Pushing The Issue: The rules of ChiSao competitions.

[Tom Kagan]

In the recent JOWGA 5 Tigers Tournament 2007 (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46545) thread, there was a discussion over the rules governing ChiSao competitions. I took issue with a phrasing of the rules which, in my opinion, prevented any competitor in their ChiSao competition from using a core aspect of what goes right to the very essence of what is ChiSao.


Recently, I found a short film titled "Pushing The Issue". It is a critical view of the current state of Tai Chi Push Hands (Toi Shou) competitions. The film compares the rules used for contests in China versus the contests held in the United States.

Although the film deals with Tai Chi, it touches on some major components of the whole point of training exercises such as push hands (and, indirectly, ChiSao) and how the wrong rule set can seriously affect the overall worth of the training exercise.

Regardless of anyone's opinion as to the worth of these types of competitions at all, I hope you find this film as interesting as I did.

The film is about 13 minutes long in two parts. You can start viewing the film by clicking here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNAV_AurtKI&feature=PlayList&p=6D8AE20C412D0451&index=0&playnext=1


If you are curious and/or wish to show support the cause of the film, visit this website: http://www.pushingtheissue.com

[drleungjohn]

and Kung Fu student Mike Pekor was instrumental in this whole movement-

[Edmund]

Hmm.

Well that 5 Tigers Tournament had only one competitor in the Chisao competition according to the quoted thread!

The rules essentially don't need to be implemented in that case so it's not relevant what the particulars are.

It's a slightly better situation in taiji where they have legit comps in China which have established rules. I don't see how they justify having a US version that is completely different. As soon as a US competitor attends some sort of international comp they are going to be in trouble.

For WC, there aren't established rules that I know of so anyone can run their comp how they like and see who actually comes to compete. I'm sure everyone has their own preferences but it's useless unless someone else wants to play.

Given that there aren't lots of WC competitors, I believe most of them are happy competing with a greater variety of MA's under more inclusive rules - instead of a WC comp. There's more numbers.

[YungChun]

Very strange... :confused:

Can't imagine why they would choose a rule-set so radically different from the established rules used in China....

Interesting that the same direction—to minimize the use of force--would be seen in both Chi Sao and Push Hands... Perhaps this is in part a result of legal liability and/or insurance issues in the States?

The idea of not pushing <too hard> in Push Hands and not being able to move the opponent in Chi Sao is in direct conflict with the core purpose of these drills—the idea of breaking structure/balance. Removing the test of core system attributes only serves to remove any practical function these drills may have served.

With no ‘use of force’—energy—in Chi Sao, you ARE left essentially with a "steering wheel game" that relies on no power ‘touch me kill me’ moves—this we see too much of already. Although I think fighting would be a better test of these martial arts I think Chi Sao competitions could have some validity but only if core system attributes are required to be correctly expressed and tested, otherwise training for these 'games' will only serve to further diminish the validity of this kind of training..

[YungChun]

On an aside:

Any chance of getting that head judge seen the American contests to manage MMA/NHB competitions? There's way too much "force" used in those venues!

It would be a boon for all TMA... :D

[Tom Kagan]

One of the reasons why I found that short film so interesting is because I saw parallels in the Chinese vs. American push hands competitions and what some Ving Tsun practitioners' differing views as to what ChiSao is supposed to be like.


"'Don't meet force with force' doesn't mean yield until the other guy starts to get the idea to pity you." -- Miguel Hernandez.



A few years ago (before my heart decided to start mimicking my father's), I met up with another person who came from another school and wanted to ChiSao with me. He was about the same size/weight as me. I asked him how long he had been training. He said about three years. So we start to practice, but for whatever reason I didn't feel like trying to strike him. I was just working mostly Tsui Ma. A various points, I push him into the walls, slam him into a locker, lay him out horizontally over a desk, and also trip him up and toss him.

At one point when he really started to try and push me back, I stepped out of the way and pulled. He stayed on his feet, but stumbled halfway across the room and fell down on a bench in front of the opposite wall. At that point, I said "Well, since you're already sitting, let's take a break." I sit down next to him.

He asks what I think of his "defense". When I act puzzled, he tells me I haven't been able to hit him once yet. Surprised (and feeling a bit ornery), I say "What? I hit you with that wall, that chair, that desk, and when you fell down, I was hitting you with the ENTIRE PLANET EARTH."

Taken aback, he explains to me his ChiSao at his school is quite 'different' with the people he normally practices because they "do technique." Now I'm amused. I ask him if he wants to go again. When he agrees, I say 'okay' and mumble something about his "tippy tapping" strikes.

This time around, he attempts a DimJern which brushes my cheek, but it's a tap; he's got nothing behind it - wrong distance, no power, no balance so he can follow up. He smiles and says "got you."

I had enough of it. Following him as he's reeling backward, I punch him solidly 2 times in the body and an open hand strike to the face. He bounces off a wall again and yelps: "STOP!" I think he understood me that day. :)



Setting aside the whole idea of this drill becoming a competition, there are still rules to ChiSao. Everyone's class/teacher/lineage might be a little different, but the main one is that, in class it's practice - you work on your weaknesses. But, if the rules prevent you from developing useful skill which you can then, with additional training in other exercises, translate that skill into real martial ability, what's the point of the original exercise known as ChiSao?

Everyone talks a good game and says it trains principles, concepts, etc. But at the end of the day, they have to be THE CORRECT principles, concepts, etc. or the drill is an empty shell. But like the guy I spoke about above, implying someone isn't doing 'the real Ving Tsun ChiSao' when he can barely keep himself upright when someone pushes him - that's not it.

The short film above is interesting to me because watching the push hands competitions in China, to me it's hard NOT to see how such skill can translate to less restrictive martial venues. In fact, other styles with a greater presence in those venues actually have similar drills. But, much of the video labeled "ChiSao" found on the net reminds me of the American push hands competitions (at best). I've seen decent videos of ChiSao, but they are pretty rare in comparison.

So, which part of the above short film does your ChiSao appear to have similarities with and does it give you the cross over abilities to other venues? Would a wrestler look at your ChiSao and think: "Oh, kind of like pummeling." Would a Muay Thai guy think: "That looks like an interesting plum drill variation." Would a Judoka think: "Kumikata/Tsukuri/Kuzushi - cool."

Or would they look at the ChiSao and think "WTF? Is that patty cake style dancing or something?"

[Edmund]

So, which part of the above short film does your ChiSao appear to have similarities with and does it give you the cross over abilities to other venues? Would a wrestler look at your ChiSao and think: "Oh, kind of like pummeling." Would a Muay Thai guy think: "That looks like an interesting plum drill variation." Would a Judoka think: "Kumikata/Tsukuri/Kuzushi - cool."

Or would they look at the ChiSao and think "WTF? Is that patty cake style dancing or something?"

Chi sao is NOT just a grappling exercise though. Hence the similarities to other venues is CONSIDERABLY less.

Because striking is always used, if they go as hard as they can two people will very quickly land some damage on each other. This is the nature of close range fighting.

I think most experienced WC people know that unless they are considerably more skilled than their chi sao partner, there's always a good chance that they'll be hit. This is what's unappealing about the 5 Tigers rules. Since it's not full contact everyone knows it's going to be hard to implement fairly.

In training, there's less desire to win hopefully. There's no score keeping. You can hit or be hit and it's no biggie. You can go as hard as you like. The proviso is that you both are benefiting from it. And the philosophy of "a solid buttwhooping will teach him a lesson" does not count as a beneficial experience!

[Tom Kagan]

Chi sao is NOT just a grappling exercise though. Hence the similarities to other venues is CONSIDERABLY less.

By the same token, the other exercises I mention are not just grappling exercises, either. The similarity to the totality of everything which could be done within the context of the rules of ChiSao - especially when examined along side the very similar exercise of advanced Tai Chi push hands - is far greater than you imply here.


Because striking is always used, if they go as hard as they can two people will very quickly land some damage on each other. This is the nature of close range fighting.

And yet, other striking arts manage to practice with greater intensity and using greater power generation without serious injuries than what I've seen in more than a few ChiSao videos. You would think that an art which supposedly dedicates itself to infighting would be the FIRST to figure out how to train with intensity and power generation within its main training methodology without the great injury risk to which you allude. Yet, there doesn't seem to be consensus within the Ving Tsun community as to how to achieve this within the vehicle known as ChiSao. That's a problem. And, IMO, if the correct answer turns out to be 'you can't do it within ChiSao, ever', that's an even bigger problem for the style.



I think most experienced WC people know that unless they are considerably more skilled than their chi sao partner, there's always a good chance that they'll be hit. This is what's unappealing about the 5 Tigers rules. Since it's not full contact everyone knows it's going to be hard to implement fairly.

Agreed, more or less.

Many venues (including many push-hand competitions) manage to resolve the risk of injury with the need for high intensity strikes and everything which could result from high amplitude "unbalancing." ;) Ving Tsun isn't particularly special or unique in its requirements for safe but still effective training or in competition. Alluding to 'insurance issues' as an excuse to kill the very nature of what martial abilities can be learned/expressed within the exercise would seem to be a cop out.


In training, there's less desire to win hopefully. There's no score keeping. You can hit or be hit and it's no biggie. You can go as hard as you like. The proviso is that you both are benefiting from it. And the philosophy of "a solid buttwhooping will teach him a lesson" does not count as a beneficial experience!

Agreed, more or less. Both partners don't have to benefit anywhere near equally, though. Also, competition, at it's purest (admittedly rare), is quite similar. The root and origin of the word is actually pretty clear on this: "competere" - to strive together.

[Edmund]

By the same token, the other exercises I mention are not just grappling exercises, either. The similarity to the totality of everything which could be done within the context of the rules of ChiSao - especially when examined along side the very similar exercise of advanced Tai Chi push hands - is far greater than you imply here.


The nature of taiji push hands rules doesn't allow for common WC techniques like punching someone.

When that similarity is removed it becomes not particularly similar at all.



And yet, other striking arts manage to practice with greater intensity and using greater power generation without serious injuries than what I've seen in more than a few ChiSao videos. You would think that an art which supposedly dedicates itself to infighting would be the FIRST to figure out how to train with intensity and power generation within its main training methodology without the great injury risk to which you allude. Yet, there doesn't seem to be consensus within the Ving Tsun community as to how to achieve this within the vehicle known as ChiSao. That's a problem. And, IMO, if the correct answer turns out to be 'you can't do it within ChiSao, ever', that's an even bigger problem for the style.


If you increase the intensity and power you should increase the amount of protective equipment to avoid injury. Most arts which train with punches to the head use things like gloves, mouthguard and headgear to train.

There are plenty of ways to train with intensity without serious injury.
In MT clinch training, they do not elbow each other. They generally don't knee each other in the head either. That's saved for actual competition.

As I said, most WC people know it's easy to get damaged or inflict damage in close when you're equally matched. Hence making a competition out of how much damage you do in close is fairly pointless. Similarly there's no MT clinch-only comps. It's one aspect of fighting. Most WC people can just enter a more inclusive all-styles comp and do OK.

You COULD make a comp out of chi sao and people have. And they've come up with lots of different rules. I've suggested a few rules ideas over the years. But it depends on who ELSE you attract to compete. WC doesn't have the big orgs to mandate any standard rules.



Alluding to 'insurance issues' as an excuse to kill the very nature of what martial abilities can be learned/expressed within the exercise would seem to be a cop out.

Err. I would guess it is a big difference in the cost of running a tournament that is light contact compared to heavy. Anyone that gets KOed via strikes the insurance companies can just weasel out of covering. If you were hurt by HEAVY contact, it's outside the stated rules of the comp so you aren't covered.

Now if you can cover higher insurance costs for full contact, then it's no problem. Just get competitors to pay. Step 1 is get competitors though.

I don't think adding pushing but keeping it light contact helps at all. I recall someone linked some HK chi sao comps like that, where they basically just whacked each other on the chest pads a bit then went for osoto guruma over and over.

[Tom Kagan]

The nature of taiji push hands rules doesn't allow for common WC techniques like punching someone.

When that similarity is removed it becomes not particularly similar at all

Push hands - mostly at advanced levels - allows striking and kicking.


Regardless, if you wish to see the differences over the similarities, I can't stop you. ;)




Err. I would guess it is a big difference in the cost of running a tournament that is light contact compared to heavy. Anyone that gets KOed via strikes the insurance companies can just weasel out of covering. If you were hurt by HEAVY contact, it's outside the stated rules of the comp so you aren't covered.


I did not mean to imply there are not issues to address. I know how insurance works. What I am saying, however, is that there is no point to any competition or training of alledged martial abilities if you are not allowed to express them. To say 'insurance' is the reason why a particular competition or training environment chooses not to create an environment where such skills can be drawn out and/or showcased is the cop out. You might as well run a chess club instead.



Step 1 is get competitors though.


No. Step 1 is to have effective training. Without effective training, any attempt at creating an environment to showcase abilities and set a standard will be a wash. Perhaps I'm not making it clear, but that is the reason for my ranting. This isn't so much about competition, but what some people choose to limit their training to and the consequences of such decisions of which they may not even be consciously aware.

[YungChun]

If you allow such things, hard contact with punches to the head, I'm wondering if the contest would rapidly degenerate from luk sao into two guys using egg beater attacks...

There has to be some way to ensure that good use of structure and breaking structure is key in 'winning.'

[YungChun]

"'Don't meet force with force' doesn't mean yield until the other guy starts to get the idea to pity you." -- Miguel Hernandez.



Good story and nice to hear a quote from Miguel.. I can imagine him saying this.. Hope he is doing well..

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

Yielding should mean changing and making use of his energy...

[t_niehoff]

I did not mean to imply there are not issues to address. I know how insurance works. What I am saying, however, is that there is no point to any competition or training of alledged martial abilities if you are not allowed to express them. To say 'insurance' is the reason why a particular competition or training environment chooses not to create an environment where such skills can be drawn out and/or showcased is the cop out. You might as well run a chess club instead.


Very true.

And, how do people believe they can develop significant levels of "alleged martial abilities" without actually doing them realistically? To develop the ability to handle genuine punches to the head, I need to actually deal with someone really trying to punch me in the head (boxing) -- you can't develop that skill any other way. So if a person doesn't train and/or compete with others really trying to punch their lights out, they can never develop those martial skills beyond a superficial level.



No. Step 1 is to have effective training. Without effective training, any attempt at creating an environment to showcase abilities and set a standard will be a wash. Perhaps I'm not making it clear, but that is the reason for my ranting. This isn't so much about competition, but what some people choose to limit their training to and the consequences of such decisions of which they may not even be consciously aware.

The problem with chi sao and push hands competitions is that those drills are by their very nature unrealistic drills -- they aren't realistic representations of what really goes on in fighting (people fighting you are not going to behave or act like they do in those drills). That's why I believe they are only teaching platforms, not competitive platforms. So the drills are being "stretched" beyond their productive use. When you do that, they cease to be productive and become counter-productive.

With regard to "effective training", yes, this is core of any martial training -- and only by and through effective training can we see what is or is not effective technique, concepts, etc. So that begs the question: how can we identifiy what is "effective training"? The only way to do that is by looking to results of that training. Results in fighting (as we are trying to develop significant levels of fighting skills). If our training produces "results" for chi sao or push hands competitions but those results aren't mirrored in our fighting, then we haven't made significant progress.

[YungChun]

The preceding standardized public service announcement courtesy of Realistic Training Solutions Inc © 2007

[Tom Kagan]

The problem with chi sao and push hands competitions is that those drills are by their very nature unrealistic drills -- they aren't realistic representations of what really goes on in fighting (people fighting you are not going to behave or act like they do in those drills). That's why I believe they are only teaching platforms, not competitive platforms. So the drills are being "stretched" beyond their productive use. When you do that, they cease to be productive and become counter-productive.


While I'm ambivalent on this issue, I'd have to imagine if we could go back in time to when Jigoro Kano took Randori and turned it into Shiai in order to showcase aspects of what Judo was all about, we'd probably be hearing eerie parallels in the debate within the Jujitsu community as to the "proper" nature of Randori.

From my perspective, the main difference between practice and competition is both subtle and clear: In practice, you try minimize your strengths and work on improving your weaknesses. In competition, you try to minimize your weaknesses and play to your strengths. As long as a particular ruleset within either venue the correct nature and does its best to make this clear, I don't see too many problems with a particular choice of rules - as long as the progression and transference of a particular exercise/competition to less restrictive rulesets are obvious to anyone who understands what they are looking at.

[EBMAS Plano]

Here in the Dallas area we have a huge annual event called the Tai Ji Legacy which is an all-chinese ma event, to include Chi Sau and other WC events. Over the course of 2-3 years i watched a few with contempt, dismay, and curiosity.

Then i became acquainted with a fellow who won a few times and he and i were a good match for each other and he encouraged me to compete. So i tried my hand in '05 and again this summer '07 and i won each time. Even having won i can still get frustrated with the rules but that is only part of the picture.

So here are my thoughts: the quality of the contest hinges on the rules, the judges, and the competitors. The rules can dictate the specifics as well as the spirit of the competition. The judges will determine who exemplifies what they want to see, sometimes regardless of the rules. Lastly the competitors have to adapt (in the spirit of wing chun) to whatever the rules and/or Judges dictate.

There are no elbows allowed in the most recent competition and you had to be bridged with one hand if you wanted to strike with the other (and no kicks/knees). So i get a guy who thinks its a sumo or lineman drill just rushing in and our best moves are off limits! It was actually more work mentally and physically to be creative enough NOT to use elbows, kicks, trips, chain punches, etc...to defeat this guy. (back to the judges remark...who knows why they let this guy keep leaning, shoving, pushing, etc...?)

So now i go about them as i think more people should. Its not a fight, but there are lots of fight elements that we can benefit from. In fact in someways is harder than a fight / sparring because you have limited wing chun tools. You still have to be fit, accurate, fluid, and in the moment. The number one benefit to these events is the chance to roll with a stranger! Unless your a world wing chun traveler, you are probably a little stagnated with your local partners. As with most things in life, a little strange will do you some good ;)

Besides if we keep waiting for the perfect rules to appear we'll miss all the other opportunities, even if they aren't ideal.

Just my humble opinion and two cents worth.

[AmanuJRY]

Hi Graham,

I read on your website that Minh Ta did well in that tourny also...good job.

However, personally I lean toward competitions that are more like real fighting than an organized game. My point is, you can make a game out of any 'drill' or exercise, why make a game out of a technique/strategy (chi sau) that represents only a small part of acutal fighting.

Rule should exsist to provide a safe training/learning atmosphere, not just to serve a particular format. That being said, all sport fighting rulesets have thier flaws (you can't be entirely safe and fight no rules;)).

You have to ask yourself, why no knee strikes? why no sweeps? or kicks? Are these not part of WC/T?

Lastly, in an art that is predominately streetfighting/reality oriented, most of the techniques are 'dirty' (illegal in competitions) even for MMA (striking with the point of the elbow, thrust kicks to the knees, eye gouges, etc.). So, like you said, they take out the most effective techniques.

Everyone scores points when bowling with bumpers.;)

[k gledhill]

By the nature of our SLT idea and 'development' of said idea [elbows on the centerline ] ...through the distances of Dan chi...then closer Chi-sao developing the elbows idea...the switch from elbow /wrist alignment, and then to 'suddenly' deviate from this to using wristing force /sticking/pushing ...is redundant to me. The 2 ideas dont mix . One is using energy out at the hands to push, grab, etc... while VT is never actual wanting to be in a push hands contest front and center...the opposite, we are training each others arms to function equally to dominate 1 side or the other....I dont think push hands shares this concept ? They seek to do sumo'esque acts facing front....ok they can hit, but , rolling arms and hitting without our 'idea' ...what do you think gives a small person the edge when outweighed and facing a huge dude with 2 strong arms aiming his force at his/her center....right,he/ she is never there....only in TRAINING the center point of the triagle , not knowing which side to move YET ;)...this is the redundancy factor of attempting to morph into another system that on the surface seems similar because we touch hands and 'roll'.....completly different idea, never mind rules governing it.

[YungChun]

this is the redundancy factor of attempting to morph into another system that on the surface seems similar because we touch hands and 'roll'.....completly different idea, never mind rules governing it.
I didn't follow all of what you wrote, but...

They may use different mechanics, but IMO they also try to control the center, to use the opponent's error, to use the opponent's energy to take his CG, to uproot, to break structure, to apply and issue energy.. The techniques perhaps different, in order to be useful must have similar goals as listed above..

Much of what WCK people think of as Chi Sao uses hitting, but forgets about breaking structure and using structure and the opponent's energy, about energy issuing, things basic to PH as well as Chi Sao..

[t_niehoff]

While I'm ambivalent on this issue, I'd have to imagine if we could go back in time to when Jigoro Kano took Randori and turned it into Shiai in order to showcase aspects of what Judo was all about, we'd probably be hearing eerie parallels in the debate within the Jujitsu community as to the "proper" nature of Randori.


Perhaps . . . and we can clearly see from the eivdence of results today which side of that "debate" won. The sad part is that we continue to have the debate.



From my perspective, the main difference between practice and competition is both subtle and clear: In practice, you try minimize your strengths and work on improving your weaknesses. In competition, you try to minimize your weaknesses and play to your strengths. As long as a particular ruleset within either venue the correct nature and does its best to make this clear, I don't see too many problems with a particular choice of rules - as long as the progression and transference of a particular exercise/competition to less restrictive rulesets are obvious to anyone who understands what they are looking at.

I don't think there can be a clear distinction *in terms of what you are doing* between practice and competition -- obviously you need to practice whatever it is you are going to use. I understand that the focus of your practice can be on improving your weaknesses, but it can also be on improving your strengths. And, of course, you can't even know what your strengths and weaknesses are unless your practice corresponds to your play (competition).

The problem isn't with the rules of chi sao, it is with the activity itself. You see, you talk about the "correct nature" of the drill -- who is to say what is the correct nature? You? Why not some other guy who has a completely diffferent idea (concepts)? From my perspective, the drill can be *done* in many different ways, with the different ways focusing on different things. The "ruleset" only underscores these differences: you "reward" those things you believe important and penalize those things you believe should not be done.

To take your push hands video -- the US guys are emphasizing certain aspects they feel are important. They may believe doing things the way the chinese do only develops poor habits (let's say clashing force with force). The chinese obviously feel differently. Who is correct? The drill can't tell you -- because the drill is "reality neutral", i.e., you can play it in many different unrealistic ways. The test, and the only test, for how to "best" do the drill is by determining which way of doing the drill produces better results. And, it may even turn out that there isn't a one best or right way to do the drill, but that it changes depending on what you are working on at the moment -- that you can alter the focus of the drill to work on differnt things.

The usefulness any drill isn't in the ability to better perform the drill - whatever the rules - it is to develop better fighting skills. If it doesn't do that then it is a failure as a drill. To try and make a drill or exercise like chi sao some form of competition only demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the drill/exercise.

[YungChun]

The problem isn't with the rules of chi sao, it is with the activity itself. You see, you talk about the "correct nature" of the drill -- who is to say what is the correct nature? You? Why not some other guy who has a completely diffferent idea (concepts)? From my perspective, the drill can be *done* in many different ways, with the different ways focusing on different things.
[snip]
Who is correct? The drill can't tell you -- because the drill is "reality neutral"

I am not an advocate of Chi Sao competition and I understand it's a drill..

However the "concepts" can be quite evident in cases as Tom described..

My partner may insist he "got me" just before he gets launched into a wall. As I pull him out of the wall, we both know the reality of what really happened and what didn't. If there is no "reality" in the drill, if the drill cannot "tell us" anything then there is no use in the drill and we cannot learn anything from it. No, the drill isn't fighting but control of your partner or lack thereof is something the drill can “tell us” clearly.

[Edmund]

Push hands - mostly at advanced levels - allows striking and kicking.


Regardless, if you wish to see the differences over the similarities, I can't stop you. ;)


Watch some real comps out of China.
No punching or kicking.




No. Step 1 is to have effective training. Without effective training, any attempt at creating an environment to showcase abilities and set a standard will be a wash. Perhaps I'm not making it clear, but that is the reason for my ranting. This isn't so much about competition, but what some people choose to limit their training to and the consequences of such decisions of which they may not even be consciously aware.


LOL. Thanks Terence II.

What exactly would you like to do in chi sao training? I'm still not understanding what training "rules" you are advocating.

[Tom Kagan]

Watch some real comps out of China.
No punching or kicking.


I have.

Have you instead played with a moderately advanced Tai Chi practitioner directly and worked out a common platform for the two of you to "compare hands" with each other's training methodology and see where a potentially mutually beneficial training experience can lead? ;)

[Edmund]

I have.

Have you instead played with a moderately advanced Tai Chi practitioner directly and worked out a common platform for the two of you to "compare hands" with each other's training methodology and see where a potentially mutually beneficial training experience can lead? ;)

No I don't try to do any comparisons. I just learn Taiji from advanced Taiji practitioners and don't worry about the arts I've studied. They don't kick and punch in push hands.

It would be like kickboxing people in Judo. I don't require a common platform. I follow their rules. I am learning what they're doing not showing my stuff. The true common platform would be MMA rules.

There's always problems with any rules. You still haven't described what rules you think are good.

[t_niehoff]

I am not an advocate of Chi Sao competition and I understand it's a drill..

However the "concepts" can be quite evident in cases as Tom described..


The drill can be used to do whatever it is you want to do -- there is no "right way" to do it. So I can use it to emphasize whatever "concepts" I want. This is the strength of the drill and also its weakness. As I can use it to learn and develop (to a limited degree) all kinds of things, how can I know that what I am using the drill to learn/develop are good, sound, functional (will work at higher levels of resisitance/intensity) skills? The drill can't tell me that as it is an unrealistic drill.



My partner may insist he "got me" just before he gets launched into a wall. As I pull him out of the wall, we both know the reality of what really happened and what didn't. If there is no "reality" in the drill, if the drill cannot "tell us" anything then there is no use in the drill and we cannot learn anything from it. No, the drill isn't fighting but control of your partner or lack thereof is something the drill can “tell us” clearly.

You "define" the drill's objective as"control of your partner" but someone else may define it as "hitting the other guy". You launched him into a wall, he says"who cares" I'm not trying to stop that since the drill is only to develop "hitting" and you just went outside the boundaries of the drill. Another example, we do chi sao I keep shooting in with a double leg takedown. You may say "that's not chi sao" -- and it's not by your definition. So you don't see what I am doing to you as valid (within the "rules" of chi sao). For me (for the sake of illustration), I say that is within my definition of chi sao, and you just "don't get it".

Now we can agree on the "rules" of the exercise, and to get benefit from the exercise, that needs to be done. But even when we are doing that, it makes no sense to turn that into a competition -- and that's because it is an unrealistic drill. And in unrealistic drills, all kinds of unrealistic things will work (within the confines of that drill). Those things, however, won't work in fighting (under realistic conditions), even though they may work very well within the "rules" of chi sao. And so what happens, and it is a very natural thing, is that people who "play" alot of chi sao and aren't being guided by their results in fighting (can I do in fighting what I am doing in chi sao?) develop all kinds of techniques, tactics, tricks, etc. that are specific to that unrealistic game. You may, for instance, develop all kinds of ways of "controlling the opponent" that only work in an unrealistic environment like chi sao (if your opponent behaved realistically, you'd find you couldn't do them). So the fact that you can play chi sao well is meaningless in terms of your development of fighting skill. Chi sao has then become its own unrealistic pretend-fighting fantasy game. And even worse, people use that unrealistic pretend-fighting game to "derive" their "understanding" of fighting and/or fighting skills.

[monji112000]

chi sao in a tournament is a very odd thing. I have done it a few times and I probably will continue to do it. Why? well the way I look at it is, if I can pull something off on a unwilling person who doesn't know how I chi sao.. then that says allot.

The judges try very hard normally and are given a very tough job. The reality is normally its the players not the judges who make everything hard. Different schools push different ideas about chi sao.. so if we all don't say hay this is what we will call chi sao for the tournament.. then it ends up being a long afternoon. For example.. sticking, some people view this as only need in the beginning. Continuing from rolling hands after 1 or 2 techniques, allot of people feel that this isn't a correct way to chi sao (I don't support this view). You have the whole safety issue. Insurance, and just pure safety. You have people who don't groom themselves. If we allow face contact, how much? what about eyes? mistakes happen ALLOT. Then elbows? Well if real life elbows are fine, but 1 good elbow and its lights out. Yes thats a good thing to prepare for... but its all about safety again. Knees.... LOL yah it will never happen again safety. Kicks? most advanced level events allow kicking.
Again its not he judges its the players. You see allot of bill jee, people not even trying to stick or do Chi sao. ALLOT OF JUST PUSHING. Its hard to tell who is trying to chi sao and who is just pushing. Kicking is a real joke at these events.. because nobody can cleanly mix kicking into chi sao properly.. well nobody I have seen compete as of today. I see allot of karate kicks :D

For me keep is simple and don't try to do anything fancy. Control, stick, react. I competed against a Tai chi push hands person. He basically tried to push or punch every so often. His hands were very strong and stiff ... but sticking NO... control NO , chi sao techniques? no . Once I realized he would just try to push in... it was really only a matter of keeping a good structure. I will say that given these facts I should have done much better.

rules are really for safety and keeping it as CHi sao and not sparring. I watched a Choy lay fut player do chi sao. He didn't really try to chi sao he would just roll then detach and do some sparring techniques. (I will say that he would have knocked the guy out..) BUT if its a chi sao event you should do chi sao.
Its like playing chess and your opponent starts to change how each component of the game works. Greco roman wrestling, and someone starts adding strikes... its not greco roman wrestling anymore its something else. (good or bad I am not judging).

[Tom Kagan]

I don't require a common platform. I follow their rules. I am learning what they're doing not showing my stuff.


I've done that too. I didn't have too much of a problem with it once I figured out the quirks. The reason, IMO, is because the similarities significantly outweigh the differences. It didn't matter all that much if I played his rules - just as it didn't matter all that much for him if he played my rules.

Taking "they don't punch and kick" at face value: That's just a choice of technique. That leaves at a minimum 2/3rds of the respective exercise in common. (Some martial historians believe the similarity between push hands and ChiSao is because of a common ancestry/cross pollination in their development.)


There's always problems with any rules. You still haven't described what rules you think are good.

Neither have you. :D Actually, I thought I did make it pretty clear between this and the other thread if that the rules prevent unbalancing, that would not be good ruleset at all. That is at a minimum, a starting point and an answer.


In order for such a drill in any stand-up art to be effective, it must encompass three concepts (whether implicitly or explicity): 1) positioning, 2), Unbalancing, and 3) Mechanics of technique. (NOTE: not necessarily in that order). The rules can affect what is and is not allowed for each/all of the three. But all three are needed if the drill is not to be an empty shell.


You may say "that's not chi sao" -- and it's not by your definition.

Although I'd need to know more about the specifics of the way you set it up and as long as both partners agree this is an allowed choice of technique, it's ChiSao in my book. :cool:


Yes, there are many drills in Ving Tsun and ChiSao is just one of them. But *if* ChiSao is the main drill used to draw out a practitioner's martial skills, then it has to ultimately cover quite a bit of ground on the road to learning how to fight. If ChiSao is the main drill, to say the nature of ChiSao is to develop sensitivity/timing/accuracy in hand strikes (or worse, 'indicate' a strike) makes the main drill used woefully inadequate as the engine which drives a practitioner's learning of the style.

As an analogy, if whatever martial abilities are practiced and honed in ChiSao were this restrictive and ChiSao is the main learning engine of the style, it wouldn't be all that different, IMO, than saying the focus mitt drills is the main engine to learn Western Boxing.


Why? well the way I look at it is, if I can pull something off on a unwilling person who doesn't know how I chi sao.. then that says allot.

Agreed, and nice. I've met more than a few people who say "we don't do it that way" and refuse to try another way. Yet, I'm more than willing to try it their way. I like your attitude.

[Vajramusti]

Yes, there are many drills in Ving Tsun and ChiSao is just one of them. But *if* ChiSao is the main drill used to draw out a practitioner's martial skills, then it has to ultimately cover quite a bit of ground on the road to learning how to fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOM FWIW- am not into debates but wing chun chi sao is not necessarily a single drill.There can be a continuum of chi sao interactions.
But chi sao "competition" in tournaments that I have seen are pretty poor examples of the art.
Rules unclear and often not relevant, not the right skills are judged and often but not always untrained judges.

If the parameters are properly understood, people from different lineages can try it. Unfortunately, serious discussions on wing chun chi sao, its functions, its dynamics are better discussed- if they are to be discussed- over tea or coffee rather in the same old same old dynamics of net forums. You are now more active on the net now I gather and so may have different views on discussions let alone chi sao.That's ok.

joy chaudhuri

[Edmund]

Neither have you. :D Actually, I thought I did make it pretty clear between this and the other thread if that the rules prevent unbalancing, that would not be good ruleset at all. That is at a minimum, a starting point and an answer.


I said MMA is a common ruleset.
BUT there are always problems with any rules.


In order for such a drill in any stand-up art to be effective, it must encompass three concepts (whether implicitly or explicity): 1) positioning, 2), Unbalancing, and 3) Mechanics of technique. (NOTE: not necessarily in that order). The rules can affect what is and is not allowed for each/all of the three. But all three are needed if the drill is not to be an empty shell.

That's a bit too broad. Full contact strikes or not?
If there's unbalancing allowed, then let me hit drop ippon seoinage, yoko tomoenage and kataguruma.

[Tom Kagan]

I said MMA is a common ruleset.
BUT there are always problems with any rules.

MMA is a common ruleset for testing the result of training. I'm really getting more at a common ruleset which might comprise what is ChiSao - a methodology for training, and to a lessor extent, a methodology to "compare hands".

(BTW, my own personal view is that San Shou is a more appropriate rule set for testing the result of a Ving Tsun training methdology, but I suppose that's another thread.)


That's a bit too broad. Full contact strikes or not?
If there's unbalancing allowed, then let me hit drop ippon seoinage, yoko tomoenage and kataguruma.

What you listed were choices in the mechanics of techinique, not unbalancing. (NOTE: I didn't mention "Nage waza" in my second post where I suggested what a Judoka might try to interprest what they see when watching ChiSao. This was intentional.)

The choices of technique affect positioning and unbalancing (and what sequence things unfold). But, regardless of the choices of what is allowed, the quirks in the specifics of how a practitioner needs to position & unbalance are ultimately not so different that they would be unrecognizable as to what they are just because others have a different list of allowed targets/choices in techniques.

With that said, I will add that if two people agree that shoulder throws, sacrifice throws, and fireman's carries are allowed (I supposed at more advanced levels), ultimately, why, as you imply, isn't it still ChiSao?

Do you want full power strikes? Why not?
Do you want sweeping/tripping? Why not?
Do you want higher amplitude throws? Why not?

Not all of the above are necessary. And, they can be varied in the amount of power/follow through/needed prerequisites to help manage risk involved.

As long as the mechanics + positioning + unbalancing force imparted into your partner force them to react, I'd say it's pretty good. But, IMO, rules which allow you to get away with movement without purpose (e.g. the cheek brushing example from my 2nd post, the tournament rule from the other thread which allows "tippy taps" to be scored in the same manner as strikes), are not conducive to creating an effective ChiSao platform needed to draw out martial attributes.


BTW, I agree completely with your statement that any rule set has problems. But, ultimately, any rule set should be geared towards one goal: reducing unnecessary risk while still allowing the necessary skill to be developed without creating too many roadblocks for less restrictive rules.

[Matrix]

MMA is a common ruleset for testing the result of training. I'm really getting more at a common ruleset which might comprise what is ChiSao - a methodology for training, and to a lessor extent, a methodology to "compare hands".Tom,
If chi sao is an exercise for developing sensitivity or fighting-skill attributes then testing chi sao should be done by fighting or sparring. To make chi sao the competitive end-game in and of itself is a mistake IMO. I think it would take the focus from the skill development and place it on "winning chi sao" which is truely the tail wagging the dog.
The video that you posted showed exactly what kind of mess these type of competitions can devolve the art into.

[Edmund]

MMA is a common ruleset for testing the result of training. I'm really getting more at a common ruleset which might comprise what is ChiSao - a methodology for training, and to a lessor extent, a methodology to "compare hands".


What are you training though?

If you want to train every possible technique then the rules must allow for all those techniques.



What you listed were choices in the mechanics of techinique, not unbalancing. (NOTE: I didn't mention "Nage waza" in my second post where I suggested what a Judoka might try to interprest what they see when watching ChiSao. This was intentional.)


Unbalancing is not much of anything.
Just people pushing each other around in a limited way.
This is one of the complaints made in the video that you linked. Everyone in the US is pushing hands in a very limited useless way because it's run wrongly.



The choices of technique affect positioning and unbalancing (and what sequence things unfold). But, regardless of the choices of what is allowed, the quirks in the specifics of how a practitioner needs to position & unbalance are ultimately not so different that they would be unrecognizable as to what they are just because others have a different list of allowed targets/choices in techniques.

Sorry but they are quite different. I don't think you understand the setup for the throws. If I have to turn around to get the position for ippon seionage but I don't actually hit seionage I can be countered backwards. People don't just smack into the ground from being unbalanced without executing the actual throw. You only have a moment when they're unbalanced to do the throw.



With that said, I will add that if two people agree that shoulder throws, sacrifice throws, and fireman's carries are allowed (I supposed at more advanced levels), ultimately, why, as you imply, isn't it still ChiSao?


If two people agree to ANYTHING then they can do it and call it chisao but you just said above that you did not want to use MMA rules. You wanted some limitations to the rules to disallow high amplitude throws.

Honestly I think there should be limitations too.
But not the same limitations as you.


BTW, I agree completely with your statement that any rule set has problems. But, ultimately, any rule set should be geared towards one goal: reducing unnecessary risk while still allowing the necessary skill to be developed without creating too many roadblocks for less restrictive rules.

This comes back to my first question:
What skills are you working on?

I just don't see chi sao as the exercise for everything.
My opinion is that WC people should also spar use existing rulesets such as MT or MMA. For grappling/throwing, they should use rulesets like wrestling, BJJ, or Judo.

Chi sao is just another part of their training. In conjunction with the above sparring they should do chi sao in the following manner: Partners stand close together and hit each other. They can grab each other on the arms and neck. Use protective equipment - either hit vulnerable areas with padded limbs or put pads on the vulnerable areas.

Other stupid crap like throwing people through tables and ramming their heads into walls is just not training IMO. No crazy eye pokes or fishhooks or tigerclawing the balls or bending pinkys backwards.

[YungChun]

Unbalancing is not much of anything.

Unbalancing IMO is the foundation and core fundemental for any kind of attached combat.. It's not just about two people "pushing each other", more about how to use the opponent's energy and position against him.

A powerful and useful attribute and one that too few seem to have in their Chi Sao--via energy issuing, chung chee, toi ma and fan sao. :cool:

Lose your balance and position in combat in 'attached fighting' and you can find yourself in some deep schit...

[Edmund]

Unbalancing IMO is the foundation and core fundemental for any kind of attached combat.. It's not just about two people "pushing each other", more about how to use the opponent's energy and position against him.

A powerful and useful attribute and one that too few seem to have in their Chi Sao--via energy issuing, chung chee, toi ma and fan sao. :cool:

Lose your balance and position in combat in 'attached fighting' and you can find yourself in some deep schit...

You've lost the context.
I said: If unbalancing is allowed, then let me finish a throw.

Just competitive unbalancing is crap. There's the missing combat element of doing the throw. The nature of the throws mentioned mean that if you don't actually complete the throw while they're unbalanced, the opponent can regain their balance and counter-throw you.

Unbalancing without throwing, you get a little half shoving contest much like the American Push Hands being complained about in that video Tom linked.

[Tom Kagan]

Sorry but they are quite different. I don't think you understand the setup for the throws. If I have to turn around to get the position for ippon seionage but I don't actually hit seionage I can be countered backwards. People don't just smack into the ground from being unbalanced without executing the actual throw. You only have a moment when they're unbalanced to do the throw.

I do understand, actually.

What you say here, IMO, isn't all that different than me saying in my last post: a strike attempt should cause the other person to move - they react or get hit. "Indicating" strikes, like so many are wont to do isn't enough. The need to actually start that uncertain chain of possible outcomes of setup/counter/re-counter is a commonality. I never said the training has to identical as another style. If you read that, my apologies. Yes, you are correct in your implication that the differences are in the details. But I am focusing on similarities at the moment to see the parallels.


I just don't see chi sao as the exercise for everything.

Neither do I. As an exercise, there is quite a bit which does not fit its training paradigm. I'm just "pushing the issue" that, if it is the *main* exercise, it cannot be so limited as to be essentially an empty shell without transference. For instance, your partner cannot get away with simply ignoring "indications" of technique as a "counter". You don't have to kill them, but you do need to get them to react (And, if you can't "follow up" and throw a second strike, the first wasn't all that great, either, IMO)


Chi sao is just another part of their training. In conjunction with the above sparring they should do chi sao in the following manner: Partners stand close together and hit each other. They can grab each other on the arms and neck. Use protective equipment - either hit vulnerable areas with padded limbs or put pads on the vulnerable areas.

That's as good a starting point as any.


If chi sao is an exercise for developing sensitivity or fighting-skill attributes then testing chi sao should be done by fighting or sparring. To make chi sao the competitive end-game in and of itself is a mistake IMO. I think it would take the focus from the skill development and place it on "winning chi sao" which is truely the tail wagging the dog.
The video that you posted showed exactly what kind of mess these type of competitions can devolve the art into.

As I mentioned before, I'm ambivalent on the issue of what can and cannot be made into competition without detriment. As I said, this is not so much about "ChiSao competitions" but using the context of the original film (and thread) to draw a parallel to some of the disagreements as to how ChiSao is supposed to work. But, to take Judo yet again as an example to possibly draw a parallel, Randori has no winner or loser either, but it's usually pretty clear "who wags who" in any given round. ;) Can you say the same for ChiSao - especially when people cannot fully agree what ChiSao comprises?



Here, let's examine two examples of "Ving Tsun" training methodology which start from the rolling in LukSao but are obviously are quite different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuH-GYUHyQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWUIv_pVRTQ

Some people might call these ChiSao. What in those videos, in your opinion, is the key to calling it ChiSao? Alternatively, what is the key quality which tells you tells you it isn't ChiSao? (Yes, neither is labeled "ChiSao".)

[YungChun]

Fantastic contrast in training methodologies/thought..

Cool clip from Aaron, I hadn't seen that one before.. :cool:

I did count the 'fast hands' 'indicated strikes' guy ahead by about 237 indicated hits tho... :p:rolleyes:

[monji112000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuH-GYUHyQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWUIv_pVRTQ

Some people might call these ChiSao. What in those videos, in your opinion, is the key to calling it ChiSao? Alternatively, what is the key quality which tells you tells you it isn't ChiSao? (Yes, neither is labeled "ChiSao".)

The first clip If I was the judge I would be very upset with both players. I would stop the match pull them aside and explain what you are expecting the game of Chi sao to promote. Sticking, control, redirect, structure, balance, technique. Not sparring, you want to fight go do the sparring devision. This is how EVERY chi sao competition is normally. I personally have no problem with sparring, and even in chi sao... but I don't expect my opponent to drop his hands like that. If the rules say you can't spar (ie detach, hit the head ect.. ) then I try to stay with the rules.

[YungChun]

The first clip If I was the judge I would be very upset with both players. I would stop the match pull them aside and explain what you are expecting the game of Chi sao to promote. Sticking, control, redirect, structure, balance, technique. Not sparring, you want to fight go do the sparring devision. This is how EVERY chi sao competition is normally. I personally have no problem with sparring, and even in chi sao... but I don't expect my opponent to drop his hands like that. If the rules say you can't spar (ie detach, hit the head ect.. ) then I try to stay with the rules.
How can the first clip be equated with sparring when there is absolutely no:

1. Resistance given by the person on the right..

2. Contact of any kind...

[jesper]

The first clip If I was the judge I would be very upset with both players. I would stop the match pull them aside and explain what you are expecting the game of Chi sao to promote.

Uhm the first video doesnt exactly show chi sao.
The rolling of the hands is just a setup to the actual speed drill.

[Edmund]

I'm just "pushing the issue" that, if it is the *main* exercise, it cannot be so limited as to be essentially an empty shell without transference. For instance, your partner cannot get away with simply ignoring "indications" of technique as a "counter". You don't have to kill them, but you do need to get them to react (And, if you can't "follow up" and throw a second strike, the first wasn't all that great, either, IMO)


I agree with that concept.

My problem with your criticism that unbalancing should be part of chi sao is that the actions and reactions *aren't* going to transfer. Real throws require more motion than just unbalancing someone so just doing unbalancing is not going to train someone how to actually throw or deal with throws.

Your taiji video demonstrates the difference. When people are allowed to throw as in the non-US rules, they move in a more realistic way.



Here, let's examine two examples of "Ving Tsun" training methodology which start from the rolling in LukSao but are obviously are quite different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuH-GYUHyQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWUIv_pVRTQ

Some people might call these ChiSao. What in those videos, in your opinion, is the key to calling it ChiSao? Alternatively, what is the key quality which tells you tells you it isn't ChiSao? (Yes, neither is labeled "ChiSao".)

The first one was just completely passive for one of the partners. Even if the striker had clocked his partner with full power it would not have been an interactive drill.

Look, of course the partner must react in SOME WAY for chi sao. I don't think that's in dispute.

[Matrix]

to take Judo yet again as an example to possibly draw a parallel, Randori has no winner or loser either, but it's usually pretty clear "who wags who" in any given round. ;) Can you say the same for ChiSao - especially when people cannot fully agree what ChiSao comprises?In my experience the answer is NO. As for the clips, especially the 2nd one, I'm not sure what to say I don't recognize that activity, but who knows maybe they're onto something. :rolleyes:

Bill

[Tom Kagan]

Uhm the first video doesnt exactly show chi sao.
The rolling of the hands is just a setup to the actual speed drill.

I know that. And, more importantly, they know that. That's why I pointed out the video was not labelled as ChiSao. But, to some practitioners, what they consider the extent of ChiSao isn't that far off from that first video. That's why I chose it as one end of the extreme.


My problem with your criticism that unbalancing should be part of chi sao is that the actions and reactions *aren't* going to transfer. Real throws require more motion than just unbalancing someone so just doing unbalancing is not going to train someone how to actually throw or deal with throws.

I understand what you are saying. It appears to me what is being overlooked is my contention that unbalancing is a part of striking, too. Unbalancing occurs when striking effectively - wherever it may happen from initiation to the the aftermath of the blow(s). (No unbalancing = no ChiSao, it's some other exercise of much less importance overall.)


Look, of course the partner must react in SOME WAY for chi sao. I don't think that's in dispute.

Sitting somewhere in between the extreme of the previous two examples and unlike them, the following three are actually labeled as ChiSao:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qQKZVujVsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cBAZ1zCVzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2AP_IdGDQQ

What are the key elements of effective ChiSao you see or don't see in these? Are they reacting "in SOME WAY" which allows significant transference of skill to less restrictive rule sets?

[Edmund]

I understand what you are saying. It appears to me what is being overlooked is my contention that unbalancing is a part of striking, too. Unbalancing occurs when striking effectively - wherever it may happen from initiation to the the aftermath of the blow(s). (No unbalancing = no ChiSao, it's some other exercise of much less importance overall.)

OK. I understand. Then in the context of striking I think unbalancing should be allowed.



Sitting somewhere in between the extreme of the previous two examples and unlike them, the following three are actually labeled as ChiSao:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qQKZVujVsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cBAZ1zCVzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2AP_IdGDQQ

What are the key elements of effective ChiSao you see or don't see in these? Are they reacting "in SOME WAY" which allows significant transference of skill to less restrictive rule sets?

They are reacting in some ways that could be used in sparring.
They've got the key elements that I mentioned previously: Partners stand close together and try hit each other. They can grab each other on the arms and neck.

If you think they should be knocking each other flat, I'd recommend some pads.

[anerlich]

"Fast hands" was a demo. The other guy might as well have been made out of wood. the protagonist did have fast hands.

Aaron Vyvial's was the best IMO. More moving around, into and out of the clinch, trying to break balance and structure rather than trying to play tag.

The other three were all two guys facing off. There was no attempt to get to the side, use footwork, or obtain better positioning.

The bald guy in the third one looked to have reasonable structure and some speed, though I'm not sure his partner was trying that hard.

The fourth one those guys were just playing. no real energy or intent.

Austin Goh looked pretty sharp, but once again, just two guys staying square on and not really trying to get an angle on one another. I wouldn't want to get into the habit of leaving my chin stuck out like all the participants do either. He also appeared to be bending forward and reaching too. Al this is armchair criticism, he'd probably give me a pasting if we went at it.

Personally, I think trying to turn this into a competitive event is a mistake. If you want to compete or need to prove something, fight.

[YungChun]

Those last three clips were hard to watch.. Too much hand chasing, no or little forward energy, wrong distances for striking, no fan sao, no real contact..

[monji112000]

it all depends on the goal of the event. You can have elements that are good for sparring, but aren't playing chi sao. here is a example were the basic elements or goals that judges normally look for are not present. They may or may not be good for sparring but they aren't part of controlling the opponent, sticking, protecting at all times, fluidity, technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqQIHLDB8FA&mode=related&search=
I would do something like this but I would like boxing gloves and I will be happy to spar.. because this is just pushing and bad sparring.