Making Chi Sao/Drills Real

[Ultimatewingchun]

...so that it's closer to combat conditions.

Here's an example of a sequence we've been using lately from one of the TWC variations on the pak sao drill:

The man receiving the vertical wing chun punches starts in a neutral side (body) stance (ie.- a left side stance)...and the first punch thrown by his partner is with the left hand...so the defender steps/turns into a right side (body) stance with pak sao...turns back to the left with a pak on the next punch...and on the third punch - he steps up into a right front stance with pak - and then chuen (the bil that immediately slides in from underneath)...which becomes a lop - with a punch thrown by the other hand.

The puncher only throws three wing chun punches and then stops in this drill...the defender does his thing...and then they start over.

Basic drill.

Next..the puncher defends the pak/chuen da with a tan...and the pak/chuen guy immediately responds by throwing a knee into the mid section of the tan guy...

In the next round...the tan guy defends the knee with a gum sao (his other hand - not the tan hand)....and in the next round the pak/chuen guy responds by throwing an elbow to the head/face (since the gum sao guy has abandoned defending a high gate with wu sao)...

Next the elbow throwing guy does a snap down and wraps/grabs his man in a front headlock and starts to sprawl down (he also overhooked on the other side of the head wrap)...etc.

And the drill is starting to take off into something much more realistic since elbows, knees, headlocks, sprawls, etc. are now in the mix.

Or perhaps a kick was thrown against the tan guy (because he was too far away for a knee shot).

And after awhile all pre-set planning can be let go of....and it's becoming a sparring (and perhaps even rolling) situation.

[t_niehoff]

In my view, this is a perfect example of how to do just about everything wrong in terms of developing fighting skills: 1) you practice in a way (fixed patterns) that is completely unrealistic (nothing like it will be in fighting), 2) that does not start from the fight (what will actually happen) but from some "idea" of what someone thinks fighting will be like, and 3) is designed in such a way as to reinforce many cardinal bad habits (standing still, waiting for the opponent to act, reaching for punches, etc.).

An interesting experiment would be to take this to a good fight trainer, like Matt Thornton (maybe over at the SBGi forum)or someone like him who has produced some really good guys and ask an expert trainer to comment on how effective he believes this sort of drill is.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Someone pm'd to say that I "had" to respond. :eek:

So here it is:

Your view doesn't count. You're a moron and a bull5hit artist. :mad:

Now go back to your cave....:cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

Edmund posted this on a previous thread, but it is certainly pertinent to this thread:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PGIhccW8CGE

[Sihing73]

Hello,

IMHO you need to have a framework on which to build. With this in mind having a set prearranged sequence is not a bad idea. One of the things mentioned is the ability or intention to change to a free flow pattern once one becomes familiar with the sequence.

Imagine how much harder it would be to write if you did not have a set methodology for learning and practicing letters, then words then sentences etc. I guess all the "real" fighters would simply grab all the letters (technicques) and jumble them together any way they wish. I am sure that some words and maybe even sentences would emerge but I am equally sure that having a set sequence to build upon would produce more consistent and understandable results.

FWIW while Victor and I do not always agree, strike that we almost never agree with one another :D ;) , I give him credit for putting his ideas out there and being willing to discuss them. Even if he is wrong most of the time :p LOL JK

Why take this "drill" to someone else for their opinion? Why not provide your own idea of what would be a valid and valuable method of training someone in a realistic manner??? I mean after all you do Wing Chun and have so much realistic experience that you should have plenty of knowledge to share with the rest of us.

[Liddel]

In my view, this is a perfect example of how to do just about everything wrong in terms of developing fighting skills:

OMG :eek:



1) you practice in a way (fixed patterns) that is completely unrealistic (nothing like it will be in fighting)

I didnt realise everyone fights the same way in the world, under the same circumstances. :rolleyes:



2) that does not start from the fight (what will actually happen) but from some "idea" of what someone thinks fighting will be like

Your view of how people will fight is very narrow minded - like everyone's perfect or imperfect and fights with the same habbits with no inbetween....

Ive seen text book stuff work and ive seen out of no where stuff work.
Next youll be mentioning high low % - dont bother.



and 3) is designed in such a way as to reinforce many cardinal bad habits (standing still, waiting for the opponent to act, reaching for punches, etc.).

My recent IQ test put me slightly above average at 141, im not the smartest guy around (for arguments sake perhaps not even as smart as you T, LOL ) but i could certainly add movement, spontenaety and realism to what Victors mentioned....Which im sure he advocates.....
You certainly take things on a forum very literal, like its set in stone and its getting OLD :o

DREW

[anerlich]

An interesting experiment would be to take this to a good fight trainer, like Matt Thornton

Since you've been channelling him on this forum for months in the same fashion Matt(hew) Furey has been channelling the ghost of Farmer Burns, there's no need to take anything anywhere.

[anerlich]

Why is working off the pummelling drill good (it's even on FJKD as Terence, the Thornton channeller, would know) but working off chi sao bad?

I was doing this at MMA class last night, and with some related stuff, the instructor, a BJJ black belt, told me to seek inside control "like I was doing Wing Chun".

So, self-appointed grand poobahs of aliveness and enemies of theoreticians everywhere, what gives?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Drills are extremely important; and for the life of me, I just don't get why some people think they're worthless (I'm not talking about TN now - because believe me when I say that his opinion doesn't count...I mean IT REALLY DOESN'T COUNT).

Listing/analyzing his dysfunctional quirks of personality, character, mental state (as in hallucinating/fantasizing that he's really somebody else's left testicle - aka...Matt Thornton)...and analyzing his wing chun understanding and skill level (or the lack of it) would require too much ban width - and too much energy that I don't want to waste on a wannabe "hey-look-at-me-as-I-get-all-this-undeserved-attention" troll.

So enough about him.

But drills like the one described earlier are where you develop combinations and an understanding of when and where openings occur - and how to exploit them as offense...and how to defend them. Fighting then becomes like an action chess game...and spontaneity develops with mindful skill (not with reckless abandon).

Drill, drill, drill....then spar.

Drill, drill, drill....then spar.

That's the ticket, imo.

And sihing73...you kinda remind me of someone I once knew:

He Had No Enemies - Only His Friends Hated Him. :rolleyes: :eek: :p

[Sihing73]

And sihing73...you kinda remind me of someone I once knew:
He Had No Enemies - Only His Friends Hated Him. :rolleyes: :eek: :p

Victor,

If only I had any friends :( not even my dog loves me :o

[t_niehoff]

Drills are extremely important; and for the life of me, I just don't get why some people think they're worthless (I'm not talking about TN now - because believe me when I say that his opinion doesn't count...I mean IT REALLY DOESN'T COUNT).


This is a typical sort of "classical" response to criticism: don't rationally explain why the criticism is incorrect (that would require having actual rational reasons for one's POV so I can see why it doesn't happen), just restate your view as though it is accepted truth.

I'm not saying all drills are bad; drills can be extremely useful. But not any and all drills are useful or train good fighting habits or techniques. In other words, just making up some drill doesn't make it de facto useful or productive. For drills to be useful, we need to know what to "look for" in a drill. As I pointed out, your drill is unrealistic (so it can't develop realistic skills), it is "drilling" a low percentage/high risk movement, and it reinforces poor fighting habits to boot. So what is there to recommend it?

And as I said, people don't need to take my word for it (they shouldn't, just like they shouldn't take your word either) -- go ask some expert fight trainers about what the characteristics of good/useful drills are (because they know), then apply those to this drill. See for yourself. Of course, I know most people won't do that -- because 1) that would require they actually do some work and 2) it would upset their apple cart (their self-image, their ego-investment, their idol-worship, etc.). So they will go on believing what they want to believe. God forbid they actually question their beliefs.




Listing/analyzing his dysfunctional quirks of personality, character, mental state (as in hallucinating/fantasizing that he's really somebody else's left testicle - aka...Matt Thornton)...and analyzing his wing chun understanding and skill level (or the lack of it) would require too much ban width - and too much energy that I don't want to waste on a wannabe "hey-look-at-me-as-I-get-all-this-undeserved-attention" troll.

So enough about him.


Why not refute my points rather than attack me personally?



But drills like the one described earlier are where you develop combinations


No, all you are getting from them is coordination. Functional martial artists, from boxers to BJJ fighters, develop all kinds of combinations without resorting to fixed, nonrealistic drills (and they take those combinations they teach from fighting, not make them up and believe they will work in fighting). Moreover, this is a low percentage, high risk movement. If you don't believe me, show it being used reliably in sparring with good people? It's too complex a movement to pull off against a simple movement in fighting. And it involves doing all sorts of things that are just poor fighting (making complex actions against a simple one, waiting for the opponent to act, standing still, reaching for punches, etc.).



and an understanding of when and where openings occur - and how to exploit them as offense...and how to defend them.


Actually, it does none of that. Neither person is learning where their openings (or the other guy's) are since no one is trying to exploit openings. Standing still is an opening. Reaching for punches is an opening. Trying to do a complex action against a simple one is an opening. And so on.



Fighting then becomes like an action chess game...and spontaneity develops with mindful skill (not with reckless abandon).

Drill, drill, drill....then spar.

Drill, drill, drill....then spar.

That's the ticket, imo.


This gets back to what I was saying on another thread -- about how someone who can't do it (and certainly someone who doesn't and won't listen to what real experts have to say), can't effectively teach/train it. If a person can't recognize poor fighting habits (and it takes experience to recognize them) or what is low percentage/high risk technique (it takes experience to recognize that) and related elements of fighting, how can they effectively train someone to develop good fighting habits, to develop high percentage/low risk techniques, etc.?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Okay...I need a different tack to follow with TN.

Because of the game he plays - ignoring him totally is not the way to go.

BECAUSE THE GUY IS USING THE AGE-OLD TRICK OF TRYING TO OVERWHELM THE WILL OF OTHERS BY RELENTLESS REPETITON.

And human nature being what it is - you HAVE to respond to this kind of thing; otherwise, even though the message of the Overwhelmer is FALSE...people will get tired of making the effort to oppose it.

And his lies start to prevail.

The Republican/Neo-Conservative think-tanks have become MASTERS of this in recent decades - and their candidates (and their candidates' FALSE promises) have had much success in various elections because of it.

BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ON THIS FORUM.

Why? Because too many people know the following:

1) TN is someone with very limited wing chun skills - as clearly evidenced by his constant and relentless assertions that wing chun doesn't work - and that working with the material found in wing chun forms, chi sao, other chi sao related drills, wooden dummy applications/concepts, etc is useless...FOR HIM MAYBE - but not for the rest of us.

2) TN is someone with a huge EG0 (not that there's really anything to be so proud about) - but the DESIRE for recognition by his peers as being someone "special" is OVERWHELMING, and has taken control of his personality. Don't underestimate the importance of that kind of thing...a lot of very untalented people in Hollywood, the music business, the art world, the political arena, etc...

have gone far through little else other than making a fool of himself/herself - but doing it so relentlessly and consistently that they've managed to be outwardly "successful" - although inwardly they're an absolute mess.

3) TN, being the ridiculous (and phony) egotist that he is, actually thinks that he can set certain standards for wing chun instructors/Masters/Grandmasters to follow - but that somehow these same standards don't apply to his own wing chun instructor, Robert Chu. As if somehow we weren't going to notice - and that If he keeps trying to bull5hit/spin/talk around/ignore the contradictory meaning of it - that the issue will somehow go away.

No, it won't.

4) TN has a very serious, and quite frankly...PERVERTED...ego identificaton with the MMA fighter, Matt Thornton. When I made a post to the effect that TN was strange recently on a different thread...his response was: "You don' know HOW strange."

Aaaahhh, but you're wrong, my maladjusted little grasshopper - I do know. You're up Matt Thornton's a55 like a bad hemorrhoid. A seriously bad one.

And I'm not kidding about that.

5) TN contradicts his own arguments about wing chun and about the value of certain types of training ALL THE TIME - to suit the convenience of the moment - as if we're not paying attention. But we are...and we see what you're doing.

6) TN periodically hides (retreats) behind other people...the latest business being, "No, don't come to St. Louis, where I live, if youve got a problem with me - I'll meet you in LA, where my friends will protect me." Nothing needs to be said further about his - as the cowardly implications of this are completely self-explanatory.

7) TN hides and retreats behind "Don't judge what I say by me - for I'm not really a good fighter myself"....when his number gets called to the point where he starts to get nervous...otherwise he tries real hard (at other times) to convey the message that he, TN, really is a special martial artist...(remember that overblown - BUT FALSE - BECAUSE NOT BASED UPON REALITY...ego of his).

And it doesn't go away - it just periodically goes into hiding until he thinks he coast is clear once again.

8) And don't forget the business about him not showing up in Cleveland, Ohio, after running his mouth for months about how he was going to be there - and that he'd really show us something once he got there.

ON THE WHOLE - THE GUY IS PATHETIC. :(

[t_niehoff]

While Victor rants on about how awful I am as a martial artist, human being, etc. -- and I don't want to cause him too much frustration, lest he goes out and attacks some other poor slob on the subway (lol, when people like that think I'm a bad guy!) -- let's look at some of the characteristics of good martial art training (good in the sense that we can see for ourselves that it produces good results):

First, that you teach the element, the movement, skill, technique, whatever, to the trainee as they will actually perform it in fighting in every regard -- exactly like you "lifted" it straight out of fighting (the "snippet" of fighting). This requires that the instructor *knows* how that element really works in fighting and how to make that element work in fighting. That knowledge only comes from the experience of doing it for themselves in fighting, and not from any theoretical (this is how I think it should work) POV.

Second, once the trainee can comfortably and reliably perform that element in an unrealistic environment, then it is trained/practiced by the trainee under realistic conditions (mimicing the fight) as it will really be performed in every regard in fighting.

Third, that when the trainee can comfortably and reliably perform can this under realistic conditions it is then put into fighting.

What you want is a 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence between what you learn, what you practice, and what you do in fighting. When we don't have that correspondence, we have a situation where we are learning and/or practicing one thing but then trying to do another when fighting -- this is, at best, poor training and, at worst, counter-productive training.

When we look at how the modern functional martial arts, like boxing, wrestling, judo, sambo, BJJ, MMA, and so on, are taught and trained, they all follow this basic model/approach. And this is precisely what sport science tells us how to approach our training. The traditional model separates the martial from the art (which gives rise to a whole host of problems), while the modern approach trains the martial and the art simulateneously in an integrated way.

But, back to Victor, and he can tell you how I club baby seals to death for amusement and have never even studied WCK. Take it away, Victor! ;)

[JPinAZ]

I'm not saying all drills are bad; drills can be extremely useful. But not any and all drills are useful or train good fighting habits or techniques. In other words, just making up some drill doesn't make it de facto useful or productive. For drills to be useful, we need to know what to "look for" in a drill. As I pointed out, your drill is unrealistic (so it can't develop realistic skills), it is "drilling" a low percentage/high risk movement, and it reinforces poor fighting habits to boot. So what is there to recommend it?

I'd be curious as to what you think WOULD be a good 'WC' fight-training drill. If you know what 'isn't', you should know what 'is'.

[t_niehoff]

I'd be curious as to what you think WOULD be a good 'WC' fight-training drill. If you know what 'isn't', you should know what 'is'.

If you look at my post directly above yours, you'll see that I explain the process. And, I already gave you some realistic drills before on a different thread.

But if you want an example, here's a very simple one: to teach the trainee to use range/position as defense (the first of the five lines of defense), have the trainee face a training partner that is trying to hit him and tell the trainee his goal or objective is to keep just outside of the opponent's range, and not try to block or duck or otherwise deal wtih the attacks. Have the training partner attack realistically (you don't need to go full power at first, maybe 50%, but amp it up fairly quickly). You do the drill, then stop, point out things the trainee was doing well, others not so well (it's called coaching), and have him do it again.

Later, you can add other elements to the drill.

This (using range/position as defense) is one of the elements you will use in a fight, you are learning it and training it just like you will be doing it in a fight, and when you do fight, you will be actually doing what you've trained to do. 1-to1-to-1. The drill is alive and realistic, and is individual. No cookie cutter stuff.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Same old, same old....because TN is too unskilled in wing chun to know the difference between "cookie-cutter stuff" (nice, catch-all and meaningless phrase)...and the kind of drill I outined in the opening post of this thread. Or perhaps he makes believe that he doesn't know the difference?

Take your pick...but either way he's being totally delusional or just downright disengenuous...(as in...purposely trying to create a false impression about my remarks concerning the drill).

But the fact is that it's the kind of drill that teaches one where openings can occur and how to capitalize on them (and how to create them). I make a move at your head...your response opens up a lower line for a knee strike...your response to the knee strike might open up a line for an elbow to your face...

and all the dozens of variations thereof. (As well as distance issues that are being covered in such a drill).

EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND A USEFUL TRAINING TOOL TYPE DRILL.

And I made a point of saying upon more than once occasion that these drills should always be followed by spontaneous sparring...

but the clown prince of always trying to steal some more 15 Minutes Of Fame Headlines by endless repetition of Matt Thornton's ideas purposely bypasses what I said (and I'm just the latest example - as so many people have the same complaint with him and about him)...

because this is his game.

AN EGOTISTS' BULL5HIT GAME...used by a troll.

Like HIS ideas about drills are the only ones that make sense - otherwise, you're wrong.

No moron, you're wrong...and your understanding/skill level in wing chun is minor league material. Your ego is major league - but you don't have the knowledge or skill sets to back it up.

That's why you didn't come to Cleveland.

[t_niehoff]

Same old, same old....because TN is too unskilled in wing chun to know the difference between "cookie-cutter stuff" (nice, catch-all and meaningless phrase)...and the kind of drill I outined in the opening post of this thread. Or perhaps he makes believe that he doesn't know the difference?


Victor, my boy! I thought you said you put me on your "ignore list"? ;)

What I mean by "cookie cutter" is that I am not telling the trainees to all do the same thing (step like this, then do that, next go here, . . . ), instead, by doing the drill I outlined they will develop their own individual way of moving on the outside. And, equally important, I am not telling them how to do it -- they are actually doing it, by doing it coming to appreciate the combative problems involved in that situation (a huge part of the learning curve), and learning how to solve those problems.



Take your pick...but either way he's being totally delusional or just downright disengenuous...(as in...purposely trying to create a false impression about my remarks concerning the drill).

It's the kind of drill that teaches one where openings can occur and how to capitalize on them (and how to create them). I make a move at your head...your response opens up a lower line for a knee strike...your response to the knee strike might open up a line for an elbow to your head...

and all the dozens of variations thereof.


Except that it doesn't work like that in real life. You are creating false situations, false responses, etc. That is a perfectly "dead" drill, and one that reinforces many bad fighting habits.



EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND A USEFUL TRAINING TOOL TYPE DRILL.

And I made a point of saying upon more than once occasion that these drills should always be followed by spontaneous sparring...


That you follow it with some sparring doesn't make the drill useful.



but the clown prince of trying to always steal some 15 Minutes Of Fame Headlines by endless repetition of Matt Thornton's ideas purposely bypasses what I said (and I'm just the latest example - as so many people have the same complaint with him (and about him)...

because this is his game.

A BULL5HIT GAME...by a troll.

No game intended, just sharing a different perspective on how to train, and sorry that it happens to agree with what good fight trainers say to do (not surprising, really, since I listen to them and try to use their experience).

And, Victor, can you please call me some different names, your getting repetitive (and I know how you object to "endless repetition"). ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

No...you need to be reminded again and again that we all see/know where you're coming from (phony, headline-seeking liar with a dishonest streak a mile long) - and that we all know why you didn't come to Cleveland.



....................bull5hit artist who talks a big game - but who walks no walk.

[anerlich]

and I know how you object to "endless repetition"

Yes, T, and Robinson Crusoe he ain't ...


have the trainee face a training partner that is trying to hit him and tell the trainee his goal or objective is to keep just outside of the opponent's range, and not try to block or duck or otherwise deal wtih the attacks

Now THAT's unrealistic. You don't want to ingrain the habit of hanging just outside range while someone is attacking. Some trainees might even think this is a good idea when someone is trying to take their head off. Either run away, or bridge the gap, crash the line and attack, or do some effective response drills like Rodney King's "Rim Shot" drills.

I'll repeat my question about the pummelling drill. Channel Matt T if you wish. Can't understand how you could let that slip under your anti-theoretician radar. Or is it too hard? I have some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear yours. Or Matt's. Will I be able to tell which?

[JPinAZ]

If you look at my post directly above yours, you'll see that I explain the process. And, I already gave you some realistic drills before on a different thread.

But if you want an example, here's a very simple one: to teach the trainee to use range/position as defense (the first of the five lines of defense), have the trainee face a training partner that is trying to hit him and tell the trainee his goal or objective is to keep just outside of the opponent's range, and not try to block or duck or otherwise deal wtih the attacks. Have the training partner attack realistically (you don't need to go full power at first, maybe 50%, but amp it up fairly quickly). You do the drill, then stop, point out things the trainee was doing well, others not so well (it's called coaching), and have him do it again.

Later, you can add other elements to the drill.

This (using range/position as defense) is one of the elements you will use in a fight, you are learning it and training it just like you will be doing it in a fight, and when you do fight, you will be actually doing what you've trained to do. 1-to1-to-1. The drill is alive and realistic, and is individual. No cookie cutter stuff.

Why would I read 'post above mine' again? It gives a guidline/process, but no specific drills (which is what I asked you to give). Anyone can name a 'process', can pick those up in a few minutes off the net, read a book, etc. But it was victor's drills that you were saying weren't realistic, so was curious if you had some that were more 'realistic'.

And, to comment on the drill you lprovided afterward, Anerlich said pretty much what I would say. That isn't a realistic 'fight drill' at all! Unless your fight plan is to avoid fighting alltogether..
Also, if your drill involves no contact, what does it matter if the person attacking usues 2% or 100% power? Why would someone want to practice dancing around thier opponent just outside of striking range and not engage? Wouldn't they just prefer to run away as Anerlich said? This doesn't sound like anything that should be used in a fight, unless you are training to not fight...

[KimWingChun]

For this post to make sense maybe you will need to read the thread I just posted called "Fighting Definitions". Sorry for any inconvenience.

In my experiece, the ability to read and control range is a vital skill when it comes to any kind of match fighting (please read the previously mentioned post if you are unsure of what I mean). The drill outlined by Terence is also a great way to start developing this skill, keeping in mind that it is a skill to be developed and not a strategy to depend on - and yet still an essential ingredient in the overall game. It is, coupled with timing skills and line awareness a necessary ability to [be able to] setup an efficient entry against a moving opponent.


Regarding the pummeling drill vs chi sao I would say there is a distinct difference in that the positions in the pummeling drill are not dependant upon the opponent to be active in any way, once we're there (in those positions) the positional relationship can be "locked in" (by us) to a much higher degree with the use of over- and underhooks then can the chi sao positions (thereby we are not dependent on the opponent to do anything specific for us to maintain that control). IMO the drills are very different in character. Chi sao can be used to develop certain attributes while the pummeling drill has more of the 1-to-1 relationship with the actual in-fight application.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Chi sao can be used to develop certain attributes while the pummeling drill has more of the 1-to-1 relationship with the actual in-fight application."


***NOT TRUE...anything can come out of chi sao if you want it to. It doesn't have to be limited to any rules....you use the rules to learn concepts and principles, such as the centerline....certain concepts about energy flow and forward attack....

shifting and sidestepping footwork on both attack and defense...certain specific moves/techniques to create openings so that specific attacks can be implemented - such as...

palm strikes, punches, lop da, (grab/pull/guide, and hit - using two hands simultaneously)...pak da, gum sao, lan sao, huen sao...po pai...quan sao, garn sao, etc. etc... and how to respond to those moves with double handed defense....

you learn sensitivity so as to be able to deflect, redirect, or possibly even avoid an attack - and with movement...

you're also learning distance issues, ie.- regular double arm chi sao...long arm double arm chi sao (sometimes referred to as kiu sao)...which means distance issues now provide more kicking opportunities...from regular you can sense when you're in range to use elbow or knee strikes...and again - all of this also brings in shifting and sidestepping issues/techniques as well, etc...

as drills at first...meaning...all of the above is done cooperatively...then spontaneously...

and then from apart - and you're sparring (wing chun vs. wing chun)...

then you can take virtually all of the above and start working the principles, strategies, and techniques into completely different scenarios...first as cooperative drills...then semi-cooperative...then spontaneous...

against boxing, kickboxing, karate, Muay Thai, grappling etc...

and if you find that you want to add certain things to your game (ie.- I've added some boxing moves and wrestling into the mix....others have added some BJJ, or whatever)...

FINE.

You're in a position to do that - because you've mastered the basics, and hopefully more than just the basics of the wing chun game (ie.-close quarter infighting that emphasizes centerline/central lines, straight line striking, straight low kicks that emphasize the short range, and so on...(fill in the blanks)...


and then there's some wing chun systems that have a parallel arm chi sao that starts from front stances with just one arm from each fighter touching (and the same with cross arm chi sao)...first as cooperative drill...then "at random"...with longer range kicks (ie.- a rear front kick or rear roundhouse kick)...then staring from completely apart....

and on and on.

[Wayfaring]

But if you want an example, here's a very simple one: to teach the trainee to use range/position as defense (the first of the five lines of defense), have the trainee face a training partner that is trying to hit him and tell the trainee his goal or objective is to keep just outside of the opponent's range, and not try to block or duck or otherwise deal wtih the attacks. Have the training partner attack realistically (you don't need to go full power at first, maybe 50%, but amp it up fairly quickly). You do the drill, then stop, point out things the trainee was doing well, others not so well (it's called coaching), and have him do it again.


I remember one job I worked at a health club I made friends with a 5th degree BB ATA tae kwon do guy. I trained at his school a little while. They used to do a drill that was a lot like yours. They would start in a side horse stance. When the opponent would initiate a techique, the drill was to move just outside of range of the technique, and then initiate a counter technique to get in and close the gap and score. Actually most of what I remember about their whole point fighting approach was like that. It made for some very entertaining point fighting little slap matches.

Oh, and LOL at the full power shadowboxing. You don't go full power with a technique when someone is out of range. You go full power when thy are in range.

Do you have a "Dodgeball" team that can beat Ben Stiller's too?

[anerlich]

For this post to make sense maybe you will need to read the thread I just posted called "Fighting Definitions".

The definitions are OK. I can't really see them helping much in the anti-theoretician jihad presently underway, though. The confusion/kerfuffle is not about the differences between match fighting, defense or the rest.


In my experiece, the ability to read and control range is a vital skill when it comes to any kind of match fighting (please read the previously mentioned post if you are unsure of what I mean). The drill outlined by Terence is also a great way to start developing this skill,

I agree it's a good skill to have. I disagree that the drill discussed is a good way to start developing the skill in the context of learning to become an effective fighter. Too far divorced from what you are trying to do in a fight, as Terence/Matt claims chi sao to be.


They used to do a drill that was a lot like yours.

I think that's actually a better drill than T/M's. Better if you didn't do it from a static stance but moving around, and attacks performed at random intervals so that timing was required. Rodney King, for example, drills a step back to avoid the low round kick, stepping straight back in to counterpunch.


Regarding the pummeling drill vs chi sao I would say there is a distinct difference in that the positions in the pummeling drill are not dependant upon the opponent to be active in any way,

Disagree. The pummelling drill starts off as a cooperative drill where both participants HAVE to be active. You could clamp onto the guy for all you're worth and stall, but that makes the drill pointless. The positions might not require the guy to be active, but the drill itself sure does.

You could say the same about chi sao. If the other guy doesn't move, the drill falls apart.


Chi sao can be used to develop certain attributes while the pummeling drill has more of the 1-to-1 relationship with the actual in-fight application.

That's valid to some degree, though it doesn't have to be that way with chi sao as Victor said.

Why do you think pummelling has a closer relationship with the fight application that chi sao? IYO, is chi sao worthwhile or a waste of time?

[t_niehoff]

Why would I read 'post above mine' again? It gives a guidline/process, but no specific drills (which is what I asked you to give). Anyone can name a 'process', can pick those up in a few minutes off the net, read a book, etc. But it was victor's drills that you were saying weren't realistic, so was curious if you had some that were more 'realistic'.


The process tells you how to create any drill, provided of course, that a person knows how something is really applied.



And, to comment on the drill you lprovided afterward, Anerlich said pretty much what I would say. That isn't a realistic 'fight drill' at all! Unless your fight plan is to avoid fighting alltogether..


I sometimes wonder . . . look, like with any fighting skill, that is not all you will do. It is one element -- using range/position as defense; there may come a time and place where you will use it. As I said, it is a very basic drill. If it does come into play, it will be momentary. And this skill will -- as I said -- be used as a basis to develop others, like how to manuever if you are on the outside to get an safe entry (to the inside), which will be difficult to teach if the trainee keeps getting hit. ;) Funny thing is, I've seen some really good wrestlers and boxers use the same sort of drill to help teach offensive/defensive movement.



Also, if your drill involves no contact, what does it matter if the person attacking usues 2% or 100% power?


Because the trainnee needs to learn how to move when dealing with someone moving realistically -- quickly and powerfully, and while he may be out of range, that can change very suddenly, quickly, and with devastating consequences.



Why would someone want to practice dancing around thier opponent just outside of striking range and not engage?


For any number of reasons, like they might want to look for opportunites or they may want to choose the time of entry (as opposed to letting the opponent choose) or they might have been stunned and want to buy recovery time or they may want to survey the opponent/situation, etc. If you look at good fighters, they all use range as a defense and use it to set up offense (sound familiar? that's lien sil die da, link defense to bring in striking - not the commonly misinterpreted "simultaneous block and strike").



Wouldn't they just prefer to run away as Anerlich said? This doesn't sound like anything that should be used in a fight, unless you are training to not fight...

As I said, this is a basic drill, and from it the trainee will learn some useful things, how to move on the outside (unpredicatbly), how to use range as the first line of defense (later he'll learn what to do if that is breached, the second line of defense), he'll learn how to optimally use his body to move (being on the balls of the feet, balance, etc.), those things not to do (stand there in front of the opponent, for example), etc. All that will be used in fighting. At least, we use those things in fighting. For us, we are either on the outside looking to get in or we are on the inside shutting him down.

[t_niehoff]

Now THAT's unrealistic. You don't want to ingrain the habit of hanging just outside range while someone is attacking. Some trainees might even think this is a good idea when someone is trying to take their head off. Either run away, or bridge the gap, crash the line and attack, or do some effective response drills like Rodney King's "Rim Shot" drills.


It's a very basic drill to teach the trainee some things, most importantly being able to control the range and position on the outside -- and these are precursors to "bridging the gap" or crashing the line. The idea is not to just "hang on the outside" forever but learn how to keep the outside if you want to (for however long you want to) and how to use the outside range defensively. Because if you can't use it defensively, you won't be able to use it offensively (as you'll keep getting popped). Once the trainee has acquired that skill (can perform it comfortably and reliably), there is no more need for that drill - so we move onto to the next thing which will build off this drill.

This is similar to doing a basketball drill where you dribble around the court and your partner is trying to take the ball away from you. Are you just going to keep dribbling around forever on the court in a game? Of course not. But the skill of being able to move around the court with the ball without having it taken is one you will use all the time. Will doing that drill develop the "bad habit" of always just dribbling around aimlessly? Of not breaking away and charging the basket? Of course not. But you can't learn to break away if you can't keep the ball away from the opposing player.

Of course, a trainee could just pick this up in sparring (just like the basketball player could pick it up playing the game), but so many other things are going on in sparring -- so by giving the beginning trainee this drill, they are able to focus on developing that particular skill, in this case keeping control of the outside and using range as defense. That skill will be used in fighting.



I'll repeat my question about the pummelling drill. Channel Matt T if you wish. Can't understand how you could let that slip under your anti-theoretician radar. Or is it too hard? I have some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear yours. Or Matt's. Will I be able to tell which?

I am sorry but I missed your question the first time (it's easy to do that amid all the snide remarks). The simple answer is that pummeling is something you will actually do in a fight (in a tight clinch): fight to get the underhooks. And you are practicing it exactly as you will do it in fighting with your training partner genuinely resisiting your attempts to get the underhooks, and fighting to get his own underhooks. I'm sure you know that pummeling is more than just arm-swimming. So you get the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

I am not saying chi sao is a bad platform for learning some WCK skills. But it is unrealistic drill (both you and your partner aren't behaving realistically) and so can't develop realisitic skills. And there isn't that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I am not saying chi sao is a bad platform for learning some WCK skills. But it is unrealistic drill (both you and your partner aren't behaving realistically) and so can't develop realistic skills." (TN)


***COMPLETELY FALSE...and once again a strong indication that the person saying this has never really learned chi sao...and especially how to take all those wing chun skills (which he tries to minimize with the phrase "some WCK skills")...

developed in chi sao (and other related drills, such as pak sao/pak da...bong sao/lop sao,etc.)...AND MAKE THEM APPLICABLE from outside the basic chi sao platform.

Analogous to pummeling.

You take those skills/techniques/strategies learned in the pummelling "drill" and you activate/transfer them to something more spontaneous and live.

Bottom line:

THE GUY DOES NOT HAVE ANY SERIOUS WING CHUN KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL....that's why he has such a low opinion of the VALUE of chi sao.

Let's get that clear, once again....

[Knifefighter]

"
THE GUY DOES NOT HAVE ANY SERIOUS WING CHUN KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL....that's why he has such a low opinion of the VALUE of chi sao.

I think his opinion of chi sao is based on getting out there and mixing it up with a wide variety of different fighters. Many of us who have done this have reached similar conclusions. Since you haven't done a whole lot in terms of mixing it up with good people from the outside, you really aren't qualified to make a conclusion one way or another.

[Knifefighter]

It's a very basic drill to teach the trainee some things, most importantly being able to control the range and position on the outside --

Speaking of controlling the range and maintaining outside postition, this guy shows how to do it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyokcLPl8wM

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Since you haven't done a whole lot in terms of mixing it up with good people from the outside, you really aren't qualified to make a conclusion one way or another." (mighty mouse)


***TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULL5HIT ON YOUR PART, mouse...

Since you have no idea who I've sparred with over the years - or what their skill levels were/are.

And furthermore, before you even go back into your "prove it to me because my demands for people to show their credentials and my judgment about those credentials is all important" routine...

take careful note that I don't give a rat's a55 about YOUR demands for credentials and YOUR judgments...and YOUR pseudo-superiority personality disorders...

Because, amoungst other reasons (like for example - who the f..ck are you?)...it's already been established MANY TIMES OVER on this forum that you know next to nothing about wing chun also.

So who cares what problems you had making wing chun work?

NOBODY.

SO I'M GOING TO REPEAT THIS...TERENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED ONCE AGAIN THAT HIS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL IN WING CHUN IS VERY LIMITED - AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT HE IS UNABLE TO GRASP EXACTLY WHAT THE BENEFITS OF CHI SAO AND OTHER DRILLS ARE.