about shutting them down.

The same problem applies whether it is about hitting someone in the chest or thinking you can shut them down. Trying to shut someone down is much different in fighting when someone is throwing full force strikes to your face, head and body than it is when you are in an unrealistic "steering wheel" position.

The other problem with chi sao is that it gives people the false impression that they can, indeed, "shut someone down" and develops the theoretical non-fightering impression that you can expect to fight without ever being rocked. The fact is, in a real fight, both fighters will probably land shots.

Additionally, much of fighting ability is the ability to take decent shots. If the majority of one's time is spent taking hits to the chest, he will not develop the ability to take the shots that are an inevitable result of fighting.

Jeff Bussey

04-03-2007, 05:00 PM

Hey Knifefighter,

The same problem applies whether it is about hitting someone in the chest or shutting them down. Shutting someone down is a misconception and is much different in fighting when someone is throwing full force strikes to your face, head and body than it is when you are in an unrealistic "steering wheel" position.

The other problem with chi sao is that it gives people the impression that they can, indeed, "shut someone down." The fact is, in a real fight, both fighters will probably land shots. Only theoretical non-fighters expect to fight without ever being rocked.

Additionally, much of fighting ability is the ability to take decent shots. If the majority of one's time is spent taking hits to the chest, he will not develop the ability to take the shots that are an inevitable result of fighting.

The thing as I see it, the shutting someone down isn't about controlling them to a point that they're tied up or can't move whithout large motions and because of my hyper sensitivity I can detect it and wack the guy.
Shutting someone down or contorlling them is a split second in reality. It's to get an advantage so I can wack him.

Now you mentioned fighting ability, chi sao can help with that but it's not a sparring session getting used to being hit needs to be explored in a different drill.

J

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 05:10 PM

The thing as I see it, the shutting someone down isn't about controlling them to a point that they're tied up or can't move whithout large motions and because of my hyper sensitivity I can detect it and wack the guy.
J

Well, then you are back to the original problem. Whacking the guy in the chest from chi sao is completely different than rocking him in a real fighting situation.

Jeff Bussey

04-03-2007, 05:17 PM

Hey Knifefighter,

Well, then you are back to the original problem. Whacking the guy in the chest from chi sao is completely different than rocking him in a real fighting situation.

Right absolutely. In Chi sao we're not hitting to the head, because if I can tie you up, I would be a jerk to launch a punch full force at your chest let alone your head because that's not what chi sao is for and that's the reason why you have people counting the number of times they're hitting someones chest

You can use sparring for what you mentioned.

J

Edmund

04-03-2007, 05:25 PM

OK, I'm ready to be enlightened. Tell me how chi sao is different than I am pontificating about it.

Are you hitting full force to the face from chi sao?
Are you hitting full force to the abdominal area?
Are you only working chi sao as part of a full contact sparring session that starts from various ranges?
What am I missing?

I thought you said you've done WC before, KF?

You can hit full force if you like to anywhere you like. Nothing in particular is stopping you from doing so however without protective equipment someone will eventually get injured.

It's a vague ruleset so you can concentrate on a particular aspect of fighting, close-range in-contact fighting. And hopefully improve your skills at that aspect.

You're fully welcome to crush your training partners but don't expect more to come running over to train with you. All the applications and target areas are fine to practice but you have to use some common-sense when applying them on your partner. Gloves allow you to hit harder without injuring your partner. Headgear also.

For other ranges, you do other training exercises.

Edmund

04-03-2007, 05:29 PM

Right absolutely. In Chi sao we're not hitting to the head.

Sure we are. Any target in the techniques of WC is a target in chi sao however we use some common-sense in *practicing* how to apply it. If you hit to the head, You can use your palm or hit them under the jaw or put headgear on.

You can practice the power on pads.

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 05:31 PM

I thought you said you've done WC before, KF?

You can hit full force if you like to anywhere you like. Nothing in particular is stopping you from doing so however without protective equipment someone will eventually get injured.

It's a vague ruleset so you can concentrate on a particular aspect of fighting, close-range in-contact fighting. And hopefully improve your skills at that aspect.

You're fully welcome to crush your training partners but don't expect more to come running over to train with you. All the applications and target areas are fine to practice but you have to use some common-sense when applying them on your partner. Gloves allow you to hit harder without injuring your partner. Headgear also.

For other ranges, you do other training exercises.

Many, if not most, people do chi sao with chest strikes only.

How do you do it?

Of course even if you do full force strikes with protective equipment, you are still starting from the unrealistic steering wheel position.

Jeff Bussey

04-03-2007, 05:33 PM

Hey Edmund,

Sure we are. Any target in the techniques of WC is a target in chi sao however we use some common-sense in *practicing* how to apply it. If you hit to the head, You can use your palm or hit them under the jaw or put headgear on.

You can practice the power on pads.

I guess I'm not counting a technique to the head as a hit to the head. But you're right.

J

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 05:43 PM

I guess I'm not counting a technique to the head as a hit to the head. But you're right.

Huh?
How is that?
When is a hit to the head not a hit to the head?

Jeff Bussey

04-03-2007, 06:02 PM

Huh?
How is that?
When is a hit to the head not a hit to the head?

It's pulled.

Liddel

04-03-2007, 06:30 PM

For the sake of the conversation could we specify what each of us is meaning by Chi Sao ?

The term Chi Sao to me means to accept what comes and can apply to drills and fighting.

Chi Dan Sao - is NOT for fighting IMO. Its for muscle memory and sensitivity were i train, and its co operative.

The same could be said for Poon sao except it gets closer to its application in fighting with the addition of footwork.

Gor Sao however is un co operative and is performed with more and more power/force as you get better without 'attacking contact' which is left for sparring.

The Biggest thing i find in peoples mindset towards Chi sao related drills and its purpose in fighting is this...

They dont realise - In Chi Sao we block the action FIRST, in Fighting we catch the body FIRST.

If people dont understand the difference and treat it like real fighting then they certainly will develope bad habbits IME.

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 07:01 PM

It's pulled.

OK, then you were right in the first place. It is not a hit to the head.

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 07:02 PM

They dont realise - In Chi Sao we block the action FIRST, in Fighting we catch the body FIRST.

If people dont understand the difference and treat it like real fighting then they certainly will develope bad habbits IME.

Anytime you are training something that is different than what will happen in fighting, you are training bad habits.

Liddel

04-03-2007, 07:27 PM

Anytime you are training something that is different than what will happen in fighting, you are training bad habits.

I agree to some extent. but at what cost...

With the majority of "drills" where i train the only thing thats different to real fighting is not connecting - mainly due to the fact we have bare hands and we couldnt train as long if we did connect. So to complement this training we hit pads and each other in sparring with gloves to avoid said problem.

You dont break limbs when at grappling training do you ?
But you know you can if the situation arises.

Every art has some aspect of what we're discussing here dont they ?
- Do Boxers train against leg and groin kicks ?
- Do Aikido guys retract punches, or leave them out to lock and manipulate suiting the style?
- Do Judo schools hit pads and punch each other (GNP) ?
- Does a TKD practitioner spar an opponent with more punches or kicks ?

Does any art specifically train in street clothes with shoes on.

What limits or boundaries are thier in your POV Dale ?

Edmund

04-03-2007, 07:35 PM

Many, if not most, people do chi sao with chest strikes only.

How do you do it?

Of course even if you do full force strikes with protective equipment, you are still starting from the unrealistic steering wheel position.

Many, if not most, don't do chi sao with chest strikes only. I've been around a lot more WC schools than you, I'd say. Only schools descended from Yip Man and YKS tend to use the steering wheel position.

As I said before, you palm to the face or punch under the jaw.

You don't have to start from a steering wheel position either. (e.g. the Pan Nam style does not.) But the focus is on getting good at close range WC techniques so one guy running off like a chicken isn't very good for training that. Any close position is fine to start from.

Sparring would be used to practice longer ranges.

Why do you even care?

It is a training drill where you try to practice WC techniques. The same techniques that you can use in a fight. The mechanics of the "rules" are just ways to enable you to practice them. For different types of techniques you can modify the rules and no one could care less. There is no Bible for this stuff.

Edmund

04-03-2007, 07:47 PM

It's pulled.

Why pull a palm to the head? It's not going to injure them. Just don't shove up on their nose and they'll be fine.

Airdrawndagger

04-03-2007, 08:07 PM

The way ive been taught is that if you are doing offensive techniques properly, strkeing to the chest is an indicator that you "can" strike to the face because you have cleared the path to the center. Once you have trapped someone using lop da for instance there is nothing protecting the face from a strike so a strike to the face is implied by striking to the chest. And even when striking to the chest, one must be aware of the offensive body mechanics involved with said strike. You can't over extend the punching arm to much because if you were to strike with a fully extended arm to the chest, that might indicate that you have over commited and would otherwise not be able to faun sau quickly, an opponent could counter with a arm lock or offensive tech, or there would not be enough power if the situation happened to be real, so you kind of use your arm placement as a guidline to follow so you do not develop a bad habit.

This is just one example of many examples of how you "use" chi sao to show you proper form, timing, balance, etc...that could translate to help you fight better in a real situation using wing chun.
Now that being said, I also do not only do chi sao to find all the answers to fighting which is what some might ask, assume or imply with some following remarks that are sure to come. There are many "drills" to practice to develop good fighting skills like sparring, bag work, running, forms training, etc...

Never do I assume that the practice of chi sao would be the same as a real fight and anyone who does is either being taught wrong, misinformed or in wonderland.

splinter

04-03-2007, 09:43 PM

Ok, out of curiosity, how many of the people who train wing chun regularly here are taught that Chi Sau is the ultimate expression of the art?

And the second question: How many TRAIN as though chi sau was the ultimate expression of the art? (This is different from the first question)

Just to give an example of my own experiences, I've always been taught Chi Sau as a bunch of fixed drills, where we start with full cooperation from the partner, and gradually build up intensity and resistance (In the form of both speed and power) for those individual drills. Once each of the individual drills are understood, it becomes randomized.

I've never heard the terms Poon Sau, or Gor Sau used in my school, but it's possible that I've been taught these things without the terminology. If someone could clarify those terms it would be appreciated.

I've learned other things in the same manner as chi sau, but starting from a squaring off position.

We hit pretty hard to the chest or gut, but pull punches to he head. But at the same time, we expect to get whacked if our defense isn't working. The goal is to develop sensitivity, and reaction. Nothing more.

At the end of the day, we put on some head gear, some MMA gloves, and spar with varying levels of intensity (anything form light taps to knocking each other silly). We vary the intensity so that we have the opportunity to work in some of the skills we've learned from chi sao or other exercieses as the intensity increases.

Do other people's training dffer much from this?

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 10:03 PM

You dont break limbs when at grappling training do you ?

No, but I am applying full force until the moment the opponent taps. If the opponent does not tap his joint will be snapped.
There is a big difference between applying a joint lock at full force until the opponent taps and pulling punches.

Do Boxers train against leg and groin kicks ?

No, but they train almost exactly as they fight.

Do Aikido guys retract punches, or leave them out to lock and manipulate suiting the style?

Most Aikido training is pretty unrealistic.
-

Do Judo schools hit pads and punch each other (GNP) ?
Like boxing, they train like they fight... just with a different emphasis.

Does a TKD practitioner spar an opponent with more punches or kicks ?

I'm kind of a fan of the athleticism of TKD, although I think it is pretty limited due to it's reliance on high kicks.

Does any art specifically train in street clothes with shoes on.

Training in a gi is a close approximation of street clothes. Same with wearing wrestling shoes. Same with t-shirts. Lots of styles do these things.

What limits or boundaries are thier in your POV Dale ?

My point of view is to train as close to real as possible. I guess the limitation to that is increased chance of injury... and that lots of t-shirts get torn from choke grips... and that when you get choked out with a t-shirt, you have a welt on your neck that makes it look like you just survived a hanging.

I guess another limitation is that you don't always feel like training at that level of realism.

anerlich

04-03-2007, 11:02 PM

Right absolutely. In Chi sao we're not hitting to the head.

I'll have to tell that to my instructors and training partners, and get them to apologise for all the facial bruises and black eyes they have given me during chi sao sessions.

Nobody with any sense and remaining IQ points spars full contact with no restrictions or protective gear all the time. Getting knocked out once or twice can be educational, same as being choked out. Regular concussion is BAD for you. The brain cannot be toughened. Though you defintely need to learn to shed and to take a punch.

Clinch work, with attached striking is arguably just as good at developing useful sensitivity. Chi sao also teaches correct structure and limb positioning for WC techniques, depending on what value that may or may not have to you.

Does any art specifically train in street clothes with shoes on.

If you train in street clothes all the time and allow the collar and sleeve manipulation in BJJ, judo, etc. you are going to be spending mucho cash on street clothes. Like a new shirt and set of pants every session. The gi is just a version of clothes designed to take extended punishment.

Training in trainers (running shoes) is done at many schools. You don't train in dress shoes or stillettos for the same reason you don't train in tuxedos. IMPRACTICAL. Though then again some train in those Chinese slippers which IMO are about the least practical shoes for MA training ever invented.

It might be a good idea to train barefoot now and then. Things might kick off at the beach, or during a home invasion in the early hours while you were in bed.

Liddel

04-04-2007, 12:13 AM

I asked - Do Boxers train against leg and groin kicks ?

No, but they train almost exactly as they fight.

Dale, i totally agree but i asked these questions of you as we were discussing "realism", not wether a style fights how they train.
Hence my questions about examples of other styles not training realistically.

My point of view is to train as close to real as possible. I guess the limitation to that is increased chance of injury...
I guess another limitation is that you don't always feel like training at that level of realism.

Totally see your POV. But remember one thing about VT - (at least for me)

- The nature of VT actions make it necessary to practice without gloves or protective gear on your hands. WHY ?
- because gloves inhibit touch and the way we control actions.

So we sacrifice the ability in Chi Sao / Poon Sao / Gor Sao / Lux Sao etc
to hit full force, because we train with bare hands in these platforms.

Fully realising this, we also complement our training with sparring (with gloves) - and pad work with and without gloves.

From a VT (standup) POV i want to train as close to real as i can. IMO pulling punches is a necessary part of the VT training i do and it doesnt happen all the time, people still get hit pulled pushed tripped, ive accidentally broken a friends nose when sparring, with an overhead elbow (kap Jarn). :o

The realism is there but i admit not all the time. :cool:

Jeff Bussey

04-04-2007, 01:56 AM

Hey Edmund

Why pull a palm to the head? It's not going to injure them. Just don't shove up on their nose and they'll be fine.

you don't think a palm to the head will injure them? and if you do a full force to the nose you don't think that might injure them, I mean it's not going to be serious but I'll keep pulling mine

Jeff Bussey

04-04-2007, 02:10 AM

Hey anerlich

I'll have to tell that to my instructors and training partners, and get them to apologise for all the facial bruises and black eyes they have given me during chi sao sessions.

Nobody with any sense and remaining IQ points spars full contact with no restrictions or protective gear all the time. Getting knocked out once or twice can be educational, same as being choked out. Regular concussion is BAD for you. The brain cannot be toughened. Though you defintely need to learn to shed and to take a punch.

Clinch work, with attached striking is arguably just as good at developing useful sensitivity. Chi sao also teaches correct structure and limb positioning for WC techniques, depending on what value that may or may not have to you.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but they are accidents and that's fine. People at my club have had broken fingers, split lips, bloody noses etc Nothing serious. I think that's why it doesn't go unnoticed when someone pulls their strike to my head

J

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 07:31 AM

Why pull a palm to the head? It's not going to injure them. Just don't shove up on their nose and they'll be fine.

one of the times I've seen a cheek bone broken was from a palm.

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 07:48 AM

I agree to some extent. but at what cost...

With the majority of "drills" where i train the only thing thats different to real fighting is not connecting - mainly due to the fact we have bare hands and we couldnt train as long if we did connect. So to complement this training we hit pads and each other in sparring with gloves to avoid said problem.

You dont break limbs when at grappling training do you ?
But you know you can if the situation arises.

Every art has some aspect of what we're discussing here dont they ?
- Do Boxers train against leg and groin kicks ?
- Do Aikido guys retract punches, or leave them out to lock and manipulate suiting the style?
- Do Judo schools hit pads and punch each other (GNP) ?
- Does a TKD practitioner spar an opponent with more punches or kicks ?

Does any art specifically train in street clothes with shoes on.

What limits or boundaries are thier in your POV Dale ?

in bjj I have seen muscles ripped and joints snapped. I saw a collar bone broken just this past weekend at a tourney our school organized. it is full force until the tap. no tap = joint snap.

same with judo and boxing. they fight how they train. u don't see judoka punhing mitts, but you don't see them punching when they fight, either.

when I trained jkd, we always wore shoes and wore street clothes ifwe wanted.

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 08:10 AM

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 08:17 AM

I asked - Do Boxers train against leg and groin kicks ?

Dale, i totally agree but i asked these questions of you as we were discussing "realism", not wether a style fights how they train.
Hence my questions about examples of other styles not training realistically.

still very real training. How often do you deal with kickers in the street? Also, their primary realism is a boxing ring. you don't hear many people saying they are taking boxing for self defense - they are training so they can box. The added benefit is that boxing is great for streetfighting. WC on the other hand, is supposed to be an excellent streetfighting style. This being the case, you would expect to see training that reflects that.

Tom Kagan

04-04-2007, 08:19 AM

- The nature of VT actions make it necessary to practice without gloves or protective gear on your hands. WHY ?
- because gloves inhibit touch and the way we control actions.

While it may be true that gloves "inhibit touch and the way we control actions", there is nothing in the "nature of VT" which makes it "necessary to practice without gloves or protective gear on your hands."

Wayfaring

04-04-2007, 08:27 AM

From another discussion, I came up with a question: Do you feel WC 'Chi Sau' is for fighting, or is it just a training drill?
If so why, or if not why?

Thanks,
Jonathan

(and if this has bean hashed out already, I appologize - I'm too lazy to search, and would like to start the discussion again anyway if it was..)

Johnathan,

What's up? To answer this question, I will need to mimic Socrates.
If you and I are to discuss chi sau, we must first define our terms.

I've come to realize that when I say chi sau, it is not potato versus potaato to all those on internet forums I converse with. There is a HUGE difference in what 'chi sau' means as a drill or practice. It ranges from a static steering wheel type drill to a fair approximation of range and energy sparring. There also is a large difference in the way different families or lineages train it.

So I will add a corollary question to your initial one.

How do you define 'chi sau' ?

t_niehoff

04-04-2007, 08:29 AM

CFT

04-04-2007, 08:30 AM

- The nature of VT actions make it necessary to practice without gloves or protective gear on your hands. WHY ?
- because gloves inhibit touch and the way we control actions.I disagree. The touch contact is with the forearms more than with the hands. Boxing gloves may inhibit actions like laap/lop sau but you don't need that much padding in your gloves - you just need enough to protect the knuckles.

Wayfaring

04-04-2007, 09:15 AM

t_niehoff

04-04-2007, 10:04 AM

So to clarify, this is how you define 'chi sau'? And how you train it? Or is it rather
the definition that has led you to abandon 'chi sau' as a training drill? Or morph it into something you do with a different name?

I'm not "defining" chi sao, I'm saying that is the nature of chi sao. Two people both using limited WCK actions/reactions, sticking, etc. and it "works" only as long as both sides stick to "the rules" of that game. Lots of people get "good" playing that game (you will if you play any game enough). Try to do chi sao with someone who isn't trying to play the game.

This conclusion, while a logically true and reasonable answer, is based upon the general premise of your definition above. Does everybody mean what Terence means above when talking about 'chi sau'?

That's what is going on. There is no premise. Chi sao, the activity, the game, works because both sides are implicitly (or even unconsciously) "playing by the rules" of chi sao.

Chi sao is not a realistic environment so it can't develop realistic skills.

leung jam

04-04-2007, 10:36 AM

Many, if not most, people do chi sao with chest strikes only.

How do you do it?

Of course even if you do full force strikes with protective equipment, you are still starting from the unrealistic steering wheel position.

I usually just lurk on these forums but feel i have to reply to your misinformation.
I have studied at 3 different schools in uk and know plenty of people from other wc/vt/wt schools here and yet have never heard of anyone only punching to chest in chisau, maybe in amerika things are different? Reading some of your posts you appear to have a real problem with wc, perhaps down to your training punching at chests :) , yet you spend your time repeating yourself on a wc forum, why dude ? do u really think you are going to convert everyone into some wannabe cage fighter, why not spend more time training. :)

Airdrawndagger

04-04-2007, 11:33 AM

A problem arises when chi sao is used for "training" in that we come to rely on those "chi sao fixed patterns of behavior" -- which are not the actions or behaviors that will take place in actual fighting -- and will form corresponding habits that while effective in dealing with those actions, are not effective in fighting (where those sorts of responses won't happen).

Chi sao is a good platform for teaching fundamental skills; it is a poor platform for training fighting skills.

I couldnt disagree more.
You practice chi sau so you can learn body mechanics, timing, speed, reaction and sensitivity, etc which WILL translate to a fight. You have to keep in mind that an opponent whom you are fighting or sparring will not "chi sao" but when engaging in combat the hand formations will resemble "in some cases" similar hand formations in chi sao there by allowing you to react according to your training.
That is the whole premise of rolling with a training partner, your arms will be constantly moving in numerous positions allowing you to preform different techs at different moments during chi sao. That is the whole reason why we roll so that there are no fixed positions which will allow you to automaticly respond to the opponent.
I guess it just boils down to how you interpret what you are doing during training and how it does translate to a real situation. What ever im doing during practice, i always relate it to a real situation. Doesnt everyone else?

Knifefighter

04-04-2007, 11:40 AM

I usually just lurk on these forums but feel i have to reply to your misinformation.
I have studied at 3 different schools in uk and know plenty of people from other wc/vt/wt schools here and yet have never heard of anyone only punching to chest in chisau,

If not to the chest, where are these full contact punches being targeted?

JPinAZ

04-04-2007, 01:03 PM

Johnathan,

What's up? To answer this question, I will need to mimic Socrates.
If you and I are to discuss chi sau, we must first define our terms.

I've come to realize that when I say chi sau, it is not potato versus potaato to all those on internet forums I converse with. There is a HUGE difference in what 'chi sau' means as a drill or practice. It ranges from a static steering wheel type drill to a fair approximation of range and energy sparring. There also is a large difference in the way different families or lineages train it.

So I will add a corollary question to your initial one.

How do you define 'chi sau' ?

Hello,

I agree, chi sau most likely means different things to different people. I was going to wait a few pages before adding my few cents.

From what I've seen/read/etc Chi sau can be defined many different ways: as soley a sensitivity training 'drill'. Or it seems some view it later a more free-style light WC sparring with given rule-sets/constraints (retain certain facing, use certain tools, keeping contact, etc).
And some call it a game with no real-world application to 'real fighting'.

Ans it seems some feel what you learn in chi sau directly applys to fighting, and this I would agree with. From a certain point of view, the range recognition, facing, timing, sensitivity, structures, gate theories, etc can ALL be applied directly to fighting if you have a certain focus while 'chi sauing'
Depending on the POV chi sau is one, all or none of these things. 'Chi Sau' can be a general 'overall' term for bridging, or a more focused term for only one range/facing and a more limited toolset used in that bridging.

From what I understand of 'Chi Sau', over-all it is a training/bridging platfrom for building an awareness of how to bridge at different ranges and facings - with proper structures, gate theories, energies, etc. Depending on these ranges (hieght, width & depth) and facings, the contact could be wrist, arm, striking point, etc. The techniques are just a result of understanding the proper postion, range, etc (as listed above)
But the true focus as I understand it is in recongnising how to initially bridge, neutralize the bridge, then control/strike in a given timeframe.
This happens in 'fighting' all the time doesn't it?

I believe this awarness of timing, facing, space, structure, etc DIRECTLY translates into fighting. From my POV, chi sau IS fighting, if even for a breif second in time during the fight. Given a certain range/facing and understanding the correct reaction, chi sau can exist.
Can I recognize the attack? Can I neutralize the attack with the proper structure? Can I then set up a position of advantage that I can strike from safely? IMO, these are questions Chi Sau training can answer.
Also, from my POV, 'chi sau' isn't just a sensitivity training tool. Sensitivity is a result of proper chi sau training, but not it's main focus.

Ok, enough for now, gotta get back to work :)

Jonathan

Nick Forrer

04-04-2007, 02:31 PM

FWIW

I generally only punch to the chest in chi sau (at least in the first instance)

because

a) It allows me to hit harder and stops me from flicking or pulling my punches or over extending to hit (which are bad habits which come from being a head hunter and which most wc people IME have from indulging in too much long range 'tag' chi sau)

b) It conditions my partner to take strikes without busting his face up (and vice versa)

c) A good body shot can be just as effective as a head shot and easier to get given that most people tend to protect their head more than their body.

Moreover a body shot can then be used to set up the head shot when he drops his hands to try and defend it...also...the head is more mobile than the torso and someone with good head movement in all directions can be hard to hit. It also leaves you more vulnerable to being taken down.

forever young

04-04-2007, 02:48 PM

Chi sao is like the tango -- it takes two people cooperating to do it. By cooperating, I mean they are agreeing (implicitly) to move in certain ways, behave in certain ways, react in certain ways, etc., no matter how "hard" they go. If one side doesn't do those things, a fight breaks out! You can't do chi sao unless the other guy cooperates and goes along with the game.

A problem arises when chi sao is used for "training" in that we come to rely on those "chi sao fixed patterns of behavior" -- which are not the actions or behaviors that will take place in actual fighting -- and will form corresponding habits that while effective in dealing with those actions, are not effective in fighting (where those sorts of responses won't happen).

Chi sao is a good platform for teaching fundamental skills; it is a poor platform for training fighting skills.

imho this is one of the most accurate statements i have seen regarding chisau in this thread!!!
i have recently "seen the light" regarding the real nature of chisau (as i see it)
i used to chisau at pretty full force (i have broken the ribs of two chisau partners and had my own ribs broken twice, plus been told by my sibak he was TRYING to knock me out!!!!) now i can honestly say that i was 1,a total ass and 2, totally wrong about chisau. some of you might have heard of this guy, perhaps you think its total rubbish whatever but as nino put it chisau is a game for friends...if you want to whack eachother at least have the courtesy of telling your partner and lifting any restrictions as well as perhaps use some basic safety equiptment, the guys who think its ok to bash your PARTNER (not opponent) is misguided. work together to develop skills in other areas and leave the hitting to sparring
http://www.ninobernardo.com/divorcing_violence_article.html read here and see what you think and ill leave you with in my opinion good chisau http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDgGp_1Azr0

IRONMONK

04-04-2007, 02:49 PM

In Brendle Ingle's boxing gym they do body sparring instead of head sparring

But anyway in chi sao dont tend to go to the face-i think it depends on who im training with .I go to the face/body in free-fighting.

Edmund

04-04-2007, 03:44 PM

one of the times I've seen a cheek bone broken was from a palm.

In chi sao? From what distance was it thrown?

I think it's irrelevant what damage could be done. I don't see a lot of injuries occurring so I don't see much point dwelling on the issue but as I said you can take whatever precautions you need to make it safer.

I think the original question about the role of chi sao has been answered many times over by everyone. As has KF's assumptions about how everyone does it wrong.

Anyone who doesn't do WC really doesn't have a relevant opinion about it AFAIC.
It doesn't matter whether they do it or not. They aren't learning WC.

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 06:42 PM

[QUOTE=Edmund;751150]In chi sao? From what distance was it thrown?

I think it's irrelevant what damage could be done. I don't see a lot of injuries occurring so I don't see much point dwelling on the issue but as I said you can take whatever precautions you need to make it safer.
/QUOTE]

yeah. they had agreed on hard contact.

I agree with you on the above.

chisauking

04-04-2007, 07:44 PM

I'm going to keep this short and sweet:

Chisau is wing chun (break down the techniques and you will see it's the same techniques contained within the forms), so, in short, you can use chisau in fighting. Or, to be more precise, the techniques in chisau is the tools in which we use to fight.

People say there are limits in chisau (especially the BJJers who has no real interest in wing chun), but the truth is, the only limits is the limits which one places upon oneself. A misguided individual states that chisau requires a compliant partner, but this is totally untrue, for one of the main reasons for chisau is to learn how to respond to resisting energy.

There are many levels to chisau, unfortunately, only excepetional practitioners go past the primary levels.

Off course, BJJ rolling is far more superior and realistic compared to wing chun chisau (this is to make all the BJJers on this forum, which there are many, happy)

Liddel

04-04-2007, 08:21 PM

there is nothing in the "nature of VT" which makes it "necessary to practice without gloves or protective gear on your hands."

Obviously we are different Tom (which is fine).

Where i train we use quite a bit of wrist action in attack and defensive movements, which is taken away when wearing even 6oz fingerless gloves.
All the gloves we have minmise range of motion in the wrist.

When breaking a bridge down to create room for center actions my fingers come into play also which is hindered with big gloves.

So if i want to train like i fight (the point im addressing) i must decide to train without gloves for a large percentage of it. NOT ALL.

FWIW this is not the be all and end all, im not govern by forms and theory so much i cant use gloves and adapt, which i do.

I disagree. The touch contact is with the forearms more than with the hands.

Obviously not for me mate, hence my POV.
Jeez - i would have though most regulars here would know there are alot of different VT approaches here. :rolleyes:

Ultimatewingchun

04-04-2007, 08:52 PM

... but there's much within chi sao that can be used for fighting - if you understand how to take those things out of chi sao and work with them....first as part of more fight-specific drills....then as part of completely spontaneous sparring/fighting.

Like a chess game:

First you learn how the queen moves...the king...the knights, the bishops, the rooks (castles), the pawns...

then you learn which ones have the most potential to do damage (ie.- the queen, then the rook, etc.)...

then you learn what are the limitations of each piece....

then you learn how to counter them (ie.- how can a knight counter a bishop?)...

then you start learning how to use two or more of them together as a team to take an important position, (ie.- dominating/occupying the center)...how to open up a line, surround the opponent's vulnerable targets, make a strike...or multiple strikes, one after the other...cut off his ability to counter, how to always be one move ahead of the guy so he's always on defense, etc...

THEN YOU PLAY A GAME.

(But always within the parameters of what is possible - given the pieces you are using...ie.- wing chun is close range striking/kicking...with a few well placed sweeps and one or two possible standing armlocks).

That's it.

Otherwise...it might be time to get the pool cue out.

leung jam

04-05-2007, 12:22 AM

If not to the chest, where are these full contact punches being targeted?

At focus pads, wall bag & hanging bags. Why would you want to injure your partner or injure yourself unless you getting paid well for it.
In the longterm full force punches/kicks will damage you, then what, when you sitting there in your wheelchair with your arthritis and possibly brain damage you can reminisce about how great you were once were.
Perhaps its ego that really causes the damage?

Extract(s) from http://www.sportsline.com/boxing/story/10010296
Interview with Bas Rutten-

Q: Are you looking possibly in the long-term to get back into the cage or ring?

BR: No. No, I'm not, because I have a very bad combination in my knee; I have an ACL and meniscus and I have arthritis on top of it. If it picks up the ACL and meniscus, my knee is going to be more tight and when it's more tight the arthritis will come back that much harder.

Q: Would you have any interest in going back?

BR: If my knee is good, yes, you know, but the pain in my knee takes all the pleasure from my training. I can't even move my knee to the side. As long as I feel that pain, I don't want to train and I can't fight.

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

sunfist

04-05-2007, 01:13 AM

Chi sao is a chess game. It is a sterile environment that allows for the development of and experimentation with WC strategy in its purest form. For it to be comparable to fighting, you would need to introduce a chaotic element to the practice, but then it would be fighting, not chi sau.

Some would argue it holds no value whatsoever, but these would be the same people with no real interest in wing chun as a whole. I do agree its overemphasised though, Its understandable that people get hooked on the chess game (and the sense of certainty it provides) when they should be playing poker.

CFT

04-05-2007, 01:53 AM

Obviously not for me mate, hence my POV.
Jeez - i would have though most regulars here would know there are alot of different VT approaches here. :rolleyes:As you are so quick to point out there are different approaches, so I stated that mine was different. I agree that gloves do make a slight difference, sometimes it interferes with the technique if you just catch it wrong, but not enough to rule out their use in Wing Chun training.

Re-reading some of the posts ... I should qualify that we don't typically practice chi sau with gloves; we only tend to break them out for sparring or punchbag practice.

t_niehoff

04-05-2007, 05:58 AM

imho this is one of the most accurate statements i have seen regarding chisau in this thread!!!

That's because WCK people get brainwashed and start believing chi sao is WCK applictation.

i have recently "seen the light" regarding the real nature of chisau (as i see it)
i used to chisau at pretty full force (i have broken the ribs of two chisau partners and had my own ribs broken twice, plus been told by my sibak he was TRYING to knock me out!!!!) now i can honestly say that i was 1,a total ass and 2, totally wrong about chisau. some of you might have heard of this guy, perhaps you think its total rubbish whatever but as nino put it chisau is a game for friends...

Of course it is a game, and you can use that game to teach some of the skills you can later - if you develop them further - use in fighting. But that game is a very different game than fighting. No one "moves" or "acts" or "behaves" realistically (as they will really move or act or behave in fighitng) in chi sao. Because we are not moving realistically in chi sao it is an unrealistic drill (unrealistic in that it doesn't mirror reality). And a person can only develop realistic skills by training realistically.

if you want to whack eachother at least have the courtesy of telling your partner and lifting any restrictions as well as perhaps use some basic safety equiptment, the guys who think its ok to bash your PARTNER (not opponent) is misguided.

No matter how "hard" one goes in chi sao, it won't make chi sao realistic -- chi sao is built around both sides playing by the same unrealistic rules. In fighting, people will just no behave like they do in chi sao; they're not going to move, react, etc. anything like chi sao. So I agree, full power chi sao in misguided. That's not what chi ssao is for.

work together to develop skills in other areas and leave the hitting to sparring
http://www.ninobernardo.com/divorcing_violence_article.html read here and see what you think and ill leave you with in my opinion good chisau http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDgGp_1Azr0

The most basic tenet of effective training is that your practice should come as close to the performance of your target skill as possible (specificity). It is poor training to move, act, behave one way in training and another when fighting. Not only is this supported by modern research, it is how all really good fighters and functional arts train (BJJ, boxing, wrestling, muay thai, judo, etc.).

In chi sao no one moves as they will in a fight, so they are developing habits of movement that are not appropriate to fighting. So it becomes counter-productive to development of fighting skill. Now I'm not saying to "trash" chi sao (though you could), I'm saying that it is a platform that allows beginners to learn certain movements, skills, etc. and become comfortable performing them. However, those movements, skills, etc. will not be performed like that in fighting (for a number of reasons including that your opponent won't move like your partner in chi sao). And anyone who believes differently just needs to tape their chi sao, tape their fighting, and compare.

Knifefighter

04-05-2007, 07:32 AM

Many of the responses on this thread thread are perfect examples of why so many people who practice WC, can't really use it once the fight is on.

Seven Star, who uses his stuff for real in a "non-sport" environment weekly, put it perfectly in another thread:

we are talking about the similarity between training and application. I fight with the same techniques I train. you guys admittedly don't fight with chi sao, for example, so your practice game and real game are further removed from eachother than mine are.

SevenStar

04-05-2007, 08:31 AM

At focus pads, wall bag & hanging bags. Why would you want to injure your partner or injure yourself unless you getting paid well for it.
In the longterm full force punches/kicks will damage you, then what, when you sitting there in your wheelchair with your arthritis and possibly brain damage you can reminisce about how great you were once were.
Perhaps its ego that really causes the damage?

you can spar hard contact without severe longterm injuries. That sounds like a copout.

Extract(s) from http://www.sportsline.com/boxing/story/10010296
Interview with Bas Rutten-

Q: Are you looking possibly in the long-term to get back into the cage or ring?

BR: No. No, I'm not, because I have a very bad combination in my knee; I have an ACL and meniscus and I have arthritis on top of it. If it picks up the ACL and meniscus, my knee is going to be more tight and when it's more tight the arthritis will come back that much harder.

Q: Would you have any interest in going back?

BR: If my knee is good, yes, you know, but the pain in my knee takes all the pleasure from my training. I can't even move my knee to the side. As long as I feel that pain, I don't want to train and I can't fight.

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

This is a man with a long and arduous pro career. This is a man with 33 fights - and he did have a fight as recently as last year. He won. He's been fighting pro since like 1992. Such things are bound to happen. Look at all of the injuries that abound from pro football. Such is the nature of contact events, especially on a pro level.

Ultimatewingchun

04-05-2007, 09:22 AM

"We are talking about the similarity between training and application. I fight with the same techniques I train. you guys admittedly don't fight with chi sao, for example, so your practice game and real game are further removed from each other than mine are." (7 Star)

****NOT REALLY TRUE...for those wing chun people who truly understand what chi sao is all about. Here's another analogy, 7:

when you roll in BJJ - using strictly BJJ rules (ie.- no striking, wearing gi's with all the handles, some schools start from the knees, etc.)...then you are using that kind of "drilling" the same way chi sao is a "drill" - and if you want to use what you learn in that kind of rolling for real (ie.- real life fighting)...then you have to make some big adjustments to the rolling drills...

ie.- you start from a standing position...you use punching, kicking, footwork, knees and elbows in the clinch....strikes when on the ground, less reliance on gi handles, etc.

BUT YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THIS: the typical wing chun practice game and real game are further removed from each other than yours are because most wing chun people spend too much time on chi sao, forms, and wooden dummy - and not enough time playing poker, as the other poster said...sparring/fighting.

Knifefighter

04-05-2007, 09:36 AM

when you roll in BJJ - using strictly BJJ rules (ie.- no striking, wearing gi's with all the handles, some schools start from the knees, etc.)...then you are using that kind of "drilling" the same way chi sao is a "drill" - and if you want to use what you learn in that kind of rolling for real (ie.- real life fighting)...then you have to make some big adjustments to the rolling drills...

BJJ rolling is 60% of what will probably happen during a fight (i.e. grappling on the ground) for a BJJ trained guy. Another 30% of what will probably happen during a fight for a BJJ guy will include striking on the ground and/or striking while standing. 10% will be about the takedown. The grappling only training has direct application to 60% of a BJJ guy's fighting.

On the other hand, the positions of chi sao may take up maybe 5% of a fight. That's a lot of training time for only 5% application.

Not to mention the fact that when BJJ guys roll, they are training at 90-100% of the intensity at which they will be fighting.

less reliance on gi handles

Gi control translates directly to what happens in a fight. Most people are close to fully clothed when they get into an altercation or are assaulted. Clothes can be manipulated the same way a gi can be used.

Ultimatewingchun

04-05-2007, 10:11 AM

"On the other hand, the positions of chi sao may take up maybe 5% of a fight. That's a lot of training time for only 5% application." (Dale)

***FALSE PREMISE....coming from someone who knows very little about high level chi sao, it's applications, how to take those applications and drill them realistically, or high level wing chun in general.

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 10:15 AM

That's because WCK people get brainwashed and start believing chi sao is WCK applictation.

Of course it is a game, and you can use that game to teach some of the skills you can later - if you develop them further - use in fighting. But that game is a very different game than fighting. No one "moves" or "acts" or "behaves" realistically (as they will really move or act or behave in fighitng) in chi sao. Because we are not moving realistically in chi sao it is an unrealistic drill (unrealistic in that it doesn't mirror reality). And a person can only develop realistic skills by training realistically.

No matter how "hard" one goes in chi sao, it won't make chi sao realistic -- chi sao is built around both sides playing by the same unrealistic rules. In fighting, people will just no behave like they do in chi sao; they're not going to move, react, etc. anything like chi sao. So I agree, full power chi sao in misguided. That's not what chi ssao is for.

The most basic tenet of effective training is that your practice should come as close to the performance of your target skill as possible (specificity). It is poor training to move, act, behave one way in training and another when fighting. Not only is this supported by modern research, it is how all really good fighters and functional arts train (BJJ, boxing, wrestling, muay thai, judo, etc.).

In chi sao no one moves as they will in a fight, so they are developing habits of movement that are not appropriate to fighting. So it becomes counter-productive to development of fighting skill. Now I'm not saying to "trash" chi sao (though you could), I'm saying that it is a platform that allows beginners to learn certain movements, skills, etc. and become comfortable performing them. However, those movements, skills, etc. will not be performed like that in fighting (for a number of reasons including that your opponent won't move like your partner in chi sao). And anyone who believes differently just needs to tape their chi sao, tape their fighting, and compare.

It really depends on what you are training. If you ware training/viewing 'chi sau' as you stated above, sure. But IMO, you are completely wrong when you way chi sau does not train fighting skills.
There ARE moments in time during a fight where chi sau is appropriate. Plain and simple. And, if you view chi sau as just a training game and not an overall bridging strategy, then again you could be correct from YOUR POV. Also depends on how one defines the term 'chi sau' as I posted earlier. It is only a game if that's how you approach it....

Jonathan

t_niehoff

04-05-2007, 10:39 AM

It really depends on what you are training. If you ware training/viewing 'chi sau' as you stated above, sure. But IMO, you are completely wrong when you way chi sau does not train fighting skills.
There ARE moments in time during a fight where chi sau is appropriate. Plain and simple.

Anyone can say this -- it is theory. Go down to a MMA gym and spar with someone decent, tape it, and show me where the "chi sao" comes out. It won't. You won't be able to move or act or behave like you do in chi sao. And, if you haven't taken those things from chi sao and sparred with them, they won't even work in sparring. So you are not getting "fighting skills" from chi sao.

And, if you view chi sau as just a training game and not an overall bridging strategy, then again you could be correct from YOUR POV. Also depends on how one defines the term 'chi sau' as I posted earlier. It is only a game if that's how you approach it....

Jonathan

I don't care how you "view" it. The environment of chi sao is not the same as the environment of a fight. So whatever you learn in chi sao will need to be adapted and modified for fighting. If you disagree, show me someone who moves the same way in fighting as they do in chi sao. That adaptation and modification is taking what you learn (in chi sao) and making it a functional fighting skill (by realsitic training that includes sparring).

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 10:43 AM

Anyone can say this -- it is theory. Go down to a MMA gym and spar with someone decent, tape it, and show me where the "chi sao" comes out. It won't. You won't be able to move or act or behave like you do in chi sao. And, if you haven't taken those things from chi sao and sparred with them, they won't even work in sparring. So you are not getting "fighting skills" from chi sao.

I don't care how you "view" it. The environment of chi sao is not the same as the environment of a fight. So whatever you learn in chi sao will need to be adapted and modified for fighting. If you disagree, show me someone who moves the same way in fighting as they do in chi sao. That adaptation and modification is taking what you learn (in chi sao) and making it a functional fighting skill (by realsitic training that includes sparring).

Again, you are only correct from your POV. If you look at and train chi sau as just a 'game' or something to build sensitivity, then you might be right.
But if chi sau is an over-all definition for all bridge training, then it DIRECTLY translated into fighting. And this is how I train and view chi sau (which includes kiu sau and chi kiu brindging as well)

Say whatever you want, it is only from yout obviously limited and/or closed view on the subject :)

Jonathan

Knifefighter

04-05-2007, 10:48 AM

***FALSE PREMISE....coming from someone who knows very little about high level chi sao, it's applications, how to take those applications and drill them realistically, or high level wing chun in general.

See Terrence's post above.

He said it better than I could... plus he probably knows more about "high level ch sao" than you do.

t_niehoff

04-05-2007, 10:50 AM

Again, you are only correct from your POV. If you look at and train chi sau as just a 'game' or something to build sensitivity, then you might be right.
But if chi sau is an over-all definition for all bridge training, then it DIRECTLY translated into fighting. And this is how I train and view chi sau (which includes kiu sau and chi kiu brindging as well)

Say whatever you want, it is only from yout obviously limited and/or closed view on the subject :)

Jonathan

I understand that you see chi sao as an over-all definition for all bridge training -- fine. And any bridge training that isn't performed realistically (under fight-like conditions) is not developing realistic fighting skills. You may be learning those skills but nonrealistic training can't develop realistic skills.

An addition:

I distinguish skills from fighting skills. You can learn a skill and perform it in a drill or in other unrealistic environments but to be a fighting skill a person needs to be able to perform that skill reliably under fighting conditions. How well developed that fighting skill is can be determined by the quality of opponent you can perform it against (in fighitng).

forever young

04-05-2007, 10:58 AM

It is only a game if that's how you approach it....

Jonathan
Are you saying its fighting then? or perhaps simulated fighting? or sparring? wing chun used to have something called gor/gwoh sau which is the equivalent of what is called in bjj SPECIFIC sparring using wing chun shapes, chisau is a different beast altogether and those who mix the two up are running the risk of
1, missing the point of chisau entirely and missing the benefits and
2, missing the benefits that gor sau gives (wing chun specific sparring from a broken bridge) anyone who mixes the two up is imho wrong!!!! chisau is a stimulus based game where the wc shapes/energies/timing/distancing/reflex action/footwork/etc etc are trained in a safe and sensible manner....
free sparring using anything (including 'non wing chun' techniques) should also be included in anyones training schedule as well as wall bag/punch bag/focus mitts/thai pads/jong practices
just my 02

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 11:16 AM

I understand that you see chi sao as an over-all definition for all bridge training -- fine. And any bridge training that isn't performed realistically (under fight-like conditions) is not developing realistic fighting skills. You may be learning those skills but nonrealistic training can't develop realistic skills.

An addition:

I distinguish skills from fighting skills. You can learn a skill and perform it in a drill or in other unrealistic environments but to be a fighting skill a person needs to be able to perform that skill reliably under fighting conditions. How well developed that fighting skill is can be determined by the quality of opponent you can perform it against (in fighitng).

I understand - if the training is not realistic (cooperative partner, low energy, spacial/facing constraints while 'doing chi sau', etc), then they results are less like fighing.

But it seems you would agree then, that if my bridge training/chi sau is done under what you call 'realistic conditions' then chi sau CAN be a part of not only fight training, but also chi sau can be 'part of fighting'?

I agree, the quality of the training partner can directly effect your effectiveness for fight trianing. But you've said this a lot already, I didn't think that was the point of the discussion (directly anyway).

Jonathan

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 11:23 AM

Are you saying its fighting then? or perhaps simulated fighting? or sparring? wing chun used to have something called gor/gwoh sau which is the equivalent of what is called in bjj SPECIFIC sparring using wing chun shapes, chisau is a different beast altogether and those who mix the two up are running the risk of
1, missing the point of chisau entirely and missing the benefits and
2, missing the benefits that gor sau gives (wing chun specific sparring from a broken bridge) anyone who mixes the two up is imho wrong!!!! chisau is a stimulus based game where the wc shapes/energies/timing/distancing/reflex action/footwork/etc etc are trained in a safe and sensible manner....
free sparring using anything (including 'non wing chun' techniques) should also be included in anyones training schedule as well as wall bag/punch bag/focus mitts/thai pads/jong practices
just my 02

I'm saying, from how I approach my training, 'chi sau' is a lot more than just a fixed training drill. In a broad sense, it encompasses all bridge training. In a more narrowed sense (as I've seen/understand chi sau defined by others) it is a bridging concept for a given range/facing.

We usually would start off with more fixed time/space drills and then remove the constraints gradually as experience builds. But it has a much different focus than just 'rolling' and going from there.. (as I understand a lot of people view 'chi sau')

My definition of chi sau might be a lot different (most likely the case). I went into more detail on page 3 of this thread regarding this.

when you say "chisau is a stimulus based game where the wc shapes/energies/timing/distancing/reflex action/footwork/etc etc are trained in a safe and sensible manner...." I would agree with this, except that, as I view it, it isn't just a 'stimulus game'

Regards,

Jonathan

***** edit *****
I am saying chi sau IS a part of fighting. To train the concepts, we do not 'fight', but the training does directly result into fighting skills.

t_niehoff

04-05-2007, 11:37 AM

I understand - if the training is not realistic (cooperative partner, low energy, spacial/facing constraints while 'doing chi sau', etc), then they results are less like fighing.

Not exactly. I'm saying that a person can't develop anything to the level of fighting skill without working it in that (fighting) environment.

But it seems you would agree then, that if my bridge training/chi sau is done under what you call 'realistic conditions' then chi sau CAN be a part of not only fight training, but also chi sau can be 'part of fighting'?

Then it is fighting. If you take something and put it into fighting, so that you are fighting with it, then it is fighting.

But this is not what is happening with the drill called chi sao.

Here's an example -- you certainly have learned how to do the bong sao to lop da, right? You do it in the lop sao drills, you do it in chi sao. Now, try to do that as you do it in the drills in fighting against anyone decent (MMA person). Show me anyone -- ANYONE -- who can do it reliably in fighting the way they perform it in the drill. You won't find anyone. Why? Because it doesn't really work like it does in the drills; it needs to be adapted, modified to fighting. Is it still bong sao to lop da? Sure. But the drills, lop sao and chi sao, while teaching it, is not what will train it to work in fighitng. Fighting will.

I agree, the quality of the training partner can directly effect your effectiveness for fight trianing. But you've said this a lot already, I didn't think that was the point of the discussion (directly anyway).

Jonathan

Not "can" but will.

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 01:38 PM

Not exactly. I'm saying that a person can't develop anything to the level of fighting skill without working it in that (fighting) environment.

Then it is fighting. If you take something and put it into fighting, so that you are fighting with it, then it is fighting.

But this is not what is happening with the drill called chi sao.

Here's an example -- you certainly have learned how to do the bong sao to lop da, right? You do it in the lop sao drills, you do it in chi sao. Now, try to do that as you do it in the drills in fighting against anyone decent (MMA person). Show me anyone -- ANYONE -- who can do it reliably in fighting the way they perform it in the drill. You won't find anyone. Why? Because it doesn't really work like it does in the drills; it needs to be adapted, modified to fighting. Is it still bong sao to lop da? Sure. But the drills, lop sao and chi sao, while teaching it, is not what will train it to work in fighitng. Fighting will.

Not "can" but will.

I'm not talking about just a 'drill' called chi sau.

And I disagree with the bond/lap comment. There is a correct time and place for that, and I can't see how it can't be made to work under the correct conditions during a fight.
And, I've never done any drills called 'lop sau'. It sounds like you are focused on the techniques and trying to 'make' them work? In my training, I'm focused on something a little deeper :)

Jonathan

Ultimatewingchun

04-05-2007, 01:44 PM

"See Terrence's post above.

He said it better than I could... plus he probably knows more about 'high level chi sao' than you do." (Dale)

***YEAH, RIGHT..... :D :p :rolleyes:

Vajramusti

04-05-2007, 03:43 PM

Far removed from wing chun - at least the title of the forum.

With two of the frequent posters--- one who obviously doesnt know much about chi sao and the other repeating the same points with just some shifts in wording.

Of course fighting experience counts. There are different approaches to fighting-
and IF one's own arsenal has a weakness then developing the weak area is not a bad idea.

Good fighting systems have their own training system---and aspects of that training is to build up qualities in that system. And that training often doesnt exactly look like fighting.Not all fights look the same-each one is a somewhat unique event varying with location, size, weight, experience differentials. Some hit straight other flail etc.Speed bag training in boxing or rope skipping doesnt look like fighting, roadwork doesnt look like fighting in the ring.Without them,,, footwork can suffer, timing can suffer and one's gas tank can be empty.

Without chi sao--- wing chun timing or timings will not improve.

Chi sao -learning it well in all its various manifestations is an important part of wing chun training- to do it well- one has to bring together many other skills. And ofcourse full contact, fighting and related experiences also count.

Unfortunately- given the great diversities and divergences in wing chun training-
what one means by chi sao also varies and in the noise of this and related threads-there is hardly any sensible discussions on it. And key boarding is not fighting... the frequent posters too are just talking about fighting no matter how intensely or sarcastically they post..

Further- to learn from fights- good analysis by some one else who is their helps.
Participants do not always catch their own mistakes.As they say a lawyer who advocates for himself often has a fool for a client.

One of the problem on forums is that some folks as in the case of two frequent posters in shrill ways repeatedly assert that they know what every wing chun person is doing and what experience they have or are acquiring.. Presumptuous. And repetition doesnt make it less so.

For folks who have the time to repeat basically the same old postings -they apparently have the time to waste.

Knifefighter

04-05-2007, 04:03 PM

one who obviously doesnt know much about chi sao
Hmmm.... that must be me. :eek:

Since you are presuming that I don't know much about chi sao and that I am wasting my time, maybe you could make it less of a waste of time and more of a productive endeavor by pointing out what is different about chi sao than the way I am representing it.

Speed bag training in boxing or rope skipping doesnt look like fighting, roadwork doesnt look like fighting in the ring.

Other systems have areas of training that could become more efficient. Pointing out the less efficient parts of other systems does not make yours more efficient.

forever young

04-05-2007, 04:19 PM

hunt1

04-05-2007, 07:13 PM

Ultimatewingchun

04-05-2007, 09:41 PM

...Imo, the single biggest problem with chi sao is actually TEACHING IT.

It's very tedious to teach all the nuances of chi sao to MOST PEOPLE....precisely because most people don't have the PATIENCE to learn it the right way (slowly)....and laboriously (drilling it again and again)....

Precisely because people want results RIGHT NOW.

So taking people through the progressions can be a real task, since it takes longer to "get it" than simply learning an AVOIDANCE SYSTEM OF FIGHTING...in other words...in boxing, for example, one is trying to avoid the other person's punches through footwork, bobbing and weaving, ducking, counter punching on some other line when he punches, etc...

and actual blocking is always kind of plan B (ie.- you block and cover up only when you have to).

In wing chun, although there is some avoidance manuevers going on - it's mostly a blocking/redirecting/absorbing/deflecting/capturing game that one is playing when "JUST HITTING" is not an option.

And it has to be done from a closer geographical range than most boxing maneuvers - so it's harder and more dangerous to do (you're much "closer" to getting hit very fast and/or clinched)...so you've got to be very good at this - especially if you're up against a bigger/stronger opponent.

So it's very tedious indeed to teach all this stuff:

Pak sao/pak dar drills...
Pak/chuen lop dar drills...
Bong sao/lop sao drills...
one arm chi sao...
various scenarios step-by-step in double arm chi sao, such as
roll/switch/forward energy type luk sao drills...
take him off the centerline and he has to return type double arm chi sao...
feed him an opportunity to do lop sao out of the roll...
defend that lop with tan sao or tan dar...
take the centerline and step in with a palm strike out of the roll...
he defends the palm strike...
punch on his tan sao...
he defends against the punch on his tan sao...

AND ON AND ON...

All the while trying to make the class interesting by interspercing other types of drills along with those mentioned above, ie. - the opponent throws a stiff straight boxers lead at your head from a distance - and your response is...

He throws it at your body...

He throws a rear cross from a distance...then a hook...an uppercut...an overhand...a rear front kick...a roundhouse kick...an attempted double or single leg shoot, etc.

But the actual chi sao is where you learn how to fight V E R Y close range - and to master that takes time.

Lots of time - WITH EACH STUDENT.

In other words: LOL :rolleyes: ;)

And then there's another problem....so many people in wing chun THINK they understand chi sao, it's fighting applications, and how to use those applications...when in fact - THEY DON'T KNOW DIDDLY-SQUAT. :eek:

(...except for Dale and Terrence, of course). :D

duende

04-05-2007, 11:30 PM

While there is much that could be said the short of it is that chi sao has many uses and permutations. It is sad that so many focus on one aspect to such a degree that they do not understand or utilize the other aspects.

Chi sao is no more and no less fighting than rolling. Its can teach many attributes that can be utilized in fighting .
The least important part of chi sao is striking yet it is what most focus on. The steering wheel chi sao of knifefighter is only found in 2 families of wing chun or families that trace to these 2. Yip man and YKS. This is because this platform was developed by the two of them training together. There are many other families of wing chun that use different platforms. Also the proper method of rolling is not the steering wheel method. it is to bad that so many think rolling is just going bong to tan up and down and then try to see how fast who can hit .

True chi sao skill is demonstrated by controlling your opponent not striking him.
It is not necessary to strike at all. You need to show your partner his gaps while leaving none of your own. it is about learning that small tight movements are all that is needed.

For example tan sau pushes out fook uses running hand. This happens because the tan is trying to either create a gap or resist pressure and is moving far to much. The greater the skill the smaller the movement of the tan needed to create a gap through which to strike or to divert or absorb force.

Real chi sao should look like standing rolling. using joint locks,sweeps, throws,chokes ,moving from inside to outside,outside to inside,pushing and pulling learning to use and feel energy. It teaches how to use all the parts of your body and how to manipulate and use all the parts of anothers body. Striking is just a small part of it.

I almost never strike anyone in chi sao unless I am training with a good highly skilled friend or a stranger that requires it. it is more fun to turn people to their back and apply joint locks.

By the way the reason rolling has an advantage over chi sao is because of the lack of striking. The BJJ training class that knifefighter listed on another thread is no more intense than what my 8 year olds wrestling team does. You can roll or wrestle and go close to all out because very few serious injuries result unless someone is very pigheaded or a real jerk. In all striking arts if you train anything like full force striking on a daily basis in less than a month the whole class is out due to injury or hard feelings.

I must say from my perspective, this is a most excellent post.

Chi Sao from my experience is about controlling the bridge. Albeit a bridge that requires a certain range and may only exist for a brief moment, but nevertheless, a bridge that exists in fighting. Therefore Chi Sao is a skill that can be used for fighting.

There are numerous videos of fighting and sparring where a clinch is imediately countered by yet another clinch. Where leaning and full commitement of body weight is employed to offset oncoming energy.

However is this not in fact in itself giving up key factors from the art of WC? Giving up the bridge?? Giving up your self-centerline, compromising range, mobility, not to mention balance???

Obviously there are those who would toss out these priciples and concepts and imediately resort to playing the grapplers game and fall into their timeframe and range.

Fine, that is there choice, however, herein lies the distinction between true anti-grappling (controlling the bridge) and mere counter-grappling.

In my experience Chi Sau is alive and therefore does not rely on drills and techniques but rather core principles and skill challenges. With proper development from real world tests... such as threats to one's mobility, balance, and attempts to overwhelm it's bridge it can provide an alternative solution to a clinch or grappling takedown attempt then just more of the same.

Very interesting thread...

t_niehoff

04-06-2007, 05:02 AM

I'm not talking about just a 'drill' called chi sau.

And I disagree with the bond/lap comment. There is a correct time and place for that, and I can't see how it can't be made to work under the correct conditions during a fight.
And, I've never done any drills called 'lop sau'. It sounds like you are focused on the techniques and trying to 'make' them work? In my training, I'm focused on something a little deeper :)

Jonathan

You can "call" chi sao whatever you like, but it is not fighting and won't -- because it can't -- look, act, feel, etc, like fighting.

Of course bong, lop da can be be developed to work in fighitng, but not by doing chi sao or lop sao (kiu sao). The only way to develop it inot a fighting skill is through fighting. You can, of course, disagree with me but your disagreement is purely speculative and based on theory (what you *believe* should work) and not evidence, i.e., seeing WCK peopel who can use it reliably in fighting.

And about the "deeper" stuff -- you're not focused on anything "deeper" -- although this is the sort of thing theoretican nonfighters love to believe. Where does this "deeper" stuff come from? From people who can't make it work in fighitng against decent people, from other theoretical nonfighters. How "deep" can that be?

t_niehoff

04-06-2007, 05:09 AM

While there is much that could be said the short of it is that chi sao has many uses and permutations. It is sad that so many focus on one aspect to such a degree that they do not understand or utilize the other aspects.

Chi sao is no more and no less fighting than rolling. Its can teach many attributes that can be utilized in fighting .
The least important part of chi sao is striking yet it is what most focus on. The steering wheel chi sao of knifefighter is only found in 2 families of wing chun or families that trace to these 2. Yip man and YKS. This is because this platform was developed by the two of them training together. There are many other families of wing chun that use different platforms. Also the proper method of rolling is not the steering wheel method. it is to bad that so many think rolling is just going bong to tan up and down and then try to see how fast who can hit .

True chi sao skill is demonstrated by controlling your opponent not striking him.
It is not necessary to strike at all. You need to show your partner his gaps while leaving none of your own. it is about learning that small tight movements are all that is needed.

For example tan sau pushes out fook uses running hand. This happens because the tan is trying to either create a gap or resist pressure and is moving far to much. The greater the skill the smaller the movement of the tan needed to create a gap through which to strike or to divert or absorb force.

Real chi sao should look like standing rolling. using joint locks,sweeps, throws,chokes ,moving from inside to outside,outside to inside,pushing and pulling learning to use and feel energy. It teaches how to use all the parts of your body and how to manipulate and use all the parts of anothers body. Striking is just a small part of it.

I almost never strike anyone in chi sao unless I am training with a good highly skilled friend or a stranger that requires it. it is more fun to turn people to their back and apply joint locks.

By the way the reason rolling has an advantage over chi sao is because of the lack of striking. The BJJ training class that knifefighter listed on another thread is no more intense than what my 8 year olds wrestling team does. You can roll or wrestle and go close to all out because very few serious injuries result unless someone is very pigheaded or a real jerk. In all striking arts if you train anything like full force striking on a daily basis in less than a month the whole class is out due to injury or hard feelings.

All this is fine, but controlling someone in chi sao (or doing any of the things you talk about) is not the same as controlling someone in fighting -- and for many reasons, including the intensity level, the actions/reactions of the opponents (in fighting no one follows the chi sao rules), etc. They are two differnent environments (unrealistic vs. realistic) and how the rules, techniques, etc. apply will be different. And while chi sao is a fine place to start to learn those skills we can use to control someone, without taking those skills to the next level, you'll never be able to use them at the next level.

Anyone who takes the time to fight with some decent people and tries to apply their "chi sao skills" will see what I am talking about.

t_niehoff

04-06-2007, 05:16 AM

I must say from my perspective, this is a most excellent post.

Chi Sao from my experience is about controlling the bridge. Albeit a bridge that requires a certain range and may only exist for a brief moment, but nevertheless, a bridge that exists in fighting. Therefore Chi Sao is a skill that can be used for fighting.

You can look at chi sao that way ("it's about controlling the bridge"), and yes, that skill can be used in fighting, but being able to control the bridge in chi sao is very, very different from being able to control the bridge in fighting, the game changes because the environment changes.

When you do chi sao, it is against another WCK guy, who is pre-programmed to behave, act, react, move, etc. in certain ways, and the "game" of chi sao works because both of you are implicitly (even unconsciously) cooperating by "sticking" (pardon the pun) to those "rules". In fighting, all of that changes. This is an easy thing to see if you are sparring with good people.

In my experience Chi Sau is alive and therefore does not rely on drills and techniques but rather core principles and skill challenges. With proper development from real world tests... such as threats to one's mobility, balance, and attempts to overwhelm it's bridge it can provide an alternative solution to a clinch or grappling takedown attempt then just more of the same.

Very interesting thread...

The only "real world" test that matters is the fight.

An

duende

04-06-2007, 06:06 AM

You can look at chi sao that way ("it's about controlling the bridge"), and yes, that skill can be used in fighting, but being able to control the bridge in chi sao is very, very different from being able to control the bridge in fighting, the game changes because the environment changes.

When you do chi sao, it is against another WCK guy, who is pre-programmed to behave, act, react, move, etc. in certain ways, and the "game" of chi sao works because both of you are implicitly (even unconsciously) cooperating by "sticking" (pardon the pun) to those "rules". In fighting, all of that changes. This is an easy thing to see if you are sparring with good people.

The only "real world" test that matters is the fight.

An

Do us all a favor, and don't forget that your a lawyer, not a judge. ;)

Your chi sao experience, and our Chi sao experiences are NOT one in the same.

Like Hunt1 wrote...

The steering wheel chi sao of knifefighter is only found in 2 families of wing chun or families that trace to these 2. Yip man and YKS. This is because this platform was developed by the two of them training together. There are many other families of wing chun that use different platforms. Also the proper method of rolling is not the steering wheel method. it is to bad that so many think rolling is just going bong to tan up and down and then try to see how fast who can hit .

It's a big world out there.... Not all of us play this aforemention "game" of Chi sao. Our Chi Sao consists of Kiu Sau, Chi Kiu, and Gee Ng Kiu Chi Sao. All focused on controlling the bridge from various angles, ranges and contact points.

FWIW.... I would not consider testing myself against a pre-programmed WC practitioner a real-world test by any means. That would be quite limited wouldn't it. Instead I test my bridging skills against wrestlers and grapplers. It's certainly no walk in the park, an requires an aliveness of skill. But that's the point as far as I see it.

Ultimatewingchun

04-06-2007, 06:15 AM

While I agree with Hunt1 and duende that chi sao is more about controlling your opponent than anything else...and yes...for too many people it just becomes a few rolling steering-wheel motions and then the punches to the chest (or face) start flying...

nonetheless...

I couldn't disagree MORE with the notion that there should be no actual strikes landed when doing chi sao. This is a big mistake, imo...because learning how to actually deliver a strike (or strikes) while in the act of controlling the opponent is absolutely essential - if one wants his chi sao skills to be translated successfully into fighting skills.

Otherwise, as Bruce Lee used to put it: you're swimming on dry land.

Your muscle memory (and your mind...and your emotions...) need to get comfortable with hitting and getting hit - and to do so automatically when the opportunity to hit is there - without even thinking about it.

It just happens....your reflexes and (skill-in-development) fighting instincts just take over instantaneously.

NOW WHAT IS TRUE IS THIS:

Teaching people (or guiding them) into this physical/mental/psychological realm is difficult. MANY students have real problems learning how to hit in such a way that they are not really hurting their partner...and have even bigger problems learning how to take hits without letting fear or ego make them over-react.

As I said on my previous post - TEACHING chi sao properly is very difficult.

But the rewards are great if you're successful at it: you develop quality students who eventually become valuable training partners and capable of passing on the system themselves if they so choose.

duende

04-06-2007, 06:19 AM

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 07:27 AM

And then there's another problem....so many people in wing chun THINK they understand chi sao, it's fighting applications, and how to use those applications...when in fact - THEY DON'T KNOW DIDDLY-SQUAT. :eek:

Hmmmm.... each person seems to know the "answer" to good chi sao and how it is directly related to fighting. But each of these people (or their particular schools) holds the key, while they are convinced that others are incorrect and don't understand.

Funny how you won't hear statements like that related to applications of core training principles in performance based systems such as BJJ, wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai, Sambo, Judo or MMA.

Quite strange.

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 07:33 AM

The steering wheel chi sao of knifefighter is only found in 2 families of wing chun or families that trace to these 2. Yip man and YKS. This is because this platform was developed by the two of them training together. There are many other families of wing chun that use different platforms. Also the proper method of rolling is not the steering wheel method. it is to bad that so many think rolling is just going bong to tan up and down and then try to see how fast who can hit ..

Can you point me to some clips that show these other types of chi sao?

Wayfaring

04-06-2007, 08:05 AM

You know, this thread actually has some really cool stuff on it. It's kind of helpful when you think of what really is the definition and purpose of chi sau and how you define it and train it.

I'm no expert in any of this - the exposure I've had to a couple different systems is that most of your steering wheel / static drills type of thing are at the introductory levels. The purpose is to isolate only one thing you are working on, like pressure on the bridge, centerline, etc. Then it progressively gets more alive through the training progress, adding in seeking an opening, horse, making an opening, etc. In the latter stages it gets to looking much more like boxing without the clinches (but has more under it).

I don't really know of any good clips of that, most video I've seen are more of the lower level static stuff with people wanting to show off how fast they can chain punch a non-resisting opponent. Everybody also wants to think they are an expert.

I don't know if you can criticize the whole platform or training method although it seems to take longer to get to alive methods as much as you can criticize the misinformation surrounding it.

Ultimatewingchun

04-06-2007, 09:45 AM

I hear it all the time, Dale...on the UG...and around here: mostly from you.

(Gracie jiu jitsu is the ultimate grappling...yadda, yadda).

..............................

But Dale's trolling aside, the fact is that Yip Man taught different things (and different amounts of things)...to different people. So unfortunately there's a lot of controversy about who's who and what's what in wing chun.

All the more reason for that annual (or semi-annual) wing chun sparring tournament I occasionally throw out there as an idea.

hunt1

04-06-2007, 10:52 AM

TN I am not at all sure you know what you are talking about anymore. You seem more concerned with proving some point that no one has ever contested, that you need at some point realistic training to make your wing chun functional, than in reading or attempting to understand what anyone else is saying.

I'll start by saying nobody has ever gone to greater lengths than I have to learn how to fight with wing chun some may have gone as far but not many. As for fighting your posts make it clear you are not a fighter. You may have some fighting skills but you are not a fighter. The one thing all fighters have in common whether they are vietnam vets,motercycle gang enforcers,professionals and everything in between. They never talk about it in public and in private only among others that know.

There has never been an unarmed fight anywhere anytime that did not involve chi sao range . If you can hit someone if they can hit you you are in the range. I have never read anywhere that chi sao is the same as fighting. It does tech attributes that can make a huge difference. Further since striking range is the range that most peple fear the most constant training in that range through a safe medium such as chi sao pays huge mental dividends when fighting. If you have a problem with learning control in chi sao than you must also have a problem with learning control when rolling

Ultimate made a great point the hard part is the teaching and finding a teach that is patient enough to teach everything. How many wing chun people even after 20 years have never used a throw in chi sao? A safe guess is 90%.

Knifefighter I dont have any vids to post. A student of mine is putting up a website for his school in Largo Florida his name is Ray Peters. If he has students that are up to that level I will ask him to put up a clip on his website. Also if you ever want to crosshands with a good wing chun fighter I would recommend Ray. He is comfortable on the ground as well as on his feet. I will also check with my student that I posted about some time ago that did quite well at the Militich school. He doesnt teach but does train with some skilled folks. He has some vids but they arent for the public.

forever young

04-06-2007, 12:04 PM

i would just like to add, my 13 year old son just walked past the comp, saw the title "is chisau for fighting" and said and i quote "No dumb asses chisau is just a training exercise" :eek: it would seem my son gets it more than many 'practitioners' imho, i tells ya its amazing that impartial chids eye view of what we are doing versus what we 'think' we are doing!!!
anyways just a tangent :p

t_niehoff

04-06-2007, 12:31 PM

Hmmmm.... each person seems to know the "answer" to good chi sao and how it is directly related to fighting. But each of these people (or their particular schools) holds the key, while they are convinced that others are incorrect and don't understand.

Funny how you won't hear statements like that related to applications of core training principles in performance based systems such as BJJ, wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai, Sambo, Judo or MMA.

Quite strange.

What it has to do with is the nature of chi sao -- it is an unrealistic platform that can be used to teach just about anything (related to bridges) you want. You can use it to teach chin na (kum na) or controlling bridges or whatever. Personally, I don't think it was meant to ever be restricted to any of these; it is a platform for learning whatever basic contact skills you want to focus on (at the moment).

I think the platform's importance and usefulness has been blown all out of proportion.

AndrewS

04-06-2007, 01:00 PM

Terence writes:

I think the platform's importance and usefulness has been blown all out of proportion.

Much like this thread. . .

It's a tool. If you know how to use it, use it to make some skills. If you don't know how to use it, you can polish the d*mn thing as much as you want to, it still won't build anything on its own.

Andrew

JPinAZ

04-06-2007, 01:02 PM

What it has to do with is the nature of chi sao -- it is an unrealistic platform that can be used to teach just about anything (related to bridges) you want. You can use it to teach chin na (kum na) or controlling bridges or whatever. Personally, I don't think it was meant to ever be restricted to any of these; it is a platform for learning whatever basic contact skills you want to focus on (at the moment).

I think the platform's importance and usefulness has been blown all out of proportion.

Or, maybe it's much more simple than that - You really don't understand it, or have not been taught more that the technique level you keep talking at..

JP

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 02:32 PM

Knifefighter I dont have any vids to post. A student of mine is putting up a website for his school in Largo Florida his name is Ray Peters. If he has students that are up to that level I will ask him to put up a clip on his website. Also if you ever want to crosshands with a good wing chun fighter I would recommend Ray. He is comfortable on the ground as well as on his feet. I will also check with my student that I posted about some time ago that did quite well at the Militich school. He doesnt teach but does train with some skilled folks. He has some vids but they arent for the public.

Interesting how my view of chi sao is supposed to be so limited and there are all these supposed schools and sub-systems that do it differently.

But strangely enough, out of the multitude of video clips of chi sao all over the internet, there is not one clip of it being done in these supposedly more functional ways.

LOL @ how common this "different" type of chi sao has been claimed to be, but there is not a shred of evidence to support this claim...

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 02:55 PM

Real chi sao should look like standing rolling. using joint locks,sweeps, throws,chokes ,moving from inside to outside,outside to inside,pushing and pulling learning to use and feel energy. It teaches how to use all the parts of your body and how to manipulate and use all the parts of anothers body. Striking is just a small part of it.

Hmmmm.... then it would be just like what MMA training does - clinching, punching, throws, takedowns, throws, sweeps, working for position.

That would make it quite functional.

couch

04-06-2007, 03:55 PM

Interesting how my view of chi sao is supposed to be so limited and there are all these supposed schools and sub-systems that do it differently.

But strangely enough, out of the mutlitude of video clips of chi sao all over the internet, there is not one clip of it being done in these supposedly more functional ways.

LOL @ how common this "different" type of chi sao has been claimed to be, but there is not a shred of evidence to support this claim...

Not to pull out the word "secret," as I don't like it's use, but there are still practitioners out there that don't want to share anything with the other schools. There are still families out there that show something different when guests/other grandmasters of almightiness are around.

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 03:57 PM

Not to pull out the word "secret," as I don't like it's use, but there are still practitioners out there that don't want to share anything with the other schools. There are still families out there that show something different when guests/other grandmasters of almightiness are around.

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

Generally, the more "secret" something is, the less chance it has of working.

Not to mention the fact that the people who brought it up in the first place, claimed it was common knowledge.

hunt1

04-06-2007, 04:51 PM

Knifefighter Perhaps your comments were directed to me perhaps not. I never said the chi sao methods I was taught and that I use were common. I made in clear that from my exp 90% of wing chun folks have never used a throw in chi sao.

Couch has a point. For whatever reasons CMTers in general keep all kinds of things secret. It is a cultural thing that meshed with commercial considerations.

As i pointed out before the problem with wing chun is that there are many versions however in the west 99% of the people have seen and practice only one. And even that tends to be incomplete. For example there is a kneeling horse in wing chun and a complete set of kneeling techniques. Yip Man taught only a few early students the kneeling stance with some basic usage and then stopped teaching it for whatever reason. Hence most of the wing chun world has never seen it and never learned how to use it. Yip Man did not teach throwing and kum na again for his reasons. it doesnt mean its not there and used by other wing chun families. For example few seem to realize that the kup jarn that is repeated so often in the 3rd form is a throw not just an elbow attack.

Have you ever seen a leg pick in wing chun? There is one and some families use it. Its right in a form hiding in plain sight. In other words its right there if anyone wants to actually figure out wing chun.

As far as doing what MMA types do to train. MMA does what wing chun does to train

As an aside my exp when teaching this method of chi sao to those that are not my students is that they are so caught up in trying to hit that they never let go and learn how to use their bodies and yes they do mistake chi sao for fighting hence the reason they wont take a few steps back to move several steps forward.

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 08:09 PM

I never said the chi sao methods I was taught and that I use were common.

Sound like that's what you meant.
There are many other families of wing chun that use different platforms. Also the proper method of rolling is not the steering wheel method. it is to bad that so many think rolling is just going bong to tan up and down and then try to see how fast who can hit .

Of course, if that's not the case, that makes you just another one of the thousands who thinks he has the real deal, while everyone else is doing fake WC.

Have you ever seen a leg pick in wing chun? There is one and some families use it. Its right in a form hiding in plain sight. In other words its right there if anyone wants to actually figure out wing chun.

As far as doing what MMA types do to train. MMA does what wing chun does to train

LOL... they are not even close. MMA training has nothing to do with finding techniques in forms.

For example few seem to realize that the kup jarn that is repeated so often in the 3rd form is a throw not just an elbow attack.

Extrapolating techniques out of forms is even more stupid than trying to learn to fight with chi sao.

Ultimatewingchun

04-06-2007, 08:41 PM

"Extrapolating techniques out of forms is even more stupid than trying to learn to fight with chi sao." (Dale)

***YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS...:confused: :eek:

What do you think any form in any system is there for? There are dozens of techniques that can be harvested from each of the forms - including the wooden dummy "form".

You don't know anything about chi sao (or the forms) that's worth a darn...but you're now on here telling everybody that it's a worthless exercise with your sidekick, Terence...who, with each successive post, is demonstrating that he hardly knows anything either.

Man...this is getting hilarious. :D :p :)

Knifefighter

04-07-2007, 12:55 AM

t_niehoff

04-07-2007, 05:03 AM

Or, maybe it's much more simple than that - You really don't understand it, or have not been taught more that the technique level you keep talking at..

JP

Understanding is at the core of this discussion. My question is everyone has an opinion of what they beleive chi sao does or cannot do or what they believe it is for, etc -- but how do they *know*?

couch

04-07-2007, 05:19 AM

Extrapolating techniques from forms makes about as much sense as attempting to tease fighting techniques from ballet.

Techniques come from fighting... there is no such thing as "hiding" techniques in forms.

Techniques are not "hidden" in forms, however I believe that like most things of popular culture - things get watered down and ideas/concepts are lost.

I once met a BJJ blue belt who taught me a few things and asked to learn some WC. I started to show him the first form, but he told me he didn't want to learn the form. So he didn't learn any WC! I have a great few forms that act like no other MA system: a dictionary of terms and positions all compact and neat!

So...you can't pull out a technique and flow from the forms per se, but we all know about the idea of a dictionary of techniques and some movements go hand in hand with themselves in the forms.

About the "secret" comments: there are still old school ways of doing things and because of the huge organizations of the world, masters are not willing to part with their knowledge to the greater public. I feel this way, too.

Dale, on a side-note - do you feel that BJJ has become watered down in any aspect due to it's popularity? I see lots of "get a black belt" books, distance ed and videos out nowadays.

Lastly, I know this thread is about Chi Sau and fighting, but I truly believe in the progression. Many people have seen the attack with ONLY the one attack and then the attacker stops for the defender to do what they like. This is how it starts in boxing: One punch, one stuff with a counter punch. But most MA schools are stopping at this part of the progression and not adding the uncooperativity, multiple attacks, sparring, etc.

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

t_niehoff

04-07-2007, 05:22 AM

Couch has a point. For whatever reasons CMTers in general keep all kinds of things secret. It is a cultural thing that meshed with commercial considerations.

This is true. However, on the other hand, just becsue somethign is "secret" doesn't make it any good.

As i pointed out before the problem with wing chun is that there are many versions however in the west 99% of the people have seen and practice only one. And even that tends to be incomplete. For example there is a kneeling horse in wing chun and a complete set of kneeling techniques. Yip Man taught only a few early students the kneeling stance with some basic usage and then stopped teaching it for whatever reason. Hence most of the wing chun world has never seen it and never learned how to use it. Yip Man did not teach throwing and kum na again for his reasons. it doesnt mean its not there and used by other wing chun families. For example few seem to realize that the kup jarn that is repeated so often in the 3rd form is a throw not just an elbow attack.

Have you ever seen a leg pick in wing chun? There is one and some families use it. Its right in a form hiding in plain sight. In other words its right there if anyone wants to actually figure out wing chun.

Actually your view of WCK -- the "contents" view (it has this or that) -- which is a prevalent view of WCK, is the real problem, and it comes from looking at WCK as a fixed "system of knowledge". With that view you get the we-have-this-and-you-don't and the that-is-not-in-wing-chun and you-must-do-this attitudes. And it follows that if you see WCK as a fixed system of knowledge, then there is the knowledge-giver, he keeps things secret, and he only gives them out to the worthy. That whole view is nonsense IMO.

If, however, we view WCK for what IME it is, a dynamic, alive activity none of the above will make any sense. You can't hide secrets since performance will reveal everything, there is no knowledge-giver because the important stuff only comes from the doing of the activity, there can be no fixed system of knowledge because the activity is alive, evolving, and changing. There is no "right" way other than what works.

But if you take that view, the sifu becomes very less important (almost unimportant).

BTW, yes, we do leg picks, kneeling horses, etc. No BFD.

As far as doing what MMA types do to train. MMA does what wing chun does to train

No, that's not true. The modern fighters, and that includes all the proven functional arts, follow an entirely different training model than the TMAs. There may be many of the same elements in how fundtional and traditional arts train, but the focus and stress on those elements are night and day.

As an aside my exp when teaching this method of chi sao to those that are not my students is that they are so caught up in trying to hit that they never let go and learn how to use their bodies and yes they do mistake chi sao for fighting hence the reason they wont take a few steps back to move several steps forward.

People who are sparring as the core of their trainiing, like MMAists, would not, and could not, ever make that "mistake".

t_niehoff

04-07-2007, 05:53 AM

Extrapolating techniques from forms makes about as much sense as attempting to tease fighting techniques from ballet.

Techniques come from fighting... there is no such thing as "hiding" techniques in forms.

In my view, the linked sets (forms) are simply representations of some of the key things (tools) we can use in doing WCK. They are linked together by theme into a set as a memory device. Can they be useful in that regard? I suppose. Are they necessary? No.

In fact, forms are a poor way to learn. If we look at the more modern functional arts, the ones represented successfully in fighting today, we see none of them make use of forms. That way of teaching is simply not very good.

The reason is because fighting is an open-skill activity, and open skills require that we constantly and continually adjust what we are doing and how we do them to the changing environment. Think about throwing and catching a ball. You can represent that in a form (show an example of how to do it), but that representation will be by nature incomplete. If you wanted to teach someone to "play catch" would it make any sense to teach it in a fixed, linked set? That way of teaching would be contrary to the activity and what is needed in the activity. It's the same with fighting arts.

If we view WCK as an activity, like playing catch is an activity (a very simple one) or surfing or tennis or basketball (more complex ones), we will see the futility in trying to "set in stone" something that is by its very nature, dynamic. While we could come up with a tennis form, with representations of the tools of tennis, that wouldn't be a very good way to teach the game/activity. Nor would such a form be good training (since every forehand will be different, how can practicing one example of it in a form be good training?).

As far as"deriving" techniques from forms goes -- this is sort of like seeing things in Rorshach blots: you can see whatever you want to. How do you know this is what the forms were "meant" to represent? And to even think this way is to miss the point IMO. Do we let a surfing form dictate how to surf or the things we should be doing in surfing, or do we begin with the activity of surfing and let that dictate what we need/do?

couch

04-07-2007, 05:56 AM

People who are sparring as the core of their trainiing, like MMAists, would not, and could not, ever make that "mistake".

Sparring can't be at the core of anyone's training at the beginning. I know you weren't being that specific, but how to you teach a person to fight if they can't make a fist, combinations, shapes, feint, bob, use their legs.

Isn't this what Chi Sau is teaching?

In the boxing club, (in the beginning) is a lot of running stairs, hitting the heavy bags with jabs and crosses (it almost felt like I was making up for the countless chain punches I'd done with other variations!), partner drills that are repeated over and over (stuffing a jab with a counter, bobbing off of the pads, etc). Most clubs won't let you get into the ring to even spar unless you've been there putting in the "road work" for at least a year.

It's all about the progression, I believe. I DO think that sparring can be your core...LATER in the game.

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

couch

04-07-2007, 06:02 AM

In my view, the linked sets (forms) are simply representations of some of the key things (tools) we can use in doing WCK. They are linked together by theme into a set as a memory device. Can they be useful in that regard? I suppose. Are they necessary? No.

In fact, forms are a poor way to learn. If we look at the more modern functional arts, the ones represented successfully in fighting today, we see none of them make use of forms. That way of teaching is simply not very good.

The reason is because fighting is an open-skill activity, and open skills require that we constantly and continually adjust what we are doing and how we do them to the changing environment. Think about throwing and catching a ball. You can represent that in a form (show an example of how to do it), but that representation will be by nature incomplete. If you wanted to teach someone to "play catch" would it make any sense to teach it in a fixed, linked set? That way of teaching would be contrary to the activity and what is needed in the activity. It's the same with fighting arts.

If we view WCK as an activity, like playing catch is an activity (a very simple one) or surfing or tennis or basketball (more complex ones), we will see the futility in trying to "set in stone" something that is by its very nature, dynamic. While we could come up with a tennis form, with representations of the tools of tennis, that wouldn't be a very good way to teach the game/activity. Nor would such a form be good training (since every forehand will be different, how can practicing one example of it in a form be good training?).

As far as"deriving" techniques from forms goes -- this is sort of like seeing things in Rorshach blots: you can see whatever you want to. How do you know this is what the forms were "meant" to represent? And to even think this way is to miss the point IMO. Do we let a surfing form dictate how to surf or the things we should be doing in surfing, or do we begin with the activity of surfing and let that dictate what we need/do?

I like this.

So how to you feel (and others) that we can take the "tools and shapes" of WC and make it more alive in a sparring/alive environment? Do you just give a few shapes/tools to someone (like some footwork and two punches) and have them hash it out on a bag? Then take it to a partner drill?

I have no idea because as the saying goes: teach WC as it was taught to you! This saying makes it easy! This would make it much better to be able to go at WC like Boxing or MMA, etc. I wonder if we could put our heads together (for once) and create a platform for achieving this.

I also wonder if this would make it a system that is quicker to catch on to and utilize in a sparring environment.

Hmm...new thread?

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

t_niehoff

04-07-2007, 12:58 PM

Sparring can't be at the core of anyone's training at the beginning. I know you weren't being that specific, but how to you teach a person to fight if they can't make a fist, combinations, shapes, feint, bob, use their legs.

In any martial art -- or athletic activity -- there are certain fundamentals people need to do the activity, that's a given. But what I mean by "core of their training" is that sparring is what everything else revolves around (you're doing it to get you therre, to help you there, etc.).

Isn't this what Chi Sau is teaching?

Yes, chi sao is IMO a "teaching" platform; however, you can't do those things in sparring the way you do them in chi sao (one of the big drawbacks to chi sao).

In the boxing club, (in the beginning) is a lot of running stairs, hitting the heavy bags with jabs and crosses (it almost felt like I was making up for the countless chain punches I'd done with other variations!), partner drills that are repeated over and over (stuffing a jab with a counter, bobbing off of the pads, etc). Most clubs won't let you get into the ring to even spar unless you've been there putting in the "road work" for at least a year.

I think it depends on the club and the person. Certainly sparring takes being in good physical condition (to avoid injury and to perform well).

It's all about the progression, I believe. I DO think that sparring can be your core...LATER in the game.

Even in your scenario above, I think they are making sparring their core, and all the prep work is to get you there. In WCK, in contrast, sparring is never the core of most people's training, it is chi sao.

t_niehoff

04-07-2007, 01:19 PM

I like this.

So how to you feel (and others) that we can take the "tools and shapes" of WC and make it more alive in a sparring/alive environment? Do you just give a few shapes/tools to someone (like some footwork and two punches) and have them hash it out on a bag? Then take it to a partner drill?

A person can learn from trial-and-error and some critical analysis, but it helps if they have someone with genuine experience having played that game (against good opponents) to assist them -- not tell them what to do, but to set up scenarios so that they can see the tools in (successful) action. Similar to the Dog Brothers, "if you see it taught, you see it fought." Could someone that hasn't had lots of quality experience rolling really teach BJJ well? Can the blind effectively lead the blind?

I have no idea because as the saying goes: teach WC as it was taught to you! This saying makes it easy!

This is exactly what most people do -- pass what was passed onto them. Blind leading the blind.

Think about how we learn to do any open skill activity, tennis, basketball, boxing, etc. and just apply it to WCK.

This would make it much better to be able to go at WC like Boxing or MMA, etc. I wonder if we could put our heads together (for once) and create a platform for achieving this.

I also wonder if this would make it a system that is quicker to catch on to and utilize in a sparring environment.

Hmm...new thread?

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

The way we do it here (it's taken us a few years to develop it, and it is an evolving wip) is to use a game-based approach (these are the fundamentals that you need to play the game) that is learner-centered and teach those few basic skills, then develop them into realistic skills through realistic drills, and then begin sparring. No time is spent on forms. If the trainee wants the forms (for tradition's sake) they are taught last.

Knifefighter

04-07-2007, 03:20 PM

Have you ever seen a leg pick in wing chun? There is one and some families use it. Its right in a form hiding in plain sight. In other words its right there if anyone wants to actually figure out wing chun.

What do you think any form in any system is there for? There are dozens of techniques that can be harvested from each of the forms - including the wooden dummy "form".

This is so funny, it bears repeating.

Why not just take a leg pick or "harvest" other techniques out of a ballet routine... it would be just as applicable to fighting.

Taking techniques from forms is completely ludicrous in terms of application to fighting.

jmd161

04-07-2007, 03:27 PM

Taking techniques from forms is completely ludicrous in terms of application to fighting.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Do you understand forms and what they were designed for? I know this is a wasted question on someone like yourself who seems to live only to bash TCMA, but i thought I'd ask anyway.

jeff:)

Knifefighter

04-07-2007, 03:41 PM

How did you come to this conclusion?
Do you understand forms and what they were designed for? I know this is a wasted question on someone like yourself who seems to live only to bash TCMA, but i thought I'd ask anyway.

Everybody has their own theories on what forms were designed for... but, basically, they are a waste of time if one's goal is fighting applications.

People who try to take techniques from forms are going about things bassakwards.

Applicable techniques come directly from fighting... there is a constant interplay and evolution where fighting informs the techniques. Forms do enter anywhere into the equation of fighting... they are completely irrelevant and extraneous.

jmd161

04-07-2007, 04:09 PM

Everybody has their own theories on what forms were designed for... but, basically, they are a waste of time if one's goal is fighting applications.

People who try to take techniques from forms are going about things bassakwards.

Applicable techniques come directly from fighting... there is a constant interplay and evolution where fighting informs the techniques. Forms do enter anywhere into the equation of fighting... they are completely irrelevant and extraneous.

That sounds like an opinion to me I don't see scientific proof displayed there to back up your opinion. You know the old saying opinions are like azzholes everyone has one..... Or is one???

something along those lines:D

Forms are a choreographed set of techniques to help memorize a styles techniques, principals, theories, etc... They do not make one a fighter. They are just a source or tool box of techniques to which you can draw from. You fit the techniques to your style of fighting not the other way around. It's just like the practice of sweeps in BJJ they don't mean anything until you practice them against some one in drills or actual rolling.

jeff:)

Knifefighter

04-07-2007, 04:14 PM

That sounds like an opinion to me I don't see scientific proof displayed there to back up your opinion.

The scientific explanation for why forms are a waste of time is known as specificity of training.

Fighting is alive, evolving and constantly changing. Putting techniques into forms immediately creates something that is dead.

It would be impossible to put alive techniques into forms. Each technique is determined by what the opponent’s response at the time is, and each follow up technique is determined by what that response is. Since the opponent usually has anywhere from three to six responses for each technique and there are an average of three to six follow-up techniques for each response, each form would need to have millions of variations if it were to be anywhere close to being alive and applicable to real fighting.

It's just like the practice of sweeps in BJJ they don't mean anything until you practice them against some one in drills or actual rolling.

BJJ, like all alive systems, doens't use forms. There is no form from which sweeps (nor any other technique) is taken. The sweeps are immediately practiced against a partner and then put into play in sparring.

jmd161

04-07-2007, 04:24 PM

It would be impossible to put alive techniques into forms.

Are you sure of this?

Each technique is determined by what the opponent’s response at the time is, and each follow up technique is determined by what that response is. Since the opponent usually has anywhere from three to six responses for each technique and there are an average of three to six follow-up techniques for each response, each form would need to have millions of variations if it were to be anywhere close to being alive and applicable to real fighting.

Sounds like you just described techniques from a form being drilled and applied in realistic training to me?!?! There is no this is defense to (A) with counter (B) in forms, although, people try to make it seem that way. I can show you one technique with at least 50 variations in which it can be used or applied. That's the idea with forms, to find which tool in the tool box that best suit YOUR needs. Just like any technique in BJJ, it can be shown one way, but that is not the only way to achieve that desired technique or effect.

jeff:)

jmd161

04-07-2007, 04:28 PM

BJJ, like all alive systems, doens't use forms. There is no form from which sweeps (nor any other technique) is taken. The sweeps are immediately practiced against a partner and then put into play in sparring.

I never said BJJ had forms I was using a BJJ technique as an example. Basically any drill you're shown in BJJ like break falling etc.. could be considered a form because it can be shown and then practiced without the teacher being present. You can practice it on your own because you were shown the technique, you then refine it in rolling or drills with others.

jeff:)

Knifefighter

04-07-2007, 04:44 PM

Are you sure of this?

Yes.

I can show you one technique with at least 50 variations in which it can be used or applied. That's the idea with forms, to find which tool in the tool box that best suit YOUR needs.

I can show you 50 variations that could theoretically be used for fighting from ballet movements... doesn't make ballet applicable to fighting.

Fighters who train in an alive manner look to their fighting to inform their techniques.

Theoretical non-fighters look to forms to find their techniques.

jmd161

04-07-2007, 04:54 PM

I can show you 50 variations that could theoretically be used for fighting from ballet movements... doesn't make ballet applicable to fighting.

Fighters who train in an alive manner look to their fighting to inform their techniques.

Theoretical non-fighters look to forms to find their techniques.

I didn't say theoretically I spoke of actual techniques and then actually using/drilling/applying them. Let's stay working with what I'm actually saying, let's not do this I'll play on your words crap that so many MMA folk seem to have mastered.:rolleyes:

Hmm I guess non of those alive techniques can be found in a form or TCMA huh?

I guess we'll agree to disagree you continue doing what works for you and i'll continue the same. How about that?:D

jeff:)

Ultimatewingchun

04-07-2007, 05:36 PM

"Taking techniques from forms is completely ludicrous in terms of application to fighting." (Dale)

***WHEN IT COMES to wing chun, Dale...

you're totally clueless.

No wonder you had virtually no idea what to do against Rahsun.

Ultimatewingchun

04-07-2007, 05:42 PM

Listen guys, instead of getting baited and trolled by Gorilla Monsoon and Killer Kowalski....(or some miniature version thereof)...

why don't we turn this thread into a real discussion about techniques/strategies/principles/concepts that come out of chi sao, the forms, and the wooden dummy?

I'll start...

I really liked Hunt1's thing about the elbow moves in Bil Jee having throwing applications.

What do the rest of you think about that?

Liddel

04-07-2007, 06:38 PM

.... chi sao is IMO a "teaching" platform; however, you can't do those things in sparring the way you do them in chi sao (one of the big drawbacks to chi sao).
Chi Dan Sao / Poon Sao - I agree, most of the actions are taught from a pre arranged contact position, and many people dont think nor train about how to get there in the first place creating a drawback for application IMO.

On the flip side - if you view Chi Sao as any contact - then of course you can apply it in fighting.

I.E i can parry/block with my lead hand in sparring and imediately stike with the same hand from a contact or non contact position - this mindset of action and reaction along with many others is introduced in chi sao where i train.

I think it depends on the club and the person. Certainly sparring takes being in good physical condition (to avoid injury and to perform well).
In WCK, in contrast, sparring is never the core of most people's training, it is chi sao.
I def agree with this but over the last ten years of doing VT ive noticed my peeers (at other VT schools) and myself changing the way we train to correct this imbalance.

Taking techniques from forms is completely ludicrous in terms of application to fighting.

As a blanket statement for CMA's i could certainly agree on some level.
I know and spar with a lot a cops in my country, one of my main sparring partners teaches Close Quater Battle techs to the various enforcement departments.

Funny enough the actions are so very simple and straight foward and are actually taught and practiced in mini forms and then applied to different real life full force scenarios.

I cant speak for anyone else, but my Forms do have direct application to fighting but for one main thing.
- In essence the SLT actions are on the CK horse -

Sure forms arent for everyone - but ludicrous ? - not IMO ;)

osprey3883

04-07-2007, 10:05 PM

Terrence,

If we view WCK as an activity, like playing catch is an activity (a very simple one) or surfing or tennis or basketball (more complex ones), we will see the futility in trying to "set in stone" something that is by its very nature, dynamic. While we could come up with a tennis form, with representations of the tools of tennis, that wouldn't be a very good way to teach the game/activity. Nor would such a form be good training (since every forehand will be different, how can practicing one example of it in a form be good training?).

Do we let a surfing form dictate how to surf or the things we should be doing in surfing, or do we begin with the activity of surfing and let that dictate what we need/do?

You are equating MA with technique light activities like tennis. Sometimes the things you post seem like you either didn't learn WC in depth, or your teacher didn't choose to pass much on.

As far as"deriving" techniques from forms goes -- this is sort of like seeing things in Rorshach blots: you can see whatever you want to. How do you know this is what the forms were "meant" to represent? And to even think this way is to miss the point IMO.

It all boils down to competent instruction IMO.

Matt

Knifefighter

04-07-2007, 11:51 PM

I really liked Hunt1's thing about the elbow moves in Bil Jee having throwing applications.

What do the rest of you think about that?

LOL @ can taking a throwing (or any other) application out of a form.

Again, that is completely bassakwards.

If you want to see throwing applications, watch how throwing occurs among high level athletes who do them against other high level athletes who are resisting. You will see all the applications exactly as they are supposed to be done against another person that you will ever need right there.

Why in the hell would someone try to tease out applications from a form when they can get the applications directly from seeing them being done by the highest level athletes against others at equally high levels?

You will never see real fighters searching through forms to find techniques. All their techniques come directly from fighting.

No wonder so many TMA people are so completely clueless when it comes to actually using their stuff.

Vajramusti

04-08-2007, 07:25 AM

Victor asks:
why don't we turn this thread into a real discussion about techniques/strategies/principles/concepts that come out of chi sao, the forms, and the wooden dummy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor- the trolls, and the knee jerk cynicism and the ad hominem remarks makes serious discussion nearly impossible...but :
insights from chi sao depends on the level of the wing chun experience.
Understanding wing chun and its chi sao and fighting applications from it evolves and is progressive. Bad training habits and egos prevent people from wing chun based progress- even though they may claim to have been in wing chun for some time.
Good martial arts specially wing chun training develops individuals- not robots. So the development of insights and feelings can vary. In fighting "sports"- boxing, grappling, jj that is also likely to be true in varying degrees. But good chi sao does that development remarkably. You can learn when the tan sao motion can be a block, a punch, a break or a throw.

1. the forms are not collections of techniques- they are inter connected and progressive ways to develop stability, mobility, fluidity and energies. They are also texts of the art. YGKYM develops stability and balance. And the slt dvelops other things including the hands, proper breathing while working on stability and balance. CK gets one started with mobility...biu jee, mok jong, and the weapons
continue that progression.

2. Among so many things--- from chi sao you learn what lines are open and what are not at any given moment. Sparring- boxing type- can develop angles. Chi sao does an additional job with lines. You sense hidden lines even when the path is
superficially closed.

3. chi sao heightens the control of the centers- ones own and then that of others.
At appropriate moments - one can sense the opportunity for the strike, the break or the throw. Whether one can use the opportunity depends on lots of good and correct practice. Additionally- there are the qualities of guts and experience that
the teacher cannot impart by himself/herself.

4. in spectator oriented martial sports- weight differences can play more of a role...chi sao develops a bigger arsenal... sometimes when the person is too big to be thrown- you strike...provided you have been on the wing chun path to power development. Sometimes the cavities are there when the punch isnt. What line is open and for how long? You devop a sense for that.

5. I dont criticize others if they think that they need training other than wing chun-each to his own...but FWIW I havent felt the need to take training time away from continued wing chun development... and yes---I have tried my stuff on competent resisting opponents of different persuasions... no chest beating involved or intended in that comment.

For me any way- chi sao can give a very accurate sense of entering, of distances, positioning and timing. If one sticks with decent wing chun training and develops experience with different kinds of skilled people in different kinds of contact work- the skill development can come through in vertical, horizontal or diagonal positions.

PS A real fight can be an unpredictable thing and a hidden knife or a gun in the right hands can make all the rolling, sparring, bouncing, throwing and chi sao-irrelevant-but the awareness that one develops through martial activity can be of some help. But a drunk driver behind the wheels can get you witha working volkswagon-new or old.

joy chaudhuri

PS sorry- no time for proofreading typos. Duty beckons.

Matrix

04-08-2007, 07:45 AM

1. the forms are not collections of techniques- they are inter connected and progressive ways to develop stability, mobility, fluidity and energies. They are also texts of the art. YGKYM develops stability and balance. And the slt dvelops other things including the hands, proper breathing while working on stability and balance. CK gets one started with mobility...biu jee, mok jong, and the weapons continue that progression.Joy,
Good post. I would just add that the applications from the forms are evident, they are not "hidden". Like any text, you still have to read it but there is no "secret".

Ultimatewingchun

04-08-2007, 06:04 PM

Good post, Joy....(did I really just say that? :cool: )...

but I disagree about one very important point: My experience with forms is that they are a collection of techniques...AS WELL AS BEING...

concepts
principles
strategies....and a means of developing...
stability
mobility
energy
balance
proper breathing

There is no reason to think that these things are mutually exclusive.

I am convinced that they are all of the above.

..........................

As to chi sao, you wrote this:

"Among so many things--- from chi sao you learn what lines are open and what are not at any given moment. Sparring- boxing type- can develop angles. Chi sao does an additional job with lines. You sense hidden lines even when the path is
superficially closed.

Chi sao heightens the control of the centers- ones own and then that of others.
At appropriate moments - one can sense the opportunity for the strike, the break or the throw. Whether one can use the opportunity depends on lots of good and correct practice."

***AGREED...But I want to offer and addition to this analysis...not a subtraction or even necessarily a contra-distinction - but an addition:

Boxing/Sparring development of angles can be added TO the wing chun/chi sao development of lines...hence my frequent mention of using straight boxing leads and crosses as a means of opening up LINES that can be used within wing chun parameters....

by not using boxing "angles" to hit on unoccupied lines....but by using these longer range boxing punches and boxing footwork to attack/occupy what I'm going to call LANES (ie.- wider than the usual "line") - and therefore not necessarily doing an all out attack on body or head targets (not yet anyway)...

but Lanes/lines that are essential pieces of real estate...precisely because they will grant the occupier the "shortest distance" to actual head and body targets if one decides to strike - but it also does much more.

Because I'm talking about 2 basic vertical lines - not one.

And those 2 lines correspond to the Lanes/lines (near the opponent's shoulder areas - and moving down his sides) that he would have to use NO MATTER WHAT type of hand attack he chose to use, ie.- straight punches, hooks, round punches, uppercuts, overhands, backfists - and including any attempt to grab, clinch, or go for a leg takedown.

Now reread this carefully and you should see that I'm not talking about chasing hands - but about chasing lanes and lines - and if his hands/arms are there - then you get the bridge...or perhaps you just slide through the area where his hands/arms are and go right for targets.

So you are "checking" him while applying your offense...and only blocking/redirecting/deflecting/manipulating his limbs if it's necesary.

t_niehoff

04-09-2007, 05:29 AM

Terrence,

You are equating MA with technique light activities like tennis. Sometimes the things you post seem like you either didn't learn WC in depth, or your teacher didn't choose to pass much on.

Theoretical nonfighters believe WCK is somehow different than other sports/acthletic activites and so can take a different approach to learning/training than do sports/athletic activities -- but it's not. They "get away" with this thinking only because they are not fighting with good people. If they fought with other good fighters, they'd see the truth for themselves. But because they never really play the game, they never really learn the game, and they certainly never develop any skill playing the game.

If you want to talk about "learning WCK in depth" or how my"teacher didn't pass much on", why don't you get a mid-level MMA fighter to come to your school and spar with everyone, including your teacher? After you do that, then come back and talk to me about how little I know. ;)

It all boils down to competent instruction IMO.
Matt

I will agree that competant instruction is one important factor. But this begts the questions: what makes you believe you are getting competant instruction? Do you believe your instructor could hold his own against a decent fighter? Then do what I said above -- if your instructor can fight, he won't have a problem doing it. If he can't fight, then what in God's name is he teaching?

t_niehoff

04-09-2007, 05:47 AM

LOL @ can taking a throwing (or any other) application out of a form.

Again, that is completely bassakwards.

That is exactly what the TMAs do -- approach everything concerning developing fighting skills @ss-backwards.

If you want to see throwing applications, watch how throwing occurs among high level athletes who do them against other high level athletes who are resisting. You will see all the applications exactly as they are supposed to be done against another person that you will ever need right there.

Why in the hell would someone try to tease out applications from a form when they can get the applications directly from seeing them being done by the highest level athletes against others at equally high levels?

You will never see real fighters searching through forms to find techniques. All their techniques come directly from fighting.

But this presupposes that people are actually "playing the game", fighting. It is sort of like theoretical tennis nonplayers talking about how they derive things from their linked tennis sets -- never realizing that they don't need linked sets to learn to play or that linked sets are, by their very nature (trying to fix in stone something that is dynamic), a really poor way to learn tennis. But as they never really play, and so can't understand the game or what is involved in the game, can't begin to fathom how else to teach the game. Add to this that they believe their non-playing tennis master really "knows", and that anyone who disagrees with him is a heretic . . .

No wonder so many TMA people are so completely clueless when it comes to actually using their stuff.

And that's because they are not using their stuff against good people and not critically analyzing their results.

Ultimatewingchun

04-09-2007, 08:10 AM

"Theoretical nonfighters believe WCK is somehow different than other sports/athletic activites, blah, blah, blah...."

but I've noticed that Theoretical wing chun people don't have a clue - so they dabble in speculation and irritation.

Too much time on their hands, I guess....:rolleyes: :cool: :D

SevenStar

04-09-2007, 09:55 AM

LOL @ can taking a throwing (or any other) application out of a form.

Again, that is completely bassakwards.

If you want to see throwing applications, watch how throwing occurs among high level athletes who do them against other high level athletes who are resisting. You will see all the applications exactly as they are supposed to be done against another person that you will ever need right there.

Why in the hell would someone try to tease out applications from a form when they can get the applications directly from seeing them being done by the highest level athletes against others at equally high levels?

You will never see real fighters searching through forms to find techniques. All their techniques come directly from fighting.

No wonder so many TMA people are so completely clueless when it comes to actually using their stuff.

I agree with this. It was when I began judo that I really SAW and applied the throws in my CMA forms - and that some of the ways we were taught these throws (by extracting them from the for) were wrong.

Knifefighter

04-09-2007, 11:12 AM

That is exactly what the TMAs do -- approach everything concerning developing fighting skills @ss-backwards.

For fighters (and their coaches), techniques are simply solutions for problems encountered in fighting/sparring. Fighters (and their coaches) start with the problems encountered in their fighting/sparring to find the techniques, strategies and tactics that will solve these problems. After finding potential solutions, these solutions are then tried out in sparring and fighting. The solutions that work are incorporated into the fighters' (and the system they train in) repertoires, while the one’s that aren’t effective are discarded.

Since theoretical non-fighters (and their teachers, who have never fought) are not fighting in the first place, they have no other place to start but with their theories. That is why they have to search out their forms to find the techniques that they think they can use in fighting. Since they aren’t really fighting, they can never know whether or not these techniques will actually work or not. Because of this, as time goes by, their arsenal gets diluted with a variety of less effective practices.

Since they they are actually using their techniques in fighting and sparring, real fighters have never had a need to catalog their techniques into forms. Since the techniques are constantly being used and refined, they are always out there to be seen in the sparring/fighting sessions.

On the other hand, theoretical non-fighters have developed entire systems around theoretical techniques than can be applied in theoretical fighting. These systems are usually categorized into forms.

Eric_H

04-09-2007, 11:16 AM

If they fought with other good fighters, they'd see the truth for themselves. But because they never really play the game, they never really learn the game, and they certainly never develop any skill playing the game.

Terrence,

How many good fighters have you trained? Ones with independently verified results if there are any.

Knifefighter

04-09-2007, 11:38 AM

Terrence,
How many good fighters have you trained? Ones with independently verified results if there are any.

Whether or not he has trained good fighters is irrelevant. What is relevant is that every trainer of good fighters (and all other high level athletes) follows the formula he is advocating.

Eric_H

04-09-2007, 01:49 PM

Whether or not he has trained good fighters is irrelevant. What is relevant is that every trainer of good fighters (and all other high level athletes) follows the formula he is advocating.

Knifefighter,

Really, that depends; we seem to have two different discussions happening in this thread:

1. Is Chi Sao a useful training platform.
2. Is Chi sao useful in fight skill.

My challenge to Terrance's arguments is about #1. If you have a THEORY on how good fighters 'should' be trained; yet you're not training someone that way, you're probably a non-teacher theoretician. :D

Ultimatewingchun

04-09-2007, 01:59 PM

The fact still remains that taking techniques out of forms and WORKING the applications with live resisting partners is a TOTALLY VALID method of becoming a good fighter...

regardless of any "it's only this way or it sucks" mentality that some people try to impose on other people.

That's bull - and I think the fallacy attached to this is becoming more-and-more apparent with each successive post....

especially since the biggest proponents of this mentality don't know jack about wing chun.

..........................

Anyway, I await your replies to my last post ABOUT THE TOPIC of the thread, Joy, Matrix, chisauking...whoever. ;) :rolleyes:

Vajramusti

04-09-2007, 02:42 PM

On applying things and and adjusting from forms...I dont think that there is a real disagreement. The forms contain the seed motions. The motions themselves can be used- or variations of the motions can be used. Wing chun is so compact and creative that the motions can have many
adjustments in usage- depending on what is happening. Thus take the basic punch...it can be shortened, turned , used with changing timing. The straight punch is the mother with many children. Chi sao is not a cooperative game- it also teaches adjustments and varying timings.

On using boxing punches from beyond chi sao range...possible ...but great care is needed because boxing punches at their best usually involves a different structure and weighting than wing chun... and therefore the risks are different. Lots of practice can aid with transitions IMHO./FWIW.

Joy Chaudhuri

stricker

04-09-2007, 03:11 PM

I dont think questions like this have a single answer, as we all have different experniences... in my opinion its down to taking responsibility for your own development and training and finding out what works for you personally. but to do that you need to get 'out' and spar/fight with other people from other styles. then you will truly know in yourself what works for you for training, and not listen to what your sifu tells you is so, or what some forum discussion says. thats my answer.

if you aint got no fight experience, well then your just going on heresay or sifu-says or forum-says ;)

so get in a scrap or two then you wont need to be talking ****e on forums, all this talk is pointless!

Eric_H

04-09-2007, 03:39 PM

you need to get 'out' and spar/fight with other people from other styles. then you will truly know in yourself what works for you for training, and not listen to what your sifu tells you is so, or what some forum discussion says. thats my answer.

Well said!

Vajramusti

04-09-2007, 03:51 PM

stricker

04-10-2007, 04:07 AM

if you aint got no fight experience, well then your just going on heresay or sifu-says or forum-says
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Big assumption that some of the posters have no fight experience.

2.Some of the posters are past knee jerk sifu sez positions.

3. forum doesnt says zilch- posters do...on occasion when posters have a serious conversation folks can share insights from experience, principles/ concepts or both. What one absorbs is an individual thing.

4. miscommunication on the net specially with anonymous posters is a problem
on parts of the net including blogs and threads of various kinds, not just on kfo.

joy chaudhuriyour right :)

im not tarring anyone in particular or generalising with a brush of 'nonfighter' etc and of course it doesnt apply to everyone, thats my point, but i will say though i dont think its a big assumption to say a lot of posters (and a lot of people in the general populace of wing chun) dont have much fight experience, and a lot of people live through others experiences too, sifu-says etc (or even matt thornton-says hahaha) is rife... those who do have nothing but respect and whatever approach they take in their training is perfectly valid and worthy of consideration. the thing is being honest with your self. and people misrepresent themselves too

its been nice to read one or two little bits about chi sao and peoples other training ideas\sparring drills that have been interesting, but too much **** talk going nowhere.

t_niehoff

04-10-2007, 05:32 AM

Terrence,

How many good fighters have you trained? Ones with independently verified results if there are any.

Instead of focusing on me (because I am not the standard by which all training should be measured), look at how all good fighters are trained. They all do pretty much the same things. They use the same model to train by. Whether you don't like what I say or don't want to believe, the evidence is right before your eyes. And if you believe there is some other way to train to develop fighting skill, go down to the local MMA gym and put your theory to the test.

hunt1

04-10-2007, 05:41 AM

I agree with Ultimate. What we have are to bitter wing chun trolls that have no interest what so ever in anything that challenges their theories.

Knife spent 10 years doing wing chun under some "big names" and then when he couldnt make his wing chun work he looked in the mirror and blamed wing chun and his big name teachers for not magically giving him super wing chun fighting skills.

Tn spent over 2 decades doing wing chun and for years posted as though he alone had all the super secret wing chun knowledge then he gets owned by someone with a few years grappling experience and of course its wing chuns fault. If he couldnt make it work than nobody else could since his wing chun was better thane veryone else's.

Both trolls ignore anything to the contrary. Both have repeated the same mantra for years now with no variation.

When it was pointed out Carlson Gracie said good things about wing chun publicaly and that they were using wing chun to train same valle tudo fighters at his school in Chicago. It was ignored. Knife boy could have called the school but did he? Of course not. Information opposed to his position is not welcome and besides Carlsom Gracie what did he know about fighting. TN ignored it to why? Because only he had the super great wing chun. The comments were about Sam Kwok and Phil Nearing. That couldnt be possible in TNs world since his wing chun was better than everyones and he couldnt make it work. TN blew off the cleveland trip to go to chicago he said. Did he take the time to go visit Carlson Gracies school, no of course not he only tells others what schools to go check out and roll at. Did he go to PHil Nearings school and see how they were training vale Tudo, no not know it all Terry.

t_niehoff

04-10-2007, 05:47 AM

The fact still remains that taking techniques out of forms and WORKING the applications with live resisting partners is a TOTALLY VALID method of becoming a good fighter...

And as I said, a person could take tennis applications out of tennis forms and train those too -- but is that really the most effective and efficient way to develop tennis skill? Do people "need" tennis forms? If they don't "need" them, why spend the time learning them, practicing them, etc. when they could spend the time doing something of training value?

Moreover, anything that we would put into a tennis form would only be a representation of application -- it would be trying to put into fixed form something that is by nature dynamic and changeable.

regardless of any "it's only this way or it sucks" mentality that some people try to impose on other people.

That's bull - and I think the fallacy attached to this is becoming more-and-more apparent with each successive post....

What we do know is that linked sets are unnecessary to developing high levels of martial art skill (as boxers, wrestlers, BJJ, MT, etc. have proved). And just from that perspective alone, why spend the time and energy practicing something that is unnecessary? It just distracts you from the necessary training.

The next question is since they are unnecessary, what is their value?

especially since the biggest proponents of this mentality don't know jack about wing chun.

Yes, the old ad hominem attack -- the old stand-by for when you can't discuss the merits of the issue intelligently.

hunt1

04-10-2007, 06:09 AM

I have put the trolls on ignore. If I want to know what they think I have years of the same posts to read. I will be happy to discuss wing chun and training it to be effective but wont waste what little time I have on trolls.

t_niehoff

04-10-2007, 06:33 AM

I agree with Ultimate. What we have are to bitter wing chun trolls that have no interest what so ever in anything that challenges their theories.

I'm sorry -- what am I bitter about? I train WCK.

Knife spent 10 years doing wing chun under some "big names" and then when he couldnt make his wing chun work he looked in the mirror and blamed wing chun and his big name teachers for not magically giving him super wing chun fighting skills.

You are missing the point. It is not WCK that is being "blamed" -- it is how people teach/train that is being "blamed". If boxers or MT people learned/trained like most WCK people do, they couldn't make that stuff work either.

Tn spent over 2 decades doing wing chun and for years posted as though he alone had all the super secret wing chun knowledge then he gets owned by someone with a few years grappling experience and of course its wing chuns fault. If he couldnt make it work than nobody else could since his wing chun was better thane veryone else's.

Dude, I don't claim to have anything superior to anybody.

I'm merely pointing out that if we look at what the really good fighters (regardless of their style)do, how they learn and train, we will see why they get the results they do. And if we compare/contrast that approach with the traditional approach (that is a part of all TMAs), we will see why that approach doesn't get those same level of results. Moreover, even the WCK guys that are fighting in NHBs are training like modern fighters.

Both trolls ignore anything to the contrary. Both have repeated the same mantra for years now with no variation.

I'm not ignoring any evidence. But I am holding up theories to the evidence.

When it was pointed out Carlson Gracie said good things about wing chun publicaly and that they were using wing chun to train same valle tudo fighters at his school in Chicago. It was ignored. Knife boy could have called the school but did he? Of course not. Information opposed to his position is not welcome and besides Carlsom Gracie what did he know about fighting.

This is typical: someone puts forth an unsubstantiated story that is latched onto as "true". I don't doubt that CG said something nice about WCK. But who is training these vale tudo fighters in WCK? Who are these vale tudo fighters at Carlson's school training in WCK? You make the claim but then want to shift the burden to Dale to prove the claim is wrong!

TN ignored it to why? Because only he had the super great wing chun. The comments were about Sam Kwok and Phil Nearing. That couldnt be possible in TNs world since his wing chun was better than everyones and he couldnt make it work.

You are a liar. Liar. Because I've never said that my WCK is better than anyone else's. Never. Why are you lying?

I understand people have emotional attachments to what they are doing and the investment they have put into it. But step back and evaluate these things unemotionally. Don't lie to mischaracterize what people are saying.

TN blew off the cleveland trip to go to chicago he said. Did he take the time to go visit Carlson Gracies school, no of course not he only tells others what schools to go check out and roll at. Did he go to PHil Nearings school and see how they were training vale Tudo, no not know it all Terry.

I don't know it all. I admit that. Since I don't know it all and since I am not the "best", I look to what others who know more than me and are better than me do to learn/train. Of course, I don't just accept it on faith that someone who calls himself sifu or master or grandmaster is better than me or knows more than me. I require proof before I believe something. So I look at who is producing good quality fighters, and see what they are doing, what they are saying. And I don't stick to WCK, since training is training and because WCK hasn't produced many good fighters. If WCK master (who has never fought) says X but the world's top fighters and trainers say Y, who should I listen to -- the WCK self-proclaimed master and their WCK forum members/followers or the world's top fighters/trainers? Hmmm. Tough one. ;)

As I keep saying, don't take my word for it -- I think that is precisely the problem with TMAs, so much is matter of faith, a matter of theory, too, too much taking people's word for things. I am saying to look what the proven really good fighters and fight trainers, regardless of style, are saying and doing. Take their approach and adapt it to WCK.

All I keep hearing from the dissenters is "what I do already works" (my chi sao does train me to be a fighter, etc.) - though they can't provide evidence to back that up -- and "Terence, you are a WCK hater and a sack of sh1t". Compelling rejoinders.

I'm sorry that I don't want to waste my time going to WCK Friendship thingys (been there, done that -- fool me once, shame on you . . .) or following up unsubstantiated "leads" that have nothing to do with the underlying issue.

Knifefighter

04-10-2007, 06:56 AM

When it was pointed out Carlson Gracie said good things about wing chun publicaly and that they were using wing chun to train same valle tudo fighters at his school in Chicago. It was ignored. Knife boy could have called the school but did he? .

LOL... I trained with Carlson when he was out here. I talked to him about striking and BJJ. He was a big believer in supplementing BJJ with BOXING.

BTW, Carlson felt other approaches had merit... watch Belfort's (Carlson's fighter) straight blast type attack against Wanderlei Silva, but he thought they were too limited.

Knifefighter

04-10-2007, 07:00 AM

Knife spent 10 years doing wing chun under some "big names" and then when he couldnt make his wing chun work he looked in the mirror and blamed wing chun and his big name teachers for not magically giving him super wing chun fighting skills..

I made BJJ work quite effectively after 6 only months of training.

Ultimatewingchun

04-10-2007, 08:56 AM

"I have put the trolls on ignore. If I want to know what they think I have years of the same posts to read." (Hunt1)

***Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!...Now that's friggin' funny. ;) :D

You know, Dale...one thing I still don't understand about you...You have been on this forum religiously for about what? 2-3 years now? And you live in L.A. And you're constantly talking about the fact that nobody in wing chun seems to have any real fighting skills...

and you were told more than once that right there in L.A. is Gary Lam - a very high level wing chun guy who trained with one of the very best ever - Wong Shun Leung.

How come you've never visited Gary? He's right there.

And it doesn't have to be a hostile tensioned-filled visit. I would imagine that if you asked our man Ernie (who trains with Gary), he could just bring you to class one day and say that you're a friend of his and you wanted to come and watch a class. Easy. No problem. And you could just watch...or you could ask to participate in some way...at whatever level of intensity you're comfortable with, etc.

For a guy who spends this much time on the wing chun forum one would think that you'd want to see someone that so many people agree is one of the best. No?

Knifefighter

04-10-2007, 10:55 AM

especially since the biggest proponents of this mentality don't know jack about wing chun.

LOL @ the biggest catch wrestling proponent who has never even trained grappling with a live instructor or outside the confines of his school with his students saying something like this.

Knifefighter

04-10-2007, 11:12 AM

And you're constantly talking about the fact that nobody in wing chun seems to have any real fighting skills...

No... just the theoretical non-fighters who are standing around doing chi sao and pulling techniques out of their forms... and also the theoretical pretend fighters who have never done more than spar in the confines of their schools with their students.

As I have said, Alan Orr's guys show potential, although I think they are doing much more BJJ than WC in their fights .

and you were told more than once that right there in L.A. is Gary Lam - a very high level wing chun guy who trained with one of the very best ever - Wong Shun Leung.

How come you've never visited Gary? He's right there.

And it doesn't have to be a hostile tensioned-filled visit. I would imagine that if you asked our man Ernie (who trains with Gary), he could just bring you to class one day and say that you're a friend of his and you wanted to come and watch a class. Easy. No problem. And you could just watch...or you could ask to participate in some way...at whatever level of intensity you're comfortable with, etc.

The only way to judge someone's fighting ability is to watch him fight or spar full contact. Last time I checked, he wasn't doing this so I really wouldn't be able to tell one way or the other.

BTW, you are the one who seems to be bothered by the fact that I don't find evidence of WC being terribly effective for most people. Shouldn't the onus be on you to walk into an MMA school with your videocam and "prove" how well WC works?

Eric_H

04-10-2007, 12:00 PM

Instead of focusing on me (because I am not the standard by which all training should be measured), look at how all good fighters are trained. They all do pretty much the same things. They use the same model to train by. Whether you don't like what I say or don't want to believe, the evidence is right before your eyes. And if you believe there is some other way to train to develop fighting skill, go down to the local MMA gym and put your theory to the test.

Slightly OT, I apologize:

Terrence,

The only reason I chose to focus on you is because they way you are communicating is coming across as all of the words you say are straight from your own experience. You've made a lot of generalizations ("most WCK people", "any Mid level MMA guy") in your posts, and I am trying to get across that you need be more specific about where your information is coming from if you don't want to present it as your own. What "top level fighters" are you promoting?

More towards the topic:

Why should chi sao be considered any different than rolling in BJJ? Technically, both should be testing and working on your skill at every moment. If it's not being trained that way, I question it as well.

Knifefighter

04-10-2007, 12:11 PM

Why should chi sao be considered any different than rolling in BJJ? If it's not being trained that way, I question it as well.

Rolling in BJJ is specific to what will happen when the BJJ guy fights. Watch a BJJ guy roll and then watch him fight. 80-90% of what you see in his sparring (and close to 100% when he trains with striking included) will be pretty much the same as what you see when he fights (i.e. clinch, takedown, guard, mount, 1/2 guard, side control, sweeps, submission work, guard & 1/2 guard passing, maintaining position, escaping, etc.).

Now do the same with a WC guy. Watch his chi sao. Then watch him fight full contact. I'll bet you might see the same movements in fighting and chi sao, at most, 10-15% of the time... if at all.

Technically, both should be testing and working on your skill at every moment.

The skill set in BJJ rolling is much more transferable to fighting than is the skill set in chi sao.

Ultimatewingchun

04-10-2007, 01:36 PM

"BTW, you are the one who seems to be bothered by the fact that I don't find evidence of WC being terribly effective for most people. Shouldn't the onus be on you to walk into an MMA school with your videocam and "prove" how well WC works?" (Dale)

***OF COURSE NOT....what bull5hit logic that is.:rolleyes:

It's YOU who constantly tries to get his rocks off by coming on this forum in a never-ending "attempt" to "prove" something (ie.- that wing chun sucks).

And your reason for not visiting Gary Lam is really lame. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to oblige you if you made it clear to him that you'd like to see his fighting skills - since you don't think much of wing chun (except people who you think are doing more BJJ than wing chun).

Yeah...that should motivate Gary to show you a few things so that your visit to his school would have been worthwhile. :cool: :D :eek:

Knifefighter

04-10-2007, 01:46 PM

And your reason for not visiting Gary Lam is really lame. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to oblige you if you made it clear to him that you'd like to see his fighting skills - since you don't think much of wing chun (except people who you think are doing more BJJ than wing chun).

Yeah...that should motivate Gary to show you a few things so that your visit to his school would have been worthwhile. :cool: :D :eek:

LOL @ theoretical pretend fighters setting up fights by proxie for others.

Ultimatewingchun

04-10-2007, 01:54 PM

So I guess that means you're not goin'...huh?

Why am I not surprised? :) :D ;) :rolleyes:

Eric_H

04-10-2007, 02:06 PM

Now do the same with a WC guy. Watch his chi sao. Then watch him fight full contact. I'll bet you might see the same movements in fighting and chi sao, at most, 10-15% of the time... if at all.

The skill set in BJJ rolling is much more transferable to fighting than is the skill set in chi sao.

Who is this mythical WC guy everyone keeps referring to? He sure seems to suck.

I've been taught that Chi Sao is anytime you have any contact with your opponent period. If you're talking about looping rolling only, I can see your point, but chi sao is a lot bigger than just that to some people.

As for more transferable, that's a question of the intensity and focus of how you train the method, not always the method itself. I can train Muay Thai or BJJ half arsed and suck too.

Knifefighter

04-10-2007, 02:09 PM

Liddel

04-10-2007, 05:45 PM

..... Now do the same with a WC guy. Watch his chi sao. Then watch him fight full contact. I'll bet you might see the same movements in fighting and chi sao, at most, 10-15% of the time... if at all.

It has indeed been a long time since you did VT huh Dale ?

Lets say your talking specifically about the DRILL - Chi Dan Sao - three simple actions repeated. One of those actions happens to be a punch.

Id laugh at any style that used a punch only 10 - 15% of the time in sparring.

It seems from your comment your 'looking' for 'shapes' from Chi Sao that are used in a fight, but id say the shapes are less than 50% importance in my Chi Sao, the remaining focus is the energy or forces that drive your actions which i would hope most VT people would have at least 80% cross over to fighting even from an early stage.

Hell, when i throw a Hook - its energy is derived from my VT engine if you will.

DREW

sihing

04-10-2007, 06:01 PM

And as I said, a person could take tennis applications out of tennis forms and train those too -- but is that really the most effective and efficient way to develop tennis skill? Do people "need" tennis forms? If they don't "need" them, why spend the time learning them, practicing them, etc. when they could spend the time doing something of training value?

Moreover, anything that we would put into a tennis form would only be a representation of application -- it would be trying to put into fixed form something that is by nature dynamic and changeable.

What we do know is that linked sets are unnecessary to developing high levels of martial art skill (as boxers, wrestlers, BJJ, MT, etc. have proved). And just from that perspective alone, why spend the time and energy practicing something that is unnecessary? It just distracts you from the necessary training.

The next question is since they are unnecessary, what is their value?

Yes, the old ad hominem attack -- the old stand-by for when you can't discuss the merits of the issue intelligently.
I've been trying to stay away but I couldn't help myself :) So far there has been some good post both ways in regard to the subject matter. I think, at least for me, it is understood that there has to be a time when you test yourself in a realistic environment, just to see where you are at regarding your fighting effectiveness. This is a given. I think the main problem is people get stuck in a phase or stage of development. Most likely due to the fact that it can get scary sticking your head out there to see what the true reality is regarding your skills, and also people like where they end up and feel no need to progress (security issues??). Doing forms all the time, hitting air, and reading manuals will get you know where, if your goal is to learn how to fight. But, there is a time and place for everything. Books can help you understand the concept behind what you are doing. If you can read anything and everything about the subject matter you are interested in, it will help you in the end, especially if your goal is to teach. Watching others on video or DVD, is also a useful tool. This allows us to analyse and better duplicate in our minds the best way to use something, even though it may reflect something that is in a controlled environment. In my experience, the best times for these things is after the physical training has been done, as a way to cool down and reflect upon what you have done. The reality is, you can only train so much, especially at high intensity levels. The body breaks down and burnout creeps up quick.

IMO Wing Chun is a training system, not meant to use literally or exactly as it is done in the drills or fixed routines. In the beginning the forms are a way for us to absorb the finer details of fixed body positions (fixed body positions are a big no no in fighting, but you have to somehow change bad habits and develop new one's, one's that are more efficient and structured than pure naturalness). They are also a way to practice alone and quite frankly to mediate per say on what the goal is. Later on after the forms have been practiced, Chi sau is used as a method of training that allows us more freedom of movement and aliveness, while still in a controlled environment (at least in the beginning). Yes, it is true when Terence says that you will really never start out in a fight in the fixed chi sau positions, but these positions only represent a starting point and are not meant to be taken literally (meaning the goal is not to engage your opponent in a fok/tan/bong position, lol, but to hit them!). Basically when attacking or defending (unarmed combat that is), and contact is made with the opponent, more than likely his upper limbs are the contact point. Concentration on the contact point is not necessary, as the body (more specifically the Center), is the primary target. You contact him on either the inside or outside of the limb. Sometimes one hand, sometimes both hands are in contact, regardless, this is the range that Wing Chun concepts and techniques excel at. This is a very brief moment in time, but this range is very crucial in fighting as it is here that the sh!t hits the fan. More weapons are available here than in any other range (fists/palms, elbows, fingers, forearms, headbutts, knees, lowline kicks with shin/foot/heel, arm destructions, etc). Also, most fighters do not have the skill sets to function well in this range, skill sets meaning contact reflexes, forward pressure or intention (lat sau jik chung), structure, positioning and plane old experience. Your eyes are almost useless here, to be able to react fast enough, something else must guide you (only for the moment that you need it). Chi sau helps us develop the skill sets we need to function in this range. It is not about fighting but being able to develop the skills so that you can comfortably be able to practice realistically within this realm without unconsciously escaping to another range that may or may not be advantageous to you. Sometimes going for the takedown may not be the best thing to do, or jumping back retreating, because on the street your environment is not always known (where's the friends, where's the hidden weapon, etc..). Practicing realistically simply means not trying to do anything unnatural or structured. You just do, and see what happens. Now, learning how to function in the other ranges as well is a good thing. In my experience WC does possess concepts that can help us function when the range is far away as well as when the clinch is on. It is just a matter of what you have been exposed to, and how far your imagination can go. For me I would love to be able to practice BJJ, wrestling, boxing and Muay Thai, but like most of us average folk, we have limited time to train (plus not all of us have access to such arts, and good instructors, myself being one of them). Spreading it out on 4/5 different things will get you know where fast. I'd rather concentrate on one thing that works really good in one range and suffices in others, plus something that I like to do as well.

Being able to prove this to others is another question that has been raised on the thread. For me the important thing is that you know yourself that you can do it (and when that is realized, there is NO need to advertise it!). And for the most part this is possible, either your punch has power or it doesn't, either your kick is strong and fast or it isn't, either your grappling is effective or it isn't (and it doesn't have to be proven against the best of the best, since those individuals as Jon said earlier are freaks of nature, meant to fight and love it too). Individual testing with friends, and unknown Martial artists, boxers, wrestlers, etc. of quality skill is strongly recommended. Most all of these tests will never be seen by anyone else except for the participants at hand, so asking for proof means little (as does the idea of winning or losing during these tests, life is not a competition but rather a journey. You learn more when you lose than when you win, because it makes you think and try harder the next time). Either I am honest with myself and know, or I am lying to myself and let my ego take over. For me, I am in a stage of specific development (which means fighting to improve my fighting would not work). I am trying to absorb what WC has to teach me, so that one day I can let it go and be myself, and fight when the need arises. Going to extreme ends of the spectrum is good, but only for short periods of time. Sooner or later moderation is needed, so that one can be centered again and function as they need to function, as themselves. For me WC is the vehicle I have choosen to use to go from point A to B to C, on this journey of mine.

James

anerlich

04-10-2007, 08:16 PM

Those of you experiencing the soporific and anaesthetic qualities of being banged over the head over and over (and over and over and over) with the same arguments by Terence and KF (the arguments aren't bad, the incessant rehashing is deadly) might appreciate the following insights from Roy Harris' forum on the Underground:

BJJ and sticky hands? (http://www.mma.tv/tuf/index.cfm?ac=ListMessages&PID=1&TID=988493&FID=39&pc=10)

Mook Jong vs Partner Drills (http://www.mma.tv/tuf/index.cfm?ac=ListMessages&PID=1&TID=885391&FID=39&pc=23)

Roy Harris is a 3rd degree (I think) BJJ black belt.

Ultimatewingchun

04-10-2007, 08:49 PM

James,

Some friendly advice: much shorter paragraghs might be a good idea. :eek:

You know, like after about two long sentences - you start another paragragh. :D

t_niehoff

04-11-2007, 06:24 AM

Who is this mythical WC guy everyone keeps referring to? He sure seems to suck.

I've been taught that Chi Sao is anytime you have any contact with your opponent period. If you're talking about looping rolling only, I can see your point, but chi sao is a lot bigger than just that to some people.

You hit the nail on the head when you said: "I've been taught". Exactly. EXACTLY. You've been told this and you've accepted it. But it is a crock of sh1t. It is a crock that people who don't and can't fight tell others (if they did fight, they would know better). Chi sao will be nothing like fighting. Go fight/spar with some decent people and you'll see that for yourself. Or, ask you teacher who taught you this if he wouldn't mind fighting with some decent people to show you. His reaction will reveal all. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWfK6aqWiNU

Look at the clip above (just the first minute) and you'll get a good idea of how different a fight will be from chi sao.

As for more transferable, that's a question of the intensity and focus of how you train the method, not always the method itself. I can train Muay Thai or BJJ half arsed and suck too.

You are confusing two things. First, is the training method sound? Does it produce significant results? This can only be evaluated by loking at those results. Fighting. You can't determine how well or how poorly your training methods are working if you are not sparring/fighting with quality people. If a method isn't sound, it can't produce good results -- no matter how ahrd or focused you are in following it. If you take the time and effort to fight with some quality people, you'll see that your chi sao isn't developing fighting skills.

Second, even with a good training methodology (one that can produce good results), our results will depend upon our talent, drive, and work ethic.

Ultimatewingchun

04-11-2007, 06:38 AM

...if you understand how to translate everything you learn in chi sao (and what's in the forms) - into a more spontaneous and unpredictable situation, ie.- sparring/fighting/clinching, etc.

If your instructor understands all of that - and teaches you how to drill it and work it...then chi sao can be a VERY sound training method - within the confines of the standing infight.

But there are two problems with this:

1) A lot of people haven't received this kind of training and have bought the kool aid that what they have received is sufficient.

2) A few people who haven't received this kind of training now think that NOBODY has received it (since they didn't)...and look upon chi sao as a "dead" drill (again: because they were never taught how make it really "live") - and therefore their fragile/arrogant egos are now trying to run roughshod over everyone else.

But it's kind of like the WIZARD OF OZ...

behind the curtain there's a little old man (or two) talking into a BIG VOICE-CHANGING microphone trying to intimidate everyone.

........BOO....:eek:

Yeah, right. ;)

t_niehoff

04-11-2007, 06:57 AM

A lot of people haven't received this kind of training and have bought the kool aid that what they have received is sufficient.

How can a person know if they "bought the kool aid" or not? Results in sparring with quality people.

2) A few people who haven't received this kind of training now think that NOBODY has received it (since they didn't)...and look upon chi sao as a "dead" drill (again: because they were never taught how make it really "live") - and therefore their fragile/arrogant egos are now trying to run roughshod over everyone else.

How do we know whether or not the people who believe that "they got it" (and others did not) actually "got" anything, other than taken to the cleaners? Results in sparring with quality opponents. If someone claims that chi sao develops fighting skills, it is an easy thing to show and prove. Why then, hasn't anyone stepped up to prove it? Where is the person who hasn't spent loads of time sparring, but just doing chi sao, who has good fighting skills?

Btw, this is a perfect example of the classic traditional mindset: I got the secret (training, technique, theory, etc.) and you didn't. Funny how in the functional martial arts, like boxing, BJJ, wrestling, etc. there are no secrets to be had -- just the fundamentals and the activity itself. Only in the TMAs do people think this way.

Ultimatewingchun

04-11-2007, 07:06 AM

With each successive post, Terence...you give more-and-more evidence that your wing chun is indeed VERY limited. It's you who posted on another thread that chi sao is a "dead" drill (the implication being that no one can use chi sao training to help them become a better fighter).

You're clueless about wing chun, Terence.

And your relentless attacks on wing chun (and the people who train it) are a dead give-away that you have some serious self esteem/arrogance issues.

But be that as it may - the point remains that you know next to nothing about wing chun.

JPinAZ

04-11-2007, 08:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWfK6aqWiNU

Look at the clip above (just the first minute) and you'll get a good idea of how different a fight will be from chi sao.

After watching the video, I now have a good idea where T gets his rhetoric from... How many times has he watched this video, because it sounds exactly the same as T does. T, do you get all this stuff you say here from actual personal expereince, or just from 'watching/listening to what the REAL fighters do' as you put it so many times? since you tell us all so many times 'go WATCH what the 'experts MMA guys do', I am guessing this is the case. Very little experience.
My point? You're talking out your a$$ and are just regergitating what the 'experts' say. Why should we listen to one thing you say...

A flaw I see in what is said on the video is the total disregard for fixed patterns and drills. Now, I agree with aliveness, and I do agree it is VERY necessary. But, the impression I get from this video is that you should start with 'aliveness'. I think this is dead wrong. How do you learn the mechanics for the tools (locks in this case) if you don't practice them in a 'dead' environment FIRST, and then move into aliveness. If you start with 'aliveness' straight away, not only will the learning curve be MUCH slower IMO, you are now just talking trial and error and 'hope I get it'.

And the chess example just proves the **** point IMO! You HAVE to learn some of the underlying strategies, techniques, concepts FIRST before you can actually be good at the game. Sure, you can just 'play the game' of chess without these things, but you are going to lose a LOT in the beginning if you just start with 'aliveness'. And, it's going to take MUCH longer trying to learn it on your own with 'aliveness' straight away without learning the underlying principles of the game.

And also for the boxing sparring example. How can you be good at sparring, or even have a chance to learn if you have not first drilled the footwork, mechanics of the punches, etc?? Oh, you'll just learn them as you go right? While you're also worried about how to defend yourself, move with no idea of the footwork, don't know how to throw a punch, etc. Sure, you can learn this way too, but it's going to be a much slower road...
Again, not saying alive training/sparring isn't necessary, I still don't buy the fact that this is HOW we should train from the start.

In the video hee points out the difference between a Blue and Black belt - many hours of training. No kidding. Basically, drill the stuff over and over and sooner or later you'll get better. Pretty obvious. but then isn't this pretty much saying 'drill the same techniques over and over and you'll finally get better' - how is this anything new?'

I'm not trying to take anything away from him or the way they train on the video either, but I just can't buy it when I'm told that the trial and error way is the 'best and only' way. And yeah, they create some good fighters in that school. But it doesn't mean that it's the best nor only way.....

Next thing I'll be reading is that I should go down there with a video camera and prove them wrong... Save it.

Jonathan

***
also, you told Eric this "You hit the nail on the head when you said: "I've been taught". Exactly. EXACTLY. You've been told this and you've accepted it. But it is a crock of sh1t. It is a crock that people who don't and can't fight tell others (if they did fight, they would know better). "
For one T, can you fight?
Second, You post this, then you directly give a link to a video from where YOU got your information from. So, you've watched a video and then just accepted it? or this is what you've been 'taught' or maybe just 'seen'?
Is it a crock too then by your logic?

JPinAZ

04-11-2007, 08:36 AM

I've been trying to stay away but I couldn't help myself :) So far there has been some good post both ways in regard to the subject matter. I think, at least for me, it is understood that there has to be a time when you test yourself in a realistic environment, just to see where you are at regarding your fighting effectiveness......

...... For me WC is the vehicle I have choosen to use to go from point A to B to C, on this journey of mine.

James

I cut it down so I didn't have to re-post the whole thing.
Very good post James!

JP

sihing

04-11-2007, 08:50 AM

duende

04-11-2007, 10:38 AM

What I don't get is why people that disbelieve in a methodology or way of things, continue to populate such a place? It almost seems like someone, or some people have something to prove? I could be wrong of course :)

James

The answer to this of course is EGO... The ol' passing of the buck. The common "putting the blame on something other than yourself" routine.

Anyways... Big thanks to Anerlich for those links he posted. Here's a quote from one of them:

From: Roy Harris
Date: 02/24/07 11:00 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
1774 Total Posts

Sticky hands training does help in BJJ training. How? Here's how:

1. When a student first learns trapping movements, that's all they are - Movements.
2. When a student first learns a trapping drill, it is actually NOT a trapping drill, but a coordination drill.
3. After spending a considerable amount of time within the confines of the coordination drill, the student's awareness level progresses to the point where they can begin to recognize certain movements right before they happen. Now the drill has become an awareness building drill.
4. Once the student has developed their awareness to a very high level, they begin to FEEL intentions in movements. This is where the training gets fun, and this is where the idea of trapping comes into play.

Now, I know there are a lot of JKD people that have given up on the idea of trapping because they say "It doesn't work." However, I have not given up on it because I have discovered some more realistic ways to train it.

While it is true that compound trapping is next to impossible to perform in a mixed martial arts environment, the basic traps can and do work.

Now, here's an interesting thing to note:

Not only have I been able to see and use a limited amount of "trapping" movements in BJJ, but a few of my senior JKD students have seen their use as well.

Additionally, when I was training Sifu Dan Inosanto in BJJ, there were certain times when we would roll that he would see me use a movement from Higot Hubud Lubud or from Chi Sao and verbally tell me, "Hey, that's from Wing Chun", or "Hey, that's from Kali."

So, from my perspective, trapping training can be a great introduction to awareness training and sensitivity training!

Roy Harris

Harris International

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 11:18 AM

After watching the video, I now have a good idea where T gets his rhetoric from... How many times has he watched this video, because it sounds exactly the same as T does. T, do you get all this stuff you say here from actual personal expereince, or just from 'watching/listening to what the REAL fighters do' as you put it so many times? since you tell us all so many times 'go WATCH what the 'experts MMA guys do', I am guessing this is the case. Very little experience.
My point? You're talking out your a$$ and are just regergitating what the 'experts' say. Why should we listen to one thing you say...

That happens to be what all people who train/spar/fight realistically think. Talk to almost any BJJer, wrestler, Judoka, Muay Thai fighter, boxer, or Samboist and they will each echo the same sentiments... not because everyone is sitting around watching Thornton tapes, but because it is the way that works.

How do you learn the mechanics for the tools (locks in this case) if you don't practice them in a 'dead' environment FIRST, and then move into aliveness.

That's exactly what you do... as in the chess example, one must learn the movements of the pieces and the basic openings as a beginner in a more cooperative and fixed manner. After that, it is game on.

If you start with 'aliveness' straight away, not only will the learning curve be MUCH slower IMO, you are now just talking trial and error and 'hope I get it'.

Many people wait too long before (if ever) introducing aliveness.

Again, not saying alive training/sparring isn't necessary, I still don't buy the fact that this is HOW we should train from the start.

I don't think anyone is saying a rank beginner should start this way.

In the video hee points out the difference between a Blue and Black belt - many hours of training. No kidding. Basically, drill the stuff over and over and sooner or later you'll get better. Pretty obvious. but then isn't this pretty much saying 'drill the same techniques over and over and you'll finally get better' - how is this anything new?'

It's not the drilling so much as it is the sparring.

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 11:31 AM

Anyways... Big thanks to Anerlich for those links he posted. Here's a quote from one of them:

From: Roy Harris

Some things to remember about Roy:

1- He is selling a product... part of which includes JKD and all the mystique (including trapping) that goes along with a good marketing approach.

2- Roy is big, strong and hugely athletically talented. He could make just about anything work.

3- He states that pretty much no one can stop him from hitting them in chi sao, even though his chi sao skills are not that good. He credits Mook Jong training with this. I think it's more about his size, strength, and grappling background.

4- He is defining trapping more along the lines of what can be seen in the striking sparring portion of the Matt Thornton clip above. However, his definition of trapping is much different than what TMA people generally think of.

JPinAZ

04-11-2007, 12:00 PM

That happens to be what all people who train/spar/fight realistically think. Talk to almost any BJJer, wrestler, Judoka, Muay Thai fighter, boxer, or Samboist and they will each echo the same sentiments... not because everyone is sitting around watching Thornton tapes, but because it is the way that works.

Well, they are not here, T is. I'm talking to Terrence!
'because it's the way it works' - yeah, lots of things 'work'.
Chi sau training 'works'. Kiu sau training 'works' too. Why? Because it builds bridging skills that directly translate to fighting skills (if recognizing and being able to deal with bridges is a focus).
Maybe some others just like to punch thier way in and out of that range. That 'works' too, but it can be more risky.

Another thought - why is it, every time I ask T a question, you answer for him? Is this a puppet show? :D

That's exactly what you do... as in the chess example, one must learn the movements of the pieces and the basic openings as a beginner in a more cooperative and fixed manner. After that, it is game on.

No kidding, who's arguing that. But it sure doesn't sound like what the video was trying to say..

Many people wait too long before (if ever) introducing aliveness.

sure. And for many people, that's not thier goal either.
Now I would agree with the arguement where people that say they know about 'fighting' and don't actually have the experience are full of BS. I smell some around here..

It's not the drilling so much as it is the sparring.
From what I got, it's about the TIME...

JPinAZ

04-11-2007, 12:11 PM

Thanks JP,

I'll keep the post length down.

If Fighting it self is the key to being able to fight, then there is no need to learn or acquire instruction from anyone. All you need to do is fight. To me this is incorrect thinking, in the beginning anyways. At the later stages of development (once the engine is developed, refined, and so forth), then yeah the more fighting you do with different people of good skill will result in you being a better fighter. It is getting there that is hard, and also finding quality opponents to train with.
Also, not everyone has the goal to be the supreme fighter. If you make the claim that you or your method is the best, then you better be ready to prove. I see little of that type of boasting on this forum, so why bash the people represented here as non fighters, all theoritians. This is a discussion forum, all we can do here is discuss our views with one another. That's it. If discussing things was irrevelent, then why does it exist in the first place, and why are people still here posting? It's fun (at times not), and allows us to express ourselves with like minded people. Simple.

What I don't get is why people that disbelieve in a methodology or way of things, continue to populate such a place? It almost seems like someone, or some people have something to prove? I could be wrong of course :)

James

I personally have no problem with long posts, just didn't want to requote the whole thing :)
And, I agree with you yet again.

I think what some may try to advocate is building the engine WHILE sparring. I just see this as ea long road of trial and error training. Or, even if it builds an effective fighter, it could be a result of the individual over the method (as in any case really). if we look at JUST MMA guys, as has been pointed out, that's talking about a certain breed of people in general. I am betting that if you change the training methods yet again (as happened when BJJ hit the scene) you'd still get great results.

"If you make the claim that you or your method is the best, then you better be ready to prove. " I agree. It takes PERSONAL experience along with any theories/methods, etc to say what works and what doesn't. But then, that's just that indiviual's experience for what works, what doesn't. It doesn't make it the best/only way, just yours or 'your groups' way. To discredit someone elses way or continually put them down because they don't fit your 'world view' is a bit ignorant IMO. And, if you're going to be so adamant about what's right/wrong, you should be able to prove it and not just point at someone else and say 'see there!' ;)

haha, and I'm not saying you/your specifically to you James. I'm speaking more in general terms :cool:

Jonathan

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 12:29 PM

I think what some may try to advocate is building the engine WHILE sparring.

Sparring is a huge part of building the engine.

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 12:30 PM

Another thought - why is it, every time I ask T a question, you answer for him? Is this a puppet show? :D .

Because the questions are so simple and the answers so obvious, that anyone with half a clue can answer them.

From what I got, it's about the TIME...

It's about time and sparring. Someone who puts in 12 years of drilling techniques only will never be as good as someone who spent that 12 years of including sparring into the mix.

JPinAZ

04-11-2007, 12:40 PM

Sparring is a huge part of building the engine.

Now that depends how one defines 'engine' now doesn't it.
From my POV, I would largley disagree. I would say sparring is testing your ability to use your engine and put it to use in a higher-stress environment (and yes, to a degree refine/increase it).

How are you defining 'engine' in that statement? Also, can you further explain your statement above? (ie, how's sparring is a huge part of building the engine)

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 12:45 PM

Now that depends how one defines 'engine' now doesn't it.
From my POV, I would largley disagree. I would say sparring is testing your ability to use your engine and put it to use in a higher-stress environment (and yes, to a degree refine/increase it).

How are you defining 'engine' in that statement? Also, can you further explain your statement above? (ie, how's sparring is a huge part of building the engine)

The engine would be the ability to fight at 100% against another reisisting opponent or opponents.

Building the engine = learning techniques + trying them out in sparring.

Testing the engine = competing.

Ultimatewingchun

04-11-2007, 01:48 PM

Of course it's a puppet show...he knows by now that Terence doesn't really know anything about wing chun.

(And neither does he).

But he can cover that better than Terence can because he (Dale) is legit as regards BJJ and other arts...whereas Terence is all mouth and little else about everything.

AndrewS

04-11-2007, 01:52 PM

KF re:alive training-

I don't think anyone is saying a rank beginner should start this way.

I am.

Andrew

anerlich

04-11-2007, 03:16 PM

Some things to remember about Roy:

1- He is selling a product... part of which includes JKD and all the mystique (including trapping) that goes along with a good marketing approach.

He's entitled. Of course, no one else alluded to on the thread - not Matt Thornton, and not the Gracies, and especially not Rorion, ever tried to do that ;)

I don't see how the views he expressed in the links above are going to help him sell more product. He's one of the more helpful MA guys on the web, and suggesting that sales are his only motivation is pretty disingenuous. Even from someone whose motives are as totally pure and unsullied by preconceived notions such as yourself :p

2- Roy is big, strong and hugely athletically talented. He could make just about anything work.

His approach seems to work for his students as well as himself. And he recently put out a DVD specifically targeted at helping those without superb attributes to succeed in BJJ.

3- He states that pretty much no one can stop him from hitting them in chi sao, even though his chi sao skills are not that good. He credits Mook Jong training with this. I think it's more about his size, strength, and grappling background.

No offense, but I'll take his views of where his abilities come from over yours.

4- He is defining trapping more along the lines of what can be seen in the striking sparring portion of the Matt Thornton clip above. However, his definition of trapping is much different than what TMA people generally think of.

That may be true, though you seem to be claiming you can read his mind, and be able to generalise about TMAers in the same way.

The point is, here's a guy with real experience of the type you and T demand and obvious intelligence, with a different viewpoint to yours.

Your points 1, 2 and 3 above address your opinions about RH's character, rather than the points he made in the posts. That's almost ad hominem.

How about addressing his technical points rather than his build and supposed motivations?

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 04:13 PM

KF re:alive training-
I am.
Andrew

Hmmm.... that's an interesting perspective.

That would seem to put you more squarely into the aliveness/realism camp than even I am.

How do you have a rank beginner learn the basic mechanics of something like a right cross or arm bar from the guard?

sihing

04-11-2007, 04:30 PM

Some things to remember about Roy:

1- He is selling a product... part of which includes JKD and all the mystique (including trapping) that goes along with a good marketing approach.

2- Roy is big, strong and hugely athletically talented. He could make just about anything work.

3- He states that pretty much no one can stop him from hitting them in chi sao, even though his chi sao skills are not that good. He credits Mook Jong training with this. I think it's more about his size, strength, and grappling background.

4- He is defining trapping more along the lines of what can be seen in the striking sparring portion of the Matt Thornton clip above. However, his definition of trapping is much different than what TMA people generally think of.

Here's how I interpret the above:

Roy is lying, simply to sell a product. Nothing of which he said in the article he truly believes, he only says those things to sell memberships, DVD's, or increase his popularity to a larger demographic. Also, that he could accomplish those same things without the training simply because he is a genetic freak.

Pretty interesting comments. Like Anerlich said, it is like you can read his mind. My take from these comments is that someone has alot to prove to people that are unwilling to listen. So I beg to ask, why continue to preach to an unwilling audience?

James

cjurakpt

04-11-2007, 04:46 PM

the impression I get from this video is that you should start with 'aliveness'. I think this is dead wrong. How do you learn the mechanics for the tools (locks in this case) if you don't practice them in a 'dead' environment FIRST, and then move into aliveness. If you start with 'aliveness' straight away, not only will the learning curve be MUCH slower IMO, you are now just talking trial and error and 'hope I get it'.

you have essentially articulated one of the fundamental queries in the field of motor learning, which is, what type of practice is the most beneficial? when they say beneficial they are talking not only about immediate performance, but also about things like retention (being able to repeat the same movements again with the same amount of success at a later date) and transfer (being able to extrapolate the learned skill onto different novel tasks of varying degrees of difference from the original);

in terms of practice itself, the continuum tends to run from fixed/predictable/repetative/limited degrees of freedom to variable/dynamic/unpredictable etc., which is known as the contextual interference effect: the more distractions / variables you have to deal with, the higher the CI

practice also can be structured in ways that change the order: for example, blocked practice means you do the same thing over and over; random means you haveseveral different skills practiced simultaneously in a random order

another issue is what's called knowledge of results: how often should you get feedback about what the outcome of your performance was?

of course, nothing about all the above is that outlandish or strange per se; what is interesting is when you start reading the outcomes from all the motor learning research that has been conducted over the last 30 years or so

to summarize, what seems to be the trend is this: engaging in blocked versus random practice increases your success initially, whereas random practice yields poorer initial results; however, in terms of retention and transfer, random practice seems to produce better ability in this regard (no surprise);

for contextual interference, it's similar: if you have too much initially, you get very poor results; however, if you keep it low over time, performance also suffers; so the "ideal" is an initial period of low CI allows you to "get the idea" of the movement, and then incrasing the CI improves not only the skill, but retention and transfer; (the analogy to me here is stating a fire with kindling and then dropping a huge log on it before it gets going strongly enough)

finally, with knowledge of results, it turns out that too much feedback is not a good thing: in other words, you need to space out the feedback to give the person time to adjust to what they are being told (BTW, this is a very general summary - there's all sorts of stuff about mixing practice schedules, KR, CI to obtain different types of responses with different types of skill acquisition tasks, etc. - a lot of it is pretty egg-headed and mind numbing, especially my master's thesis on the topic...)

one other thing that has been "studied" is that some people are just better at "getting it" than others - that is, they display the ability to pick things up quickly and extrapolate them consistently over time - and that's just it, no reason why per se (again, der?)

now, obviously, none of this is earth shatterring - indeed, it almost seems silly that you would devote reams of research to figure out what common sense would seemingly dictate; be that as it may, the bottom line is that what JPinAZ and KF are advocating is supported by the research in the field (the major difference is that ML from a PT perspective is interested in clinical application for rehab versus sports performance, but it's essentially the same);

anyway, just another perspective...

JPinAZ

04-11-2007, 04:50 PM

The engine would be the ability to fight at 100% against another reisisting opponent or opponents.

Building the engine = learning techniques + trying them out in sparring.

Testing the engine = competing.

Ok, then we're talking 2 different things entirely.

"learning techniques + trying them our in sparring" - sounds like trial and error to me - and the long road to good fighting skill.... not that it can't work though... :eek:

Liddel

04-11-2007, 06:04 PM

Building the engine = learning techniques

VT does this by Chi Sao and Gor Sao and should be done up to and including 100% full force.

+ trying them out in sparring.

VT has the Gor Sao and Lux Sao sparring platforms - one beginning at the contact stage and the other from a non contact position, and should have aliveness meaning full resisting opponents.

Testing the engine = competing.

Sparring for me - is competing. Against my fellow class mates and against my friends who do other styles.

So really your argument should be not against the style but the stylists.

Your POV reminds me of the religous groups that come knocking on my door.

Ive heard it all before and taken what i can use from it (or not at all), everything else is just wasted breath !

I think its about time i cruised over to the Aikido forum and told them how useless thier efforts are, itll make me feel better (bigger), i mean at least VT has punching :o

Wayfaring

04-11-2007, 07:41 PM

A flaw I see in what is said on the video is the total disregard for fixed patterns and drills. Now, I agree with aliveness, and I do agree it is VERY necessary. But, the impression I get from this video is that you should start with 'aliveness'. I think this is dead wrong. How do you learn the mechanics for the tools (locks in this case) if you don't practice them in a 'dead' environment FIRST, and then move into aliveness. If you start with 'aliveness' straight away, not only will the learning curve be MUCH slower IMO, you are now just talking trial and error and 'hope I get it'.

I don't think Matt Thornton trains without drills. I think by fixed patterns he is talking about "forms" only, not drilled patterns. Terence sounds like him because he parrots portions of his statements. Thornton runs a more "laid back" organization w/o titles but teaches more than "just fight and you'll get it".

I totally agree that you must isolate the environment to learn a skill. The more complex the skill the more you must isolate to train it. To me, the greatest progresion for learning is:

1) Isolate the skill and train the motor movements.
2) Add in "alive" movement at low intensity but including range of motion, distance, angles, etc.
3) Train movement with full intensity (or 70% > ).

Here on this forum there is a lot of harping on not doing #3. Some of it is valid, and I've seen a number of schools that never step up the intensity to the levels it needs to develop skills with depth.

#1 is necessary, because without it you don't have proper technique on gross motor movement.

#2 is necessary, because your brain needs to put together variable elements in a low stress environment. If you bypass #2 and go straight to #3 or only train at #1 and #3 you will not develop flow (lau), or what is called a good transition game in other circles.

#3 is necessary, because without pressure testing techniques, you never really learn the precision necessary to keep someone from "powering through" your skillsets with explosive movement, aggression and strength.

Wayfaring

04-11-2007, 07:49 PM

Some things to remember about Roy:

I have a high opinion of Roy's grappling skills. From reviewing his material, I would rather say that he has a great work ethic, a mind for detail beyond many of his contemporaries, and a "system" teaching mindset.

I don't think "the Boa" is as good as he is just because he weighs 240 lbs and trains kettlebells along with rolling.

He also has some interesting viewpoints on where grappling fits in with self-defense. It's lower on his range of choices than other possibilities.

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 07:58 PM

He's entitled. Of course, no one else alluded to on the thread - not Matt Thornton, and not the Gracies, and especially not Rorion, ever tried to do that ;)
Everybody has a bit of a spin to make their product or service sound the best. That has to be taken into account when anyone is selling something.

How about addressing his technical points rather than his build and supposed motivations?

Good point...
OK:

From: Roy Harris
Sticky hands training does help in BJJ training. How? Here's how:
1. When a student first learns trapping movements, that's all they are - Movements.
2. When a student first learns a trapping drill, it is actually NOT a trapping drill, but a coordination drill.
3. After spending a considerable amount of time within the confines of the coordination drill, the student's awareness level progresses to the point where they can begin to recognize certain movements right before they happen. Now the drill has become an awareness building drill.
4. Once the student has developed their awareness to a very high level, they begin to FEEL intentions in movements. This is where the training gets fun, and this is where the idea of trapping comes into play.

Sticky hands has very little application to BJJ training.
Specificity is the key to training and sticky hands is not specific to BJJ.
BJJ has it's own "sticking" which is different and specific to BJJ.
One would spend his time much more effectively learning BJJ specific techniques rather than training sticky hands.

Now, I know there are a lot of JKD people that have given up on the idea of trapping because they say "It doesn't work." However, I have not given up on it because I have discovered some more realistic ways to train it.

This is much different than what the WC crowd thinks it is.

Not only have I been able to see and use a limited amount of "trapping" movements in BJJ, but a few of my senior JKD students have seen their use as well..

Limited is the key word here. Once one has developed enough skills in BJJ, he can use almost anything to his advantage because of the control he has over his opponents.

Additionally, when I was training Sifu Dan Inosanto in BJJ, there were certain times when we would roll that he would see me use a movement from Higot Hubud Lubud or from Chi Sao and verbally tell me, "Hey, that's from Wing Chun", or "Hey, that's from Kali."

Again, limited is the key word. Once you are good enough with BJJ, you can use just about everything else you have learned in the past from other places. Doesn't necessarily mean they are the best choice.

Here's a good example. This guy is so much better than his opponents, he can do whatever he wants. Check out the "bucking bronco" butt slaps from the back mount.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZljCjwBteM

So, from my perspective, trapping training can be a great introduction to awareness training and sensitivity training!

There are more fight specific training methods than what most people think of as trapping training.

Wayfaring

04-11-2007, 08:05 PM

If Fighting it self is the key to being able to fight, then there is no need to learn or acquire instruction from anyone. All you need to do is fight. To me this is incorrect thinking, in the beginning anyways. At the later stages of development (once the engine is developed, refined, and so forth), then yeah the more fighting you do with different people of good skill will result in you being a better fighter. It is getting there that is hard, and also finding quality opponents to train with

I agree that after a good baseline skillset it pays off to spend more time in the aliveness phases. However, I think it pays dividends to go back through the whole progression on things too. Couture built some stuff up from square one and looked 100% like a completetly different multi-dimensional fighter against Sylvia. Most of that was drilling two specific things specifically.

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 08:10 PM

be that as it may, the bottom line is that what Terrance (not JPinAZ) and KF are advocating is supported by the research in the field

That's what we've been saying all along.

These guys seem to think we are making this stuff up.

AndrewS

04-11-2007, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by AndrewS
KF re:alive training-
I am.
Andrew
Hmmm.... that's an interesting perspective.

That would seem to put you more squarely into the aliveness/realism camp than even I am.

How do you have a rank beginner learn the basic mechanics of something like a right cross or arm bar from the guard?

I don't teach a rank beginner a right cross or an arm bar from guard; those are pretty sophisticated skills. I start with other stuff first. I aim to get to a live drill within 1hr of broaching a topic.

By way of example-

For striking-
Hit as hard as they can with a stick
Zoned power hitting with a stick (shoulder mechanics and weight dropping with hip action)- 15min
Compare initial hitting attempt with power mechanics learned above
Hitting down with whole body forehand and backhand (figure 8) with empty hand -10min
Same mechanic hitting forward (sitting down on punch)- 10min
Jab variations on pads - 10min
Defensive CM vs. straight punches- 10min
Jab sparring- 10min
From here, one can proceed to do some basic boxing, adding the rear hand, hooks, and uppercuts progressively.

Grappling- (rounds when free)
Escape side control (no instruction)- free
Brief instruction on how to maintain side control, overview of basic subs
Escape side control- free
Brief instruction on upper body goals/tricks for side control escape
Escape side control- free
Brief instruction on hip motion with side control escape
Escape side control- free
Brief instruction on leg use with side control escapes
Escape side control-free
Light striking, escape side control- free
From this comes getting to guard, using the guard to prevent strikes or passes, and standing up from guard. Basic skills for beginners.

Essentially, I think its important to experience what you're trying to do as early as possible, that way, when you drill you know what you're trying to learn.

The reason chi sao (and most static drills, such as the hubbud, SPM sticking, etc) s*cks for learning fighting isn't, IMO, any of the things you or Terence have cited; it's because most people who do chi sao have no idea what a fight feels like, hence they don't know what they're training for and are groping around in the dark, trying to use a drill to learn a skill which they've never experienced.

Without some experiential knowledge of the goal, all drills are essentially empty.

Andrew

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 08:14 PM

Ok, then we're talking 2 different things entirely.

"learning techniques + trying them our in sparring" - sounds like trial and error to me - and the long road to good fighting skill.... not that it can't work though... :eek:

Go back up and read what cjurakpt posted above.

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 08:20 PM

By way of example- etc, etc, etc.

Hmmm... I like it.

I teach intermediate and advanced people that way, but hadn't thought about doing it with complete novices.

I've alway liked the approach of giving technical advice after live drills or sparring because it lets you customize the teaching to what is going on with the particular people at that specific time.

One problem I see with beginners in this approach is having them spaz out and hurt each other. What have your experiences been with this?

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 08:30 PM

So really your argument should be not against the style but the stylists.

That has always been my argument... against the pretend, theoretical non-fighters.

My rantings and ravings have never been against those who are training full contact and with live, realistic drills.

BTW, I've always thought the VT crowd has far fewer pretend, theoretical non-fighters than the WC crowd.

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 08:45 PM

to summarize, what seems to be the trend is this: engaging in blocked versus random practice increases your success initially, whereas random practice yields poorer initial results; however, in terms of retention and transfer, random practice seems to produce better ability in this regard (no surprise);

for contextual interference, it's similar: if you have too much initially, you get very poor results; however, if you keep it low over time, performance also suffers; so the "ideal" is an initial period of low CI allows you to "get the idea" of the movement, and then incrasing the CI improves not only the skill, but retention and transfer; (the analogy to me here is stating a fire with kindling and then dropping a huge log on it before it gets going strongly enough).

Chris,
Any research on initiating with random/high interference, then swithcing to blocked/low interference, and then back to R/H?

anerlich

04-11-2007, 09:03 PM

Knifefighter,

that was a much more useful answer re Roy Harris' posts. Appreciated.

But you lost me here:

BTW, I've always thought the VT crowd has far fewer pretend, theoretical non-fighters than the WC crowd.

What do you mean by this? Not defensive, just don't know what you're getting at.

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 09:06 PM

Knifefighter,

that was a much more useful answer re Roy Harris' posts. Appreciated.

But you lost me here:

What do you mean by this? Not defensive, just don't know what you're getting at.

The VT guys generally seem to be more willing to mix things up... just look at all of the various fighting clips that have been posted around- almost all of them have been VT fighters.

The WC guys seem to have more guys spouting non-fighting theoretical b.s.

AndrewS

04-11-2007, 09:21 PM

Dale writes:

One problem I see with beginners in this approach is having them spaz out and hurt each other. What have your experiences been with this?

Er, so far so good? I've probably only run through this with 10 people or so, as I've only arrived at this point in the last year or year and a half, and it's always in a setting where things are pretty closely watched (largest group being 5-6).

There are a few reasons this hasn't been a problem-
1). I explain the idea of intensity level at first, and explain that you should *always* agree on how hard you're going before doing live training, often by making sure people hit each other a bit first to get feel for what each means ("that cool, man. Naw, you can give a little more/less").
2). I explain and constantly reinforce that success is not the goal in training and that if you aren't failing, you aren't in an enviroment where you can learn well- that 100% success rate within an enviroment essentially means *no* learning. After the first few times training together, I may deliberately eat a shot or two, or let someone succeed to let them know its ok to for them to catch me, and be a good example about gracefully acknowleging success.
3). I go with every noob first, so I take the risks, and can feel them out a bit and know how to coach.
4). I introduce goal-oriented stuff with each person with a different goal, usually one offensive and one defensive, cutting down on the spaz factor, and adding a realization that taking liberties when playing one role is just demonstrating what's acceptable during that role. Payback is a b*tch.
5). Whoever's out, keeps an eye on the action. I'm not a teacher, I'm a coach. The group is a team, and we coach each other and look out for each other.
6). Luck. Eventually someone's gonna get banged up doing this. Cost of doing business. This is fighting.

Andrew

Ultimatewingchun

04-11-2007, 09:46 PM

More foolishness....

What am I talking about?

Well for one thing there's Rahsun Herkul...a (T)WC student of Phil Redmond who Dale basically had no clue about what to do with when they engaged in some light sparring...

So once again the guy demonstrates that he's next-to-clueless about the wing chun world.

There's some very good fighters from various wing chun lineages: ....VT....TWC...WT...XYZ, etc.

You know, Dale..you're the biggest theoretical wing chun imposter on this entire forum. :D :eek: :cool:

Knifefighter

04-11-2007, 10:28 PM

Let's see... that "sparring" (if you want to call it that) session was simply about me working to clinch/grappling range and attempting to get the clinch/takedown. Since I did manage two or three takedowns in our two to three minute "sparring" session, one might conclude that I have just a bit of a clue.

And speaking of theoretical WC wannabe imposters... someone who claims to be a catch expert but is tape trained with no actual in person instruction in that area....

...would naturally lead to the queston....

How many hands-on training sessions have you actually spent with W. Cheung learning his system in-person with him?

Liddel

04-11-2007, 11:07 PM

That has always been my argument... against the pretend, theoretical non-fighters.
Fair enough, i kinda got that. ;)

BTW, I've always thought the VT crowd has far fewer pretend, theoretical non-fighters than the WC crowd.

Its a joke towads me Andrew, ive always just used 'Ving Tsun' or VT to seperate myself from WC or TWC because my style has its differences from both.

My rantings and ravings have never been against those who are training full contact and with live, realistic drills.

To be fair you have taken a shot :eek: at those training elements that fall outside this area and for those of us that believe and activlely enduldge in both, it just seems a little - my way or the highway.....

But hey alls good - im not one to get as seriously offended as others here.
Id rather be at the beach with a beer bruva. ;)

sihing

04-12-2007, 04:29 AM

I agree that after a good baseline skillset it pays off to spend more time in the aliveness phases. However, I think it pays dividends to go back through the whole progression on things too. Couture built some stuff up from square one and looked 100% like a completetly different multi-dimensional fighter against Sylvia. Most of that was drilling two specific things specifically.

Yup, agreed. Didn't Tiger Woods go back a few times to re do his swing? You can't do that by just playin the game. Someone had to help (and I'm 99.9% sure that someone was not as good as Tiger) him in the process, and it most definetly was done on the driving range, no where near the competition course. To ONLY play the game to improve is the slow road to success IMO. There are many other avenues to explore. Moderation is key I always say.

James

t_niehoff

04-12-2007, 06:35 AM

I don't think Matt Thornton trains without drills. I think by fixed patterns he is talking about "forms" only, not drilled patterns.

Everyone uses drills. Unrealistic drills are excellent as means of teaching skills; realistic drills are excellent for developing realistic skills.

Terence sounds like him because he parrots portions of his statements. Thornton runs a more "laid back" organization w/o titles but teaches more than "just fight and you'll get it".

I am not "parroting" anyone. I may - in somecases - sound like Thornton because we happen to share similar views, and when you share similar views, you say similar things.

And, I'm not saying "just fight and you'll get it" -- I'm saying that we should train wCK in the same way all good fighters train, whether in BJJ, boxing, wrestling, sambo, judo, etc.

I totally agree that you must isolate the environment to learn a skill. The more complex the skill the more you must isolate to train it. To me, the greatest progresion for learning is:

1) Isolate the skill and train the motor movements.
2) Add in "alive" movement at low intensity but including range of motion, distance, angles, etc.
3) Train movement with full intensity (or 70% > ).

And if you bother to read my posts, you'll see that I am saying that unrealsitic drills are how people learn skills, and that they need to be unrealistic to permit the focus for acquisition. So you may learn some skill in fixed drill, then put it into a more dynamic context (chi sao) -- all as a means of learning (becoming comfortable with performance) that skill. Then to put that skill into a realistic context, whether realistic drill or sparring. And then, you need to put it into sparring with quality opponents.

Here on this forum there is a lot of harping on not doing #3. Some of it is valid, and I've seen a number of schools that never step up the intensity to the levels it needs to develop skills with depth.

No, there is more to it than that. The whole "traditional mindset" that goes along with the TMAs, including WCK, of which training is a part is the issue.

#1 is necessary, because without it you don't have proper technique on gross motor movement.

#2 is necessary, because your brain needs to put together variable elements in a low stress environment. If you bypass #2 and go straight to #3 or only train at #1 and #3 you will not develop flow (lau), or what is called a good transition game in other circles.

#3 is necessary, because without pressure testing techniques, you never really learn the precision necessary to keep someone from "powering through" your skillsets with explosive movement, aggression and strength.

Again, it is more than that. The skills you develop at #1 and #2 are not what you will be doing at #3 (it's not just do the same things with more pressure) -- when you step it up to a realistic environment, you'll find that you need to alter, modify, change, etc. what you have been previously doing, to develop something different. Walking is not running; they are entirely different motor programs. It's only when you begin actually sparring, that you are actually doing the activity. Only at that stage do we begin to develop real skill, and the corresponding knowledge and understanding of WCK. Moreover, you need to put it all together into your individual game (which can't be done at #1 and #2). Sparring/fighting is the game.

t_niehoff

04-12-2007, 06:40 AM

Yup, agreed. Didn't Tiger Woods go back a few times to re do his swing? You can't do that by just playin the game. Someone had to help (and I'm 99.9% sure that someone was not as good as Tiger) him in the process, and it most definetly was done on the driving range, no where near the competition course. To ONLY play the game to improve is the slow road to success IMO. There are many other avenues to explore. Moderation is key I always say.

James

Instead of coming up with your own theories of how to train, why not look at and listen to people who know what they are talking about? Look to what all proven good fighters and fight trainers are doing. I know this is a strange idea -- actually listen to proven experts as opposed to those people who just call themselves experts, the theoretical nonfighters.

JPinAZ

04-12-2007, 08:29 AM

That's what we've been saying all along.

These guys seem to think we are making this stuff up.

BS. who are 'these guys'?? I personally am not thinking you or T made anything up - I don't give you that much credit, so relax. I am guessing, since you have some fight clips, you are speaking partially from experience (your own). I don't believe T has much experience in what he speaks, that's why he's always pointing to the results of others. I also think you are both seeing MMA guys doing things a certain way, and taking that as gospil.
I am also guessing neither of you were either shown WC as in-depth as others here have, you haven't been able to make it work, or both. It shows in your posts. Basically, it seems you're both butt-sore regarding Wc and are 'fighting back' :)

I do think that you both believe 'your way is the 'only' or 'best' way, and that you both do believe WC is crap. And, anyone who trains the 'traditional way' is doing it all wrong. I feel this is crap. Also, if this is the case, why the hell are you here?? We've heard it a billion times. And yes, while a majority of us can agree with some of what's said, 'specially the aliveness training, you and T are not the end-all be-all to fight training.
We got your point, let it go.

You can stop trying to save us.

Jonathan

JPinAZ

04-12-2007, 08:37 AM

That has always been my argument... against the pretend, theoretical non-fighters.

Who are all these 'theoretical non-fighters' anyway?

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;753151]My rantings and ravings have never been against those who are training full contact and with live, realistic drills.

Who isn't doing this? just because you 'suspect' someone of using fixed drills and/or 'chi sau', doesn't mean that's ALL they do..

BTW, I've always thought the VT crowd has far fewer pretend, theoretical non-fighters than the WC crowd.

Is there really that much general difference besides the spelling?

Can you please enlighten us to who in your 'expert opinion' falls into these 2 groups? should be interesting..

t_niehoff

04-12-2007, 08:52 AM

BS. who are 'these guys'?? I personally am not thinking you or T made anything up - I don't give you that much credit, so relax. I am guessing, since you have some fight clips, you are speaking partially from experience (your own). I don't believe T has much experience in what he speaks, that's why he's always pointing to the results of others. I also think you are both seeing MMA guys doing things a certain way, and taking that as gospil.

The "proof" of the effectiveness of the modern training method doesn't depend on KF or me or our results -- it has been proven by everyone who has gotten really good results in training. All top fighters and trainers do the same sorts of things, and use the same training model. And this model corresponds to what scientific studies in motor skill development has uncovered.

I am also guessing neither of you were either shown WC as in-depth as others here have, you haven't been able to make it work, or both. It shows in your posts. Basically, it seems you're both butt-sore regarding Wc and are 'fighting back' :)

With regard to me, your guess is wrong. In fact, since a person isn't even really *doing* WCK unless they are fighting with it, my guess is most people in WCK have only done a very limited amount of WCK (but oh, they've done lots of forms and drills and chi sao) no matter how much time they've been "practicing" the art pr who their sifu is. And since knowledge and understanding of WCK is directly related to a persons fighting skill level, well . . .

I do think that you both believe 'your way is the 'only' or 'best' way, and that you both do believe WC is crap. And, anyone who trains the 'traditional way' is doing it all wrong. I feel this is crap. Also, if this is the case, why the hell are you here?? We've heard it a billion times. And yes, while a majority of us can agree with some of what's said, 'specially the aliveness training, you and T are not the end-all be-all to fight training.
We got your point, let it go.

I don't think WCK is crap; I continue to train WCK. But the traditional training model is crap, and the fact that there are no good fighters in TMAs who haven't at least adopted the more modern means of training into their regimen, proves it. Scientific studies in motor skill develoment proves it. The traditional approach to training was perhaps the best they had in the past when they didn't know as much about fighting and about athletic performance development as we do today. Were there good fighters in WCK in the past? Sure - but they were good by that periods standards (where the other fighters were equally poorly trained).

Why are we here? Because people like you start threads asking if chi sao if for fighting. Of course it isn't. And anyone who is fighting will know that.

You can stop trying to save us.

Jonathan

I'm not trying to save anyone. That's beyond my power. All I hope to do is get some serious people, people interested in achieving results (as opposed to reinforcing their belief structure), to think for themselves, to critically examine these issues, to stop taking advice and instruction from people who can't do it themselves, to get out and mix it up with some good people and see for themselves. A person can only save themself.

Ultimatewingchun

04-12-2007, 09:16 AM

Over the years....I've had hands on training sessions with William Cheung literally hundreds of times.

As for you and Rahsun...yeah I heard you took him down a few times - and that you marveled (and complimented him) about how quickly and easily he got back up to his feet, thereby completely nullifying the takedown each time.

The most remarkable thing about that, Mr. BJJ blackbelt, is that Rahsun has never had any grappling training whatsoever.

And btw...for the rest of you wing chun readers...when Dale asked him how/where he learned those escape moves - Rahsun replied that "he was just using wing chun principles."

And I also saw for myself on the vid how he chained punched you 3-4 times when you were stacked in your guard (including a face shot that he apologized for)....

and I saw how easily he kept you at bay by just using a wing chun guard and slowly moving in...

in fact, the only takedown I saw is when he abandoned that strategy and erroneously decided to go for the TWC Entry technique at the wrong time (he didn't set it up)...and...you don't do it against a much smaller man who is standing in a crouched position (as you were)...precisely because you're leaving your legs and balance vulnerable to a shoot.

No, Dale....the fact still remains that you know next-to-nothing about wing chun...

and yet so many people around here are still allowing themselves to be trolled by you about it...Amazing what the power of repetitive rhetoric/advertising can do! :rolleyes: :eek: :cool:

You and Terence should open up an ad agency or a political lobbying firm. You don't need facts to make those things successful - just a lot of vinegar, bull5hit, and tenacity.:D

Knifefighter

04-12-2007, 09:25 AM

I am also guessing neither of you were either shown WC as in-depth as others here have, you haven't been able to make it work, or both. It shows in your posts.

I seriously doubt there are more than a couple of people in the WC world who have explored using WC "in depth" where it counts (in actual fighting) as much as I have. In addition to a bunch of real fights, I've explored using it in kickboxing, Muay Thai, boxing, MMA, and stick fighting matches. While I have managed to "make it work" in limited amounts, my conclusion is that there are better methods of training availiable.

You can stop trying to save us.

I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm just debating points and counterpoints... NHB style.

Who are all these 'theoretical non-fighters' anyway?

The guys who spend the majority of their time doing chi sao, Mook Jong, running through SLT and very little time actually gearing up and going full contact.

Who isn't doing this? just because you 'suspect' someone of using fixed drills and/or 'chi sau', doesn't mean that's ALL they do..

I never said I was including "everyone".

Why don't you give me an example of your training week and I'll let you know if I consider you to be a theoretical non-fighter? :)

Can you please enlighten us to who in your 'expert opinion' falls into these 2 groups? should be interesting..

VT = Emin's lineage, especially many of the european groups.
WC = 99% of the rest of the WC world.

Knifefighter

04-12-2007, 09:42 AM

LOL... I guess for someone who is as cloistered as you are, this was a huge "clash of the styles" kind of deal. In actuality it was just a friendly slappy-slap session with me simply working to get clinch/takedown range and him trying to keep me outside.

However, just to fill you in on the clips you missed:

1- There was only one "getting back to his feet"... the one you saw. In the others there was no "getting back to his feet" or any other "escape" moves.

2- We had decided there was to be no ground fighting, hence my stoppage (instead of a heel hook attack) from the open guard. During the other takedowns, we had stopped on the ground once I had the takedown.

3- I've always believed WC can be used effectively in a defensive manner to keep an opponent off, especially if you are bigger and have unlimted space in which to stay outside and move. I believe the shortcoming show up when you do not have a size advantage and/or unlimited space in which to move and try to use it offensively.

4- I was impressed that Rashun instinctively knew what to do from the low single, although he was still taken down. I credit that to his natural athletic ability and instinct, rather than WC principles.

However, I am open to the possibility of this being a result of his WC training and am interested in discussing this matter further...

Can you explain the WC principle(s) that would be involved in defending the low single leg attack (ala John Smith style- head inside, hand behind heel, driving forward with shoulder pushing into shin)?

stricker

04-12-2007, 03:54 PM

thanks cjurakpt, andrewS, anerlich for some really good bits in there.

anerlich

04-12-2007, 04:02 PM

I think by fixed patterns he is talking about "forms" only, not drilled patterns.

Nah.

On his "Aliveness" DVD from his first JKD series, he shows "dead" and "alive" focus pad drills, stick counters, and armlocks.

He doesn't talk about "fixed" patterns, he talks about "dead" patterns.

sihing

04-12-2007, 05:23 PM

Instead of coming up with your own theories of how to train, why not look at and listen to people who know what they are talking about? Look to what all proven good fighters and fight trainers are doing. I know this is a strange idea -- actually listen to proven experts as opposed to those people who just call themselves experts, the theoretical nonfighters.

That's why I spent sometime in LA, to listen to the experts:) You may not believe they know what they are doing there in regards to WC useage in a fight, but you haven't met them. I'm sure Sifu Lam would love a visit from you if you are willing to take a ride down to LA, he loves that sort of stuff. It's new blood for him, lol.

For me it would be financially impossible to investigate all the so called fighters out there personally. I took a chance of someone last year and was totally satisfied with what I saw and learned, they know how to fight plane and simple.

James

sihing

04-12-2007, 06:01 PM

Everyone uses drills. Unrealistic drills are excellent as means of teaching skills; realistic drills are excellent for developing realistic skills.

I am not "parroting" anyone. I may - in somecases - sound like Thornton because we happen to share similar views, and when you share similar views, you say similar things.

And, I'm not saying "just fight and you'll get it" -- I'm saying that we should train wCK in the same way all good fighters train, whether in BJJ, boxing, wrestling, sambo, judo, etc.

And if you bother to read my posts, you'll see that I am saying that unrealsitic drills are how people learn skills, and that they need to be unrealistic to permit the focus for acquisition. So you may learn some skill in fixed drill, then put it into a more dynamic context (chi sao) -- all as a means of learning (becoming comfortable with performance) that skill. Then to put that skill into a realistic context, whether realistic drill or sparring. And then, you need to put it into sparring with quality opponents.

No, there is more to it than that. The whole "traditional mindset" that goes along with the TMAs, including WCK, of which training is a part is the issue.

Again, it is more than that. The skills you develop at #1 and #2 are not what you will be doing at #3 (it's not just do the same things with more pressure) -- when you step it up to a realistic environment, you'll find that you need to alter, modify, change, etc. what you have been previously doing, to develop something different. Walking is not running; they are entirely different motor programs. It's only when you begin actually sparring, that you are actually doing the activity. Only at that stage do we begin to develop real skill, and the corresponding knowledge and understanding of WCK. Moreover, you need to put it all together into your individual game (which can't be done at #1 and #2). Sparring/fighting is the game.

I think I've learned more about what you are really talking about in this post than in any other. Basically you have to take the skills learned and test them out in a non structured, realistically intense fighting environment to see what's up. Sounds good to me. I think basically you are talking about high level stuff, for people that have more than a basic structure and application within them. The thing is not all of us are at that stage of development yet.

For me, I am starting over again and at the stage where precise structure and such has to be maintained. If I freelance too much, old habits come back and I start to compensate, using muscles and tricks that are not really teaching me anything VT related. I use way to much shoulder and speed instead of setting up my position and allowing my structure to bypass the shoulder involvement so that the power is setup by my sitting and the ground. Basic stuff yes, but not taught to me before in my TWC training.

James

Liddel

04-12-2007, 07:05 PM

... the traditional training model is crap, and the fact that there are no good fighters in TMAs who haven't at least adopted the more modern means of training into their regimen, proves it.
The traditional approach to training was perhaps the best they had in the past when they didn't know as much about fighting and about athletic performance development as we do today.

Its important to note to that this argument was used in VT's favour towards other TCMA's by many masters of earlier generations.

VT is very young compared to other CMA's and its methods were considered more modern and therefore more effective due to that fact.

So of course this has also been true of VT as todays training methods continue to evolve. But our views on wether they have become redundant differ.
Some perhaps, but not all IME.

One point id like to make though is that alot of CMA's have taken a step back from where they were.
My Sifu along with his peers used to fight almost all the time. Fighting for real was quite common between different styles, even between schools of the same style and on occasion with weapons.

Gm Ip sent my Sifu to a VT school once to fight the master because he was supposedly marketing his school as VT when he was a hybrid, my master was told to fight and he did.

I think the traditional methods or mindset, apart from the obvious discoveries about "athletic performance " had more similarities to today than most realise.

cjurakpt

04-12-2007, 07:50 PM

Chris,
Any research on initiating with random/high interference, then swithcing to blocked/low interference, and then back to R/H?

funny, actually we ooked at this for my master's thesis: we had people perform a novel complex motor task - picking up bottons of 3 different sizes with chopsticks and putting them into a container; we had three groups, one did B (10 small, 10 medium, 10 large), one R (all mixed up) and one B/R (5 of each, then last 15 mixed) - well, we didn't find much difference between groups, but possibly because a) our sample was small (~10-12 people per group), b) our inclusion criteria were probably too lax (we initially wanted people who had never used chopsticks, but because that was only like 5 people, we included people who had only used them once before and / or not within the last year, or something lame like that), and / or 3), perhaps most importantly, the relatively complexity of the novel motor task was probably too hard intrinsically, and so there wasn't enough time for people to get the idea of actual chopstick use before seeing how practice schedule impacted their retention and transfer skills;

this last point, in and of itself, however, is interesting, and highlights a "problem" with a lot of the early motor learning studies: a lot of the initial research was done on relatively "abstract" tasks like moving a cursor through a maze on a screen - this was the sort of thing that initially showed a difference between blocked and random practice - however, when researchers started looking at "real world" tasks, it became more complex than just B vs. R schedules - for example, CI effect became very important, as it seemingly could overide the effects of practice schedule if it was too high initially; whereas if the task was simple enough, even with high initial CI, (e.g. - using a mouse cursor on a maze, while standing on a shifting balance platform would be a simple task with higher CI) you could see a greater practice schedule effect; but if it was a motor task such as using chopsticks, high CI initially would totally override practice schedule; I think that soeone made the distinction between internal CI (characteristics of the task itself) versus external CI (demands of the environment)

thinking about your example, I'd say that if the task itself was not too complex, then the random / high CI would yield poorer results initially then random (or blocked) under low CI, but if practice was long enough (duration of practice is another important parameter to consider), performance would improve, and you'd also see good retention and transfer (the reason given for random creating this efect is because it requires on-going, active "re-figuring" out by the brain each time, so the brain is "used" to dealing with changing and unpredictable situations), if during transfer testing the task is not too disimilar (also an area of study - how disimilar does the transfer task have to be from the practice one to see lack of effect); however, after this, switching to a blocked / low CI wouldn't really make too much sense to me - unless it was a very short interval that was being used as a sort of "rest' period (as extended sessions of blocked practice seem to tend to degrade performance in the long run, as it got to a point where the person no longer had to actively "figure out" what to do and does it by rote, which impedes their ablity to act in a responsive way to random / high CI);

any reason you asked abut this particular sequence?

Ultimatewingchun

04-12-2007, 08:51 PM

Okay, Dale...now please read this carefully. From this moment on, I am no longer going to refer to you as Dale Franks/Knifefighter.

No.

From now on....you're: MIGHTY MOUSE.

You're about 5' 5" tall...and you weight about 140 soaking wet.

And you've clearly gotten the "mouse that roared" thing waaaaay too deep into your psyche. :eek: :rolleyes:

You're talented...BJJ blackbelt, MMA venues, Dog brothers, etc....you can punch, you can kick, you can fight/grapple in the clinch...you can fight/grapple on the ground...you know how to use sticks and knives.

Great. And yes, I've seen your vids (not just the light sparring with Rahsun - but the other ones as well)...you're good.

No, I'll amend that. You're very good.

But you're also a GIANT A-HOLE who knows basically NOTHING about wing chun...and basically NOTHING about what's really going on in the wing chun world - or who's really who (both literally - and in terms of talent).

And you spend enormous amounts of time on this forum over the last 3 years or so basically trying to rip into people. In fact, I think it's fair to say that about 80% of your posts do nothing other than making an attempt to criticize/belittle wing chun people and what they're doing and about 20% is constructive criticism/intelligent discussion about various aspects of fighting.

That's a really 5hitty percentage, mighty mouse...

because YOU ARE A CLASSIC TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF A GUY WITH THE SMALL MAN'S NAPOLEANIC COMPLEX...wherein you relentlessly attempt to belittle other men so that you can somehow manage to feel bigger than them.

But you see - this tactic never really works. If it did work - then you would have done it once or twice - gotten the satisfaction you crave - and then that would be the end of it.

But NO.

You need to keep coming back for more...and more..and more... and more...ad nauseum. :eek:

Because it doesn't work. In the end - you're still mighty mouse.

Now let's look at the latest from your "mm" mind (notice the lower case letters - how appropriate, don't you think? :p )...to see where, once again - you've gone astray.

..........................

"I seriously doubt there are more than a couple of people in the WC world who have explored using WC "in depth" where it counts (in actual fighting) as much as I have." (mm)

***MORE CLUELESSNESS from a guy who couldn't possibly know what's going on in all of North America, South America, Europe, Australia, Asia....but certainly another classic example of the delusional pseudo-superiority complex (hiding feelings of inferiority) that mm suffers from.

"In addition to a bunch of real fights, I've explored using it in kickboxing, Muay Thai, boxing, MMA, and stick fighting matches. While I have managed to 'make it work" in limited amounts, my conclusion is that there are better methods of training available." (mm)

***A CONCLUSION based upon an extremely limited exposure to real wing chun principles, strategies, techniques, training methods, etc. And certainly NOTHING high-level. But mm "knows" he's right. Yeah...riiiiiight. :rolleyes:

"VT = Emin's lineage, especially many of the european groups.
WC = 99% of the rest of the WC world." (mm)

MORE FOOLISH CLUELESSNESS...because he clearly doesn't know that Emin Boztepe is WT (not VT).

And speaking of VT....mm lives within a short drive of Gary Lam's school - but absolutely refuses to ever go there for a visit - claiming that he thinks he won't get to see anything worthwhile.

NO, no, no...not so fast, sunny...

You won't go because Gary is 6' tall and weighs well over 200 lbs. - and you're afraid that you might get your a55 kicked if you joined in. (And my guess is that's a very well founded fear - since Gary is one of the best around - regardless of his size).

"LOL... I guess for someone who is as cloistered as you are, this was a huge 'clash of the styles' kind of deal. In actuality it was just a friendly slappy-slap session with me simply working to get clinch/takedown range and him trying to keep me outside.

However, just to fill you in on the clips you missed:

1- There was only one "getting back to his feet"... the one you saw. In the others there was no "getting back to his feet" or any other "escape" moves." (mm)

***THAT'S NOT WHAT I HEARD from Phil Redmond, who was not only there - but he filmed it...and he says that you took Rahsun down a few times but that each time Rahsun got back up to his feet really fast (ie.- you couldn't capitalize on the takedown at all).

"2- We had decided there was to be no ground fighting, hence my stoppage (instead of a heel hook attack) from the open guard."

***NOT WHAT I HEARD - AND NOT WHAT I SAW ON THE VID...I saw you with my own two eyes trying to work at grabbing his ankles while you were stacked in guard - and I also saw that you were eating chain punches to the mid section and one to the face in the process.

"During the other takedowns, we had stopped on the ground once I had the takedown." (mm)

***NOT WHAT I HEARD.

"3- I've always believed WC can be used effectively in a defensive manner to keep an opponent off, especially if you are bigger and have unlimited space in which to stay outside and move." (mm)

***AND AGAIN...you believe that because you've never had any clue (and was never taught) how to use wing chun from very close range to barrage people with all kinds of striking techniques.

"I believe the shortcoming show up when you do not have a size advantage and/or unlimited space in which to move and try to use it offensively." (mm)

***SEE ABOVE.

Knifefighter

04-12-2007, 09:27 PM

1- There was only one "getting back to his feet"... the one you saw. In the others there was no "getting back to his feet" or any other "escape" moves." (mm)
***THAT'S NOT WHAT I HEARD from Phil Redmond, who was not only there - but he filmed it...and he says that you took Rahsun down a few times but that each time Rahsun got back up to his feet really fast (ie.- you couldn't capitalize on the takedown at all).
"During the other takedowns, we had stopped on the ground once I had the takedown." (mm)
"2- We had decided there was to be no ground fighting, hence my stoppage (instead of a heel hook attack) from the open guard."
***NOT WHAT I HEARD.

Phil seems like a really nice guy with a lot of integrity, so I doubt he said this to you.

Because if he did....

HE WOULD BE A LIAR....

which I seriously doubt he is.

However, you might want to sit down and have a talk with him because the statements you are making are complete falsehoods and he should know that you are making him out to be a LIAR . Either you got confused on what he told you (which based on your posts is probably the case) or one of you is a LIAR.

I don't take kindly to people lying about things related to me and take that kind of thing very seriously. If he did make those lies to you (which I very seriously doubt he did), he and I would have very big problems (which I don't think we do).

You won't go because Gary is 6' tall and weighs well over 200 lbs. - and you're afraid that you might get your a55 kicked if you joined in. (And my guess is that's a very well founded fear - since Gary is one of the best around - regardless of his size).

LOL... I fight 250 + lb guys full contact, NHB with sticks. I really don't worry too much about getting beaten up.

As far as the rest... OK, I'm clueless about the real WC... and I'm an @$$hole (at least in the Bizarro internet world)... and you are right, I don't know what all the WC guys fight credentials are in terms of fighting with WC in different venues (I'm guessing you know, so I'll wait to let you list who they are what events each has fought in)

Now that that's out of the way, how about our technical discussion?

How do WC principles apply to the counter of the low single leg takedown I described above?

faizal80

04-13-2007, 02:45 AM

just because people discussed it before, i think we should have the right to discuss it again. i don't think one group of people possesses all the knowledge. i think chi sau can be used for fighting. not in the way it is practiced in the dojo etc..., but the principle of it. you can take a principle and express it in many ways and i think chi sau is one of those ways. when it comes to fighting, the principle of chi sau can be represented in the person but if you stand there and get into you chi sau stance and this kind of thing. then you are going to get you butt wopped. this is just how i very the martial arts and chi sau. peace love and inity :D

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 05:28 AM

I think I've learned more about what you are really talking about in this post than in any other. Basically you have to take the skills learned and test them out in a non structured, realistically intense fighting environment to see what's up. Sounds good to me. I think basically you are talking about high level stuff, for people that have more than a basic structure and application within them. The thing is not all of us are at that stage of development yet.

You see this as "high level" because you believe there are all these preliminary hoops to jump through first -- and what I am trying to get across is that most of those hoops not only aren't necessary, they are counter-productive.

For me, I am starting over again and at the stage where precise structure and such has to be maintained. If I freelance too much, old habits come back and I start to compensate, using muscles and tricks that are not really teaching me anything VT related. I use way to much shoulder and speed instead of setting up my position and allowing my structure to bypass the shoulder involvement so that the power is setup by my sitting and the ground. Basic stuff yes, but not taught to me before in my TWC training.
James

My perspective is that this has nothing to do with "structure", but has to do with how you *use* your body. What is the "structure" to throwing a ball?

But I agree with you, that first you need to learn how to use your body (and when you can comfortably do that), and you do that with unrealistic drills (including chi sao). But once you can do that comfortably and reliably, then you need to put that into realistic drills and sparring to develop it into fighting skills. Practicing it forever in chi sao, for instance, will never develop it into fighting skills.

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 05:42 AM

Its important to note to that this argument was used in VT's favour towards other TCMA's by many masters of earlier generations.

VT is very young compared to other CMA's and its methods were considered more modern and therefore more effective due to that fact.

So of course this has also been true of VT as todays training methods continue to evolve. But our views on wether they have become redundant differ.
Some perhaps, but not all IME.

One point id like to make though is that alot of CMA's have taken a step back from where they were.

Yes, they have and that is a very good first step. However, they are trying to mix oil and water: use some modern traiing methods while retaining the traditional training stuff. For example, they still do "form practice" even though it is totally unnecessary to skill development (so at a minimum a waste of training time) and, in fact, can arguably be detrimental to skill development.

I think the next step in the TMA evolution is to recognize that the "traditional mindset" is a huge part of the problem, because as long as we are "thinking" that way, it will hold us back from development. And so we need to adopt the more modern mindset (common to all functional arts, sports, athletes).

My Sifu along with his peers used to fight almost all the time. Fighting for real was quite common between different styles, even between schools of the same style and on occasion with weapons.

Gm Ip sent my Sifu to a VT school once to fight the master because he was supposedly marketing his school as VT when he was a hybrid, my master was told to fight and he did.

I think the traditional methods or mindset, apart from the obvious discoveries about "athletic performance " had more similarities to today than most realise.

Of course the traditional guys fought as you mention above, but just because they fought doesn't mean they weren't caught in the traditional mindset. It's not just the fighting -- modern fighters are using sparring as the core of their training, that they see the fighting/sparring as their "art" (activity), they are seeking out quality opponents (the best they can find), they are pursuing results and not trying to adhere to some "system" (the very notion of a hybrid is a traditional mindset), etc. The two mindsets are oil and water: they don't mix.

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 05:48 AM

As far as the rest... OK, I'm clueless about the real WC... and I'm an @$$hole (at least in the Bizarro internet world)... and you are right, I don't know what all the WC guys fight credentials are in terms of fighting with WC in different venues (I'm guessing you know, so I'll wait to let you list who they are what events each has fought in)

Now that that's out of the way, how about our technical discussion?

How do WC principles apply to the counter of the low single leg takedown I described above?

A textbook example of avoiding the discussion with personal attacks.

Ultimatewingchun

04-13-2007, 06:29 AM

On the contrary - mm's latest post is a textbook example in avoidance of the real issues...which in this case....

is his OBNOXIOUS BEHAVIOR ON THIS FORUM.

That's now the issue - and will remain the issue until the 80/20 percentage ratio drastically changes. Enough is enough with this guy and his constant attempts to beat people down around here - as if he's the BIG MAN - and the rest of us are small little kids.

That crap has got to end...because it's poisoning the wing chun forum.

And as for Phil Redmond lying to me....LOL :rolleyes:

Phil and I are the best of friends, and we know each other for over 20 years.

And as for me just simply getting the story wrong - LOL again...as Phil told me on more than one occasion that each time Rahsun was taken down he immediately got back up to his feet without impunity.

As for EVERYTHING ELSE I said on my last post - it's also true. Every word of it.

The guy is clueless about wing chun...afraid to go to Gary Lam's...makes all kinds of ridulous claims about the system...about the people in the system - and about himself.

THAT'S LYING.

Mighty Mouse lies to himself and he attempts to lie to the rest of us about who he really is - and about who/what we are.

Like yourself, Terence...the little man should see a shrink.

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 06:48 AM

Stop the personal stuff. Stick to issues.

Knifefighter

04-13-2007, 07:04 AM

And as for Phil Redmond lying to me....LOL :rolleyes:

Phil and I are the best of friends, and we know each other for over 20 years.

And as for me just simply getting the story wrong - LOL again...as Phil told me on more than one occasion that each time Rahsun was taken down he immediately got back up to his feet without impunity.

Victor:

Please ask Phil to read your posts above about the claims you are making regarding his statements.

Then ask him to either respond on here or to email me regarding whether or not he told you what you are claiming he told you.

sihing

04-13-2007, 08:59 AM

You see this as "high level" because you believe there are all these preliminary hoops to jump through first -- and what I am trying to get across is that most of those hoops not only aren't necessary, they are counter-productive.

My perspective is that this has nothing to do with "structure", but has to do with how you *use* your body. What is the "structure" to throwing a ball?

But I agree with you, that first you need to learn how to use your body (and when you can comfortably do that), and you do that with unrealistic drills (including chi sao). But once you can do that comfortably and reliably, then you need to put that into realistic drills and sparring to develop it into fighting skills. Practicing it forever in chi sao, for instance, will never develop it into fighting skills.

There is a structure for throwing a ball, a moving structure per say. If i was standing on my head, my ability to throw the ball would be lessened due to bad structure. If I am upright, and shift my weight from backfoot to front while rotating my full upper body, that is better moving structure than standing on my head. We just have a different terminology is you ask me. In the beginning the structure is still, so that the fixed positions are set, then as time goes on you move with your structure and become less and less fixed as the motions become natural. When it is natural thing, you use only when necessary and avoid becoming a slave to it. To me this is the true meaning of Economy of Movement.

I agree that in chi sau, if you stay in the fixed mode you will go know where fast, you have to take those skills and apply them to realistic training...

Gotta run..

James

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 12:41 PM

There is a structure for throwing a ball, a moving structure per say. If i was standing on my head, my ability to throw the ball would be lessened due to bad structure. If I am upright, and shift my weight from backfoot to front while rotating my full upper body, that is better moving structure than standing on my head. We just have a different terminology is you ask me.

I don't think it a matter of us talking about the same thing with different terminology.

In the beginning the structure is still, so that the fixed positions are set, then as time goes on you move with your structure and become less and less fixed as the motions become natural. When it is natural thing, you use only when necessary and avoid becoming a slave to it. To me this is the true meaning of Economy of Movement.

If you think about it, and compare to any other athletic activity, you'll realize how silly it is to believe you can effectively learn or develop dynamic movement skills through this process. We learn skills by seeing it done (being shown), then trying to do them, getting feedback, making adjustments based on that feedback, trying it again, and so on. This is how you learned to throw a ball or ride a bike.

I agree that in chi sau, if you stay in the fixed mode you will go know where fast, you have to take those skills and apply them to realistic training...

Gotta run..

James

In chi sao, since it is not a realistic environment, you are not getting realistic feedback, so you can't develop realistic skills.

JPinAZ

04-13-2007, 12:42 PM

The "proof" of the effectiveness of the modern training method doesn't depend on KF or me or our results -- it has been proven by everyone who has gotten really good results in training. All top fighters and trainers do the same sorts of things, and use the same training model. And this model corresponds to what scientific studies in motor skill development has uncovered.

"everyone"?? ALL people who have gotten really good results?? Are you sure? You've seen them all right? You can list every good fighter on the planet?
Or just a VERY small portion, which are in the world of sport fighting?
So, yeah, from what YOU'VE seen, I can see why you'd say this..

I don't think WCK is crap; I continue to train WCK. But the traditional training model is crap, and the fact that there are no good fighters in TMAs who haven't at least adopted the more modern means of training into their regimen, proves it. Scientific studies in motor skill develoment proves it. The traditional approach to training was perhaps the best they had in the past when they didn't know as much about fighting and about athletic performance development as we do today. Were there good fighters in WCK in the past? Sure - but they were good by that periods standards (where the other fighters were equally poorly trained).

Maybe the 'traditional training model' that YOU learned. Or maybe you just didn't understand... Could be any number of reasons, most likely in YOU experience, sure I can see why again you'd say that. But doesn't make it 'true' for ALL people training with 'traditional' WC training models - just what YOU have experienced..

Now you're comparring fighters from the past to fighters of today. Do you realize that when WC was used 100-200 years ago, people DIED. It wasn't used in some sporting event, there were no 'rules', the consequences were that you could DIE every time they used WC. Yeah, I guess they didn't test thier stuff back then..
oh wait, it was against other 'equally poorly trained' fighters of that period.... where do you get this crap from?
The fact is, fighters of today are training for different things than they were back then. Now adays there is less fear of dying in the ring. Les fear of broken limbs because of rules. The mentality is different. Society is different. You do realize that don't you?

you speak "athletic performance development ". I think they were training warriors to FIGHT back then with much more severe consequences, not atheltes...

Why are we here? Because people like you start threads asking if chi sao if for fighting. Of course it isn't. And anyone who is fighting will know that.

By reading that statement, it sounds like you're hear trying to save us all to me
BTW, are YOU fighting?? Is that how you know that, by your own experience?

I'm not trying to save anyone. That's beyond my power. All I hope to do is get some serious people, people interested in achieving results (as opposed to reinforcing their belief structure), to think for themselves, to critically examine these issues, to stop taking advice and instruction from people who can't do it themselves, to get out and mix it up with some good people and see for themselves. A person can only save themself.

And that's something I never thought of before - think for myself!! wow, such a novel idea!
"to stop taking advice and instruction from people who can't do it themselves.."
Ahhh, now I get it.... ignore the people I learn from and take the advice from who, you instead... yeah, good idea :rolleyes:
Or just go out there on my own and wing with the 'good guys' and it'll just come naturally?? Wow, why don't we ALL learn like that?

too funny...

JP

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 01:05 PM

"everyone"?? ALL people who have gotten really good results?? Are you sure? You've seen them all right? You can list every good fighter on the planet?
Or just a VERY small portion, which are in the world of sport fighting?
So, yeah, from what YOU'VE seen, I can see why you'd say this..

All really good fighters, regardless of their style, use the modern training model. If you disagree, give us the names of those who don't.

Maybe the 'traditional training model' that YOU learned. Or maybe you just didn't understand. Could be any number of reasons, most likely in YOU experience, sure I can see why again you'd say that. But doesn't make it 'true' for ALL people training with 'traditional' WC training models - just what YOU have experienced..

If you believe your traditional training works, take your camcorder down to the local MMA gym and spar with some guys -- show us. You'll see that every "traditional" guy that has significant skills is also doing modern fighting training.

By reading that statement, it sounds like you're hear trying to save us all to me
BTW, are YOU fighting?? Is that how you know that, by your own experience?

As I said, I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm trying to get people thinking, to get them examining the claims, etc. Look at what good proven fighters are doing to train, look at what good proven trainers are doing and stop listening to people who haven't done it. I'm not telling anyone to do anything because I say so -- and certainly don't do it because anyone calling themself master or grandmaster says so -- I'm saying do what the proven experts do.

And that's something I never thought of before - think for myself!! wow, such a novel idea!

I'm sure there are many things you haven't thought of yourself before. The traditional arts do put blinders on people.

"to stop taking advice and instruction from people who can't do it themselves.."
Ahhh, now I get it.... ignore the people I learn from and take the advice from who, you instead... yeah, good idea :rolleyes:

I'm saying listen to anyone that can do it -- do it, in fighting, against good quality opponents. If your "master" or sifu can't do it, and you can't know unless you've seen him do it with your own eyes, how can they teach you to do it? Can a white belt teach you good BJJ?

Or just go out there on my own and wing with the 'good guys' and it'll just come naturally?? Wow, why don't we ALL learn like that?

too funny...

JP

What's funny is that you don't even care whether your instructor is qualified to teach. The only qualifications that matter is that they can do it -- in fighting, against decent opponents.

My view is pretty simple -- I don't want to see any more WCK demos, I don't want to see any more chi sao or kiu sao, I don't want to see any more forms, I don't want to hear anymore about theory or principles, because none of that matters. People can talk a good game, they can demo all kinds of amazing stuff, they get good playing drills, etc. None of that shows anything about fighitng skills. Nothing. All I care about is whether a person can't make what they do work against quality opponents in fighting. It boils down to that. If they can do it, they will have no problem showing you that they can do it. If they can't do that, then they have nothing.

In any fighting art, a person's skill is directly related to the amount of quality sparring he's done. And his knowledge and understanding is at the level of his skill.

sihing

04-13-2007, 02:41 PM

I don't think it a matter of us talking about the same thing with different terminology.

If you think about it, and compare to any other athletic activity, you'll realize how silly it is to believe you can effectively learn or develop dynamic movement skills through this process. We learn skills by seeing it done (being shown), then trying to do them, getting feedback, making adjustments based on that feedback, trying it again, and so on. This is how you learned to throw a ball or ride a bike.

In chi sao, since it is not a realistic environment, you are not getting realistic feedback, so you can't develop realistic skills.

One problem with comparing athletic activities, is that all of them are not equal or the same. Throwing a ball, like your first example is a very simple physical action, as compared to dealing with someone your same, or more, weight, height and abilities, that is trying to cause you harm. How can you even compare the two? In regards to structure, what structure do you need to throw a ball or dribble one? Very little, since you are so much larger than the object that you are manipulating, why would you? Trying using little structure on someone who is hell bent on puttin some hurt on you? If you have no structure, you are not using your body the best way, or at least a better way. There are effective ways to use your body and ineffective ways to use your body to deal with force, give force, move, fight, etc.. If I stand on one leg, and raise up on my toe, this is not a very good position to be in while in a fight. A simple example.

I don't learn dynamic movement in forms, I express that when I spar. It gets better the more I spar. But if I start in a pure natural state, with no training behind me, I will move in a uneffective way (unless of course I am a freak and have the ability inborn within me). I therefore have to learn a method of movement to make it more effective for combat application. After awhile I use it naturally, without thought, which makes it more effective for me.

Gotta run, again...

James

Ultimatewingchun

04-13-2007, 09:36 PM

Knifefighter

04-13-2007, 11:11 PM

Do you realize that when WC was used 100-200 years ago, people DIED. It wasn't used in some sporting event, there were no 'rules', the consequences were that you could DIE every time they used WC.

What evidence do you have of that happening?

Knifefighter

04-13-2007, 11:13 PM

Throwing a ball, like your first example is a very simple physical action, as compared to dealing with someone your same, or more, weight, height and abilities, that is trying to cause you harm.

Trying to fight someone is the same as learning all of the aspects of playing baseball, in terms of how complicated each is.

Learning to throw a ball would be the same as what happens when one learns to throw one single type of strike.

Knifefighter

04-13-2007, 11:18 PM

On the contrary - mm's latest post is a textbook example in avoidance of the real issues...which in this case....

is his OBNOXIOUS BEHAVIOR ON THIS FORUM.

That's quite a hypocritical statement from someone whose obnoxious posts were responsible for shutting down the Catch Wrestling forum.

I'll tell you one thing you are right about, though. I waste a bunch of time here that could be more productively spent (he says as he posts between 16-hour seminar sessions instead of eating and studying).

That's now the issue - and will remain the issue until the 80/20 percentage ratio drastically changes.

OK, then, let's get back to our technical discussion instead of mudslinging...

What WC principles are put into play in defending the low single leg takedown attack?

.

Vajramusti

04-14-2007, 06:57 AM

What WC principles are put into play in defending the low single leg takedown attack?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several - but this and related threads have lost the minimal characteristics of conversations some time ago.

joy chaudhuri

Vajramusti

04-14-2007, 06:58 AM

t_niehoff

04-14-2007, 07:31 AM

You ask him.

What now....like I work for you, or something...:rolleyes: ???

You have a problem with what he told me - then it's up to you to straighten the situation out.

I've got better things to do with my time - like telling Terence, once again...that it's people like him (and you) who makes things personal around here...

The only one making things personal is you. I want to talk about issues. That people take criticisms of their beliefs personally I can't help.

by constantly trying to make other people feel as though they don't know but he does know. He's got the answers but they, personally...have zilch.

I'm sorry but my goal is not to come on a WCK forum to make people feel better about themselves or what they are doing. This isn't a support group and I'm not an enabler. I come on these forums to share my perspective on WCK and discuss WCK. That said, I'm not trying to make people feel bad either. I'm trying to get them thinking, to get them examining their views.

I have repeatedly said that I am not holding myself out as an authority, and I don't believe there are any authorities in WCK. And I have told people not to accept what I say because I say it (and not to accept anyone's word for anything) -- but to do the work of thinking critically, for themselves, and to get out and investigate these things for themseves. That means to go spar with quality people and see whether your views hold water.

Moreoever, I have said that if a person can't do it, in sparring against quality opponents, that they don't *know* it. And if they don't know it, they can't teach it to others, and they certainly don't understand it. This in no way says I know anything better/more than anyone else -- it is just the truth. If this causes people pain, if this makes them feel like they don't know anything, then they should begin to take a long, hard look at what they've been doing.

That's personal.

And for either one of you to start b i t c h i n' now that people shouldn't be getting "personal"...WOW...:eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

What a load of nerd5hit that is.

What's the problem, Terence? It hurts? You're in pain? The mouse is in pain?

Well you know what, counsellor?....WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

Take it like a man, Terri...because you certainly know how to dish it out.

Victor, I am not going to stoop to calling you Vicky, or making veiled threats, or engaging in those sorts of childish things. That sort of immature behavior just reflects your frustration at not being able to defend your views rationally and with evidence. I understand that when a person's belief structure, and ego-identity derived from that belief structure, is criticized and undermined, that people often react defensively and emotionally, so I don't harbor any ill feelings toward you. I do think, however, that you may want to consider why you have such a strong emotional reaction to these discussions, and do a bit of introspection. Best wishes.

Ultimatewingchun

04-14-2007, 12:11 PM

"The only one making things personal is you. I want to talk about issues." (Terence)

***NO YOU DON'T. What you want to do is spend enormous amounts of time trying to criticize and belittle other people about what they do (wing chun), how they do it (their training methods, ie.- chi sao, forms, etc.), who they train with/compete against, etc. etc.

And you want to spend enormous amounts of time doing this, Terence, because that's a big part of how you get your rocks off (and hide from your own personal fears and insecurities about yourself)...

and so you constantly attempt to verbally and psychologically beat people up around here with a relentless criticism of what they do and what they're all about.

Exactly like mighty mouse - who now says (because he wants to change the subject since the heat is getting a little too strong for him)...that he wants to talk technique...and is selectively picking something out (the single leg takedown) because he thinks he sees yet another angle to use as a means of continuing his childish attacks on other people.

You can stuff a single leg with a gum sao and some footwork or a sprawl or whatever...there is no single answer but certainly some wing chun moves can play a role.

Now does the mouse even know what a gum sao is?

I doubt it. I doubt it highly. But here he is once again angling for yet another opening on the wing chun forum to show us how much he (thinks) he knows - and how wrong and mistaken we are.

Quantity has a Quality all its own - as a wise general once said.

And the quantity of the posts that you and the mouse make trying to rip people around here is destroying and poisoning the atmosphere - producing a really ugly and obnoxious quality.

And that's the whole point Terence...once again.

t_niehoff

04-14-2007, 03:36 PM

constantly[/B] attempt to verbally and psychologically beat people up around here with a relentless criticism of what they do and what they're all about.

It's interesting that you tie "what they do" and "what they are all about" together, because this is, I'm afraid, exactly the problem -- you can't separate or distinguish between the two, and a criticism of one (what they do) is a criticism of the other (what they are all about). But, a criticism of a view is not a criticism of the person.

You can stuff a single leg with a gum sao and some footwork or a sprawl or whatever...there is no single answer but certainly some wing chun moves can play a role.

Are you saying a sprawl is a "wing chun move"?

I suppose a gum sao (to the back of the opponent's head) could stuff a really poor single leg attempt (if the shooter had his head down and was slow or didn't penetrate enough, for example). And, I agree with you that there is no single answer -- that you need a whole game to deal with the shoot (because the shooter has a whole take-down game). Since you say "some wing chun moves can play a role", I take it that you mean that WCK does not provide everything you need to develop a whole game to deal wtih the single leg. I agree.

And the quantity of the posts that you and the mouse make trying to rip people around here is destroying and poisoning the atmosphere - producing a really ugly and obnoxious quality.

And that's the whole point Terence...once again.

I will agree with you that many people do not like criticism, particularly of their beloved beliefs and their idols. And many people see any ceriticism as entirely negative. However, a healthier attittude is to see it for what it is: the process of growth. And growth can be -- and generally is -- painful. Sparring is criticism in the physical realm. We need both physical and verbal criticism to grow. Someone telling you how wonderful you are, how you are doing everything right, how you are special, etc. -- while perhaps pleasing for some to hear -- isn't what spurs growth. Being told your training methods and even your learning models aren't particularly good or effective is perhaps not what people want to hear; being told their idols, their grandmasters and masters, can't do it and so don't know it, is not what people want to hear; being told that they can't know or understand WCK if they can't do it in fighting is not what people want to hear. But those are truths. If they are ugly truths -- I agree. But there you have it.

jesper

04-14-2007, 05:08 PM

Ultimatewingchun

04-14-2007, 10:56 PM

"You know, criticism can be a good thing. Putting people down because they dont follow your religion is a whole other game." (jesper)

***EXACTLY.

Terence is trying to "sell" us the bull that his criticisms are a good thing - but what he's really saying (without ever admitting it) is that he's playing the same old "if it's not being done exactly the way I do it's no good" game that he's always accused TCMA (ie.- wing chun) people of doing.

And you make excellent points about how hypocritical it is for Terence to be asking people to provide visuals for him to inspect when nobody around here has ever seen anything from him.

I'm not even sure if he exists - given the fact that his posts are always regurgitating the same old, same old - sometimes practically word-for-word from what he said the day, or the week, or the month before.

Maybe it's just a sophisticated rigged-up answering machine hooked to a computer!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Knifefighter

04-15-2007, 12:26 AM

Exactly like mighty mouse - who now says (because he wants to change the subject since the heat is getting a little too strong for him)...that he wants to talk technique...and is selectively picking something out (the single leg takedown) because he thinks he sees yet another angle to use as a means of continuing his childish attacks on other people..

Victor-
You are right. Instead of sticking to debating the issues of training, techniques, strategies, tactics and stylistic philosophies, I have have been guilty of making personal attacks.

Please accept my apologies.

t_niehoff

04-15-2007, 08:00 AM

t_niehoff

Since your so keen on having us video taping our sparring with people outside our schools, could I ask to see some of your tapes. And dont give me some of that bs that your not trying to teach me anything. Your doing nothing but trying to convince me how great your training methods are.
put up or shut up.

You are another one that isn't bothering to read my posts.

I'm saying to look at what all good fighters and good fight trainers are doing as part of their training. Are you suggesting what they are doing doesn't work? Do you need proof? Then go fight with some good people and see for yourself: go to a MMA gym and have a go. Or look at some videos of any good, proven fighter. I am not saying, and I have never said, that anyone should follow my example or that I am some standard by which anyone should do anything. It's the same as if we were talking about how to train for groundfighting -- I'd say go see what the best groundfighters are doing, how they are training, and follow that. While I may be doing (or trying to do) that myself, I am not the model -- they are. Look to the proven experts.

All the time you say we should prove to you our training methods works, and yet you havent shown any prove how your methods are better.
Do good fighters use your methods.. Possible but that doesnt necessarily mean its the best way of training out there. It simply means that some fighters gets good result from training that way. Other good fighters gets good results by training more "traditionally", and btw training traditionally in no way means your not sparring.

Try and follow my reasoning here. First, we know that the modern training methods used not only work, but have produced all the really good *proven* fighters -regardless of their fighting method - that we see today. If you disagree, name the really good *proven* fighters that haven't used that model for training. Second, no one using the traditional training model of TMAs *without adopting the more modern training methods* have ever developed proven higher levels of skill. If you disagree, name the proven fighters that have done this. So where is the evidence that the traditional training model produces really good results? There is none.

When people like you say the traditional training works, I say prove that it does -- where are these good, proven traditioanlly trained fighters? And don't give me stories or legends or anecdotes.

And, I agree with you that traditional training can involve sparring, but the modern training method, and the mindset attached to it, is more than just doing some sparring.

As for not showing videos of us sparring, has it ever occured to your simple little mind that some people spar for developements, not to show off to a broad ordiance. Personally I couldnt give a rats ass if you think I can fight or not, and I really dont se any points in demonstrating it to a some simpleminded cyberwarriors on youtube or whatever.

I ask for videos since anyone can say "I have gone to MMA gyms and throw those guys around with my traditional training"; I'm asking for proof. The proof that the modern training model works is every NHB fight and fighter.

As for finding out how good my teacher was at fighting when I joined the club. I simply told him to show why I should switch from MT to WT and he did by beating me up, and then telling me the pros and cons of doing WT versus doing MT. No boasting or bs, just a simple analyzis which convinced me it was the right style for me in the long run.

The fact you, an unskilled guy, were beaten up is hardly evidence of anything. Go to a BJJ school and the white belts will give you a beating too.

The question here is about training methods. Today we know what sorts of training methods work, from looking at how good fighters, with proven results, do things to studies in motor skill and athletic enhancement. And what those things tell us is that much of what the traditional training methods do is not productive. The proof is in the ring, in the octagon, in the cages, in the MMA gyms.

You know, criticism can be a good thing. Putting people down because they dont follow your religion is a whole other game.

It's interesting that you use the word religion -- because that is exactly what I am talking about. The TMAs are a religion in the sense that they are belief structures that don't rely on evidence and aren't justified by results -- they rely on faith. I'm saying take the faith out of it, don't believe things because you are told them or because you want to believe them or because they comfort you. Instead, critically examine all the claims, see for yourself, require hard evidence, etc.

What's funny is that no one who disagees with me and believes the traditional model works, and can produce skill comparable say to a mid-level MMA fighter, can provide any evidence to back up that claim.

jesper

04-15-2007, 10:00 AM

The fact you, an unskilled guy, were beaten up is hardly evidence of anything. Go to a BJJ school and the white belts will give you a beating too.

Uhm why do you pressume I was unskilled when I started WT. I had been training boxing and JJ for 1½ year and Thaiboxing for 3 years prior. And with 9 matchfights I would hardly call myself unskilled. The fact still stands that I was no match for Henning Daverne.

And as I said I didnt switch because I lost, I switched because I was convinced by arguments why WT would serve me better in the long run than thaiboxing would.

Another fact still stand that you claim your new training methods has made you a much better fighter, but yet you dont provide any evidence to that claim. All you do is hide behind other peoples results.

Just for the record, its not the fact you keep praising bjj and "modern training" that bothers me, its the fact you keep telling people to prove their training methods works without stepping up yourself and prove how much better you have gotten by using your new methods.
I know the methods bjj practioners train produce good results, all im saying is that there are many ways to produce results.

Oh and just for the record, if I want to spar with some good bjj practitioner all I have to do is visit the WT headquarters in Denmark :D

Ultimatewingchun

04-15-2007, 11:24 AM

"Victor-
You are right. Instead of sticking to debating the issues of training, techniques, strategies, tactics and stylistic philosophies, I have have been guilty of making personal attacks.

Please accept my apologies." (Dale/Knifefighter)

***APOLOGIES ACCEPTED.

Another thing that Phil Redmond said about you is that, after meeting you in person...you turned out to be a good guy. He liked you.

Let's debate things in a civil manner going forward - because that benefits everyone.

And I'll even start: for all the put downs I occasionally make about the BJJ guard position/how I think catch as catch can is better, etc...

I have to admit that BJJ is one helluva fighting/grappling system - and can't be taken lightly without paying a stiff price. The Gracie's have made an ENORMOUS contribution to the evolution of martial arts in recent decades.

This is undeniable.

And your personal emphasis on boxing/Thai boxing/BJJ as a mixed martial art approach - along with the emphasis on lots of competitive sparring/rolling with various stylists/weapons training and competition...realistic training drills with partners, bag work, conditioning, etc...

is definitely an advanced high-level approach to fighting/martial arts.

I've come to see the importance of boxing moves, clinch work, use of knee and elbow strikes, using takedowns, defending them with REAL grappling moves (although like many others around here I do believe that some wing chun moves are perfectly suited to being part of that mix)...

And of course I've come to see the importance of being able to fight/grapple on the ground, although I still maintain that spending lots of training time learning how to keep the fight standing (or at least keeping yourself standing) is the way to go - in terms of real life fighting.

But getting back to the original intent of this post - I respect your achievements (and credentials) as a martial artist.

All I ask is that you don't sell the rest of us short on that same account. There are DEFINITELY some people around here who would really surprise you in terms of what they can actually do - with their wing chun - and as overall fighters.

JPinAZ

04-15-2007, 12:33 PM

If you believe your traditional training works, take your camcorder down to the local MMA gym and spar with some guys -- show us. You'll see that every "traditional" guy that has significant skills is also doing modern fighting training..
I specifically asked of YOUR experience, and you immediately tell me to go down and see someone elses.

As I said, I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm trying to get people thinking, to get them examining the claims, etc. Look at what good proven fighters are doing to train, look at what good proven trainers are doing and stop listening to people who haven't done it. I'm not telling anyone to do anything because I say so -- and certainly don't do it because anyone calling themself master or grandmaster says so -- I'm saying do what the proven experts do.
Again, I asked you of YOUR experience. If YOU are fighting. If these 'methods' you brag about work for YOU.
Again, you point to something else. 'look over there' - I'm talking to YOU. Avoidance again. So I'll ask again, why should we listen to ANYTHING you say when you can't even prove these methods have worked for yourself?????

I'm saying listen to anyone that can do it -- do it, in fighting, against good quality opponents. If your "master" or sifu can't do it, and you can't know unless you've seen him do it with your own eyes, how can they teach you to do it? Can a white belt teach you good BJJ?

I'm asking though, again, why SHOULD we listen to YOU?
Can YOU do it? Does this method work for YOU?
If I am going to have any real conversationg with you, and since you pawn yourself ff as having 'seen' what is the best mothod, have you proven it to yourself? Or are you just theorizing that what works for one gour works across the board... Let first establish that you even know what you're talking about first from your own experience first ok?

What's funny is that you don't even care whether your instructor is qualified to teach. The only qualifications that matter is that they can do it -- in fighting, against decent opponents.

There you go again - pointing the finger somewhere else when someone ask you about YOUR experience. Why should anyone listen to YOU?

And don't talk about things you know nothing about. Now you're trying to drag my teacher into this again. Sorry, lets keep the subject on YOUR experience for a few more minutes - you've never once told us why YOU should be listened to. What are YOUR qualification?

You want to know about my teacher's 'qualifications', well that's something you'd just have to 'experience'. Who the hell are you to question my teacher? You have no qualifications to talk about my teacher OR his skill. Are YOU ready to experience that for yourself?
And I am sure you don't want me talking about YOUR teacher's skill, so let's leave it alone. It's safer that way. You should be very careful what your mouth gets you into!

My view is pretty simple -- I don't want to see any more WCK demos, I don't want to see any more chi sao or kiu sao, I don't want to see any more forms, I don't want to hear anymore about theory or principles, because none of that matters. People can talk a good game, they can demo all kinds of amazing stuff, they get good playing drills, etc. None of that shows anything about fighitng skills. Nothing. All I care about is whether a person can't make what they do work against quality opponents in fighting. It boils down to that. If they can do it, they will have no problem showing you that they can do it. If they can't do that, then they have nothing.

In any fighting art, a person's skill is directly related to the amount of quality sparring he's done. And his knowledge and understanding is at the level of his skill.

Great, thanks for your simple view.
If you don't want to see/hear anything else involving WC, then I guess you won't be coming to this forum anymore, because I am guessing people here won't stop practicing or talking about these things any time soon.

If all you care about is seeing results, and since you can't spar anyone else on a forum to see thier 'fighting skills' then you have no reason to be here then huh?

My final questions: can YOU do it? Are YOU willing to 'show it'?? If not then you have nothing too I guess huh?
So T, since you've foundseen all the answers, what is your 'knowledge and understanding at'? (what's YOUR skill level?)
Or is it all theory on your end too? Sure sounds like it to me.

JPinAZ

04-15-2007, 12:42 PM

What evidence do you have of that happening?

What the hell are you even talking about?
Are you trying to say that 100's of years ago, when MA's were used for COMBAT/WAR/etc that they all shook hands after and went home? That's the same as saying no one died in WWII.
the MA's back then were used for life and death situations, not some game in a ring. You think this is some big mystery? I think you should take your head out of the sand.

JPinAZ

04-15-2007, 01:04 PM

One problem with comparing athletic activities, is that all of them are not equal or the same. Throwing a ball, like your first example is a very simple physical action, as compared to dealing with someone your same, or more, weight, height and abilities, that is trying to cause you harm. How can you even compare the two? In regards to structure, what structure do you need to throw a ball or dribble one? Very little, since you are so much larger than the object that you are manipulating, why would you? Trying using little structure on someone who is hell bent on puttin some hurt on you? If you have no structure, you are not using your body the best way, or at least a better way. There are effective ways to use your body and ineffective ways to use your body to deal with force, give force, move, fight, etc.. If I stand on one leg, and raise up on my toe, this is not a very good position to be in while in a fight. A simple example.

I don't learn dynamic movement in forms, I express that when I spar. It gets better the more I spar. But if I start in a pure natural state, with no training behind me, I will move in a uneffective way (unless of course I am a freak and have the ability inborn within me). I therefore have to learn a method of movement to make it more effective for combat application. After awhile I use it naturally, without thought, which makes it more effective for me.

Gotta run, again...

James

I can agree with this. Comparing the mechanics for throwing a ball to fighting structures of WC is like comparing apples to pizza - they are 2 totally different things.

I agree with learning any body mechanic. You can isolate and prctice it out of the environment it is intended for and this will improve your skill once you apply it to the intended activity (figthing, playing baseball, etc) But if you don't do this first, you will be way less effective at that activity.
Once the skills have been drilled into the body and become second nature, that ultimately continues over to the activity.

I think this can be said for structures of wing chun. I am not just talking arm structure, but whole-body structures - which I think is the essence of any kind of 'structure' that exists in wing chun. And I don't believe this can be built 'while fighting/sparring. Improved, yes. But to 'learn' these structures whle sparing/fighting is going to take a very looonnnggg time, if possible at all.

This is one part of Chi Sau 'drills', as many view them, that I feel directly translates over to fighting. One of the focuses of Chi Sau IMO, is about difining and recognizing efficient structures (or lack there-of). If there is no structure, I strike. If a bridge is encountered, can I neutralize that bridge and then create an oportunity for another strike (destroy the structure and control the time & space or 'range')

this happens in fighting all the time.

Jonathan