View Full Version : Chi Sao article
Hi Guys!
The discussions about Chi Sao on some of the various recent threads got me to do some thinking. I decided to organize those thoughts by putting them into an article for my website. This is how I see the purpose of Chi Sao. I'll be adding some pics later to spice it up a bit. Check it out here:
http://riograndewingchun.com/gpage2.html
k gledhill
05-10-2008, 05:40 PM
Common sort of "how I see chi-sao" but you fail to mention the basic purpose of the drill..it is preceded by a one arm drill , that takes that development to 2 arms , then random attack/counter drills...
BUT one thing being developed the whole time even without 'contact reflexes' its in the dummy , same ideas....developing what ?
It started in the SLT...the young idea, basic set, little idea, 1st form....?
why would you wait until chi-sao to be developing IT ?
Edmund
05-10-2008, 06:15 PM
Hi Guys!
The discussions about Chi Sao on some of the various recent threads got me to do some thinking. I decided to organize those thoughts by putting them into an article for my website. This is how I see the purpose of Chi Sao. I'll be adding some pics later to spice it up a bit. Check it out here:
http://riograndewingchun.com/gpage2.html
You made the comparison between Judo Randori and WC Chi sao again.
The difference is that Judo Randori covers almost all the techniques of Judo. Chi sao does not cover almost all the techniques of WC. WC sparring would be the "equivalent" of Judo Randori.
In Judo you don't just come to grips like you describe. There's a fight for grips. You don't just allow someone to even get a grip ideally.
Lee Chiang Po
05-10-2008, 09:19 PM
Shi Sao has several purposes. But I think people get off into it to deeply. It becomes their WC actually. Chi Sao is used to train your weapons as well as your defenses. It can also work to exercise your footwork to a small extent. Shifting your center to be more exact. For instance, it is a way that you can practive the application of your defenses, such as Tan sao, fuk sao, bong sao. And striking from these techniques. It teaches you to use both or either hand equally well, and it teaches you to multi task with your hands and arms. Defend with one hand while attacking with the other, defending and attacking with the same hand, and back and forth. It is just a drill that works quite well. I find that when people do chi sao they like to compete as if fighting in some bazaar way.
In my life I have had many altercations, but never in a single one have I ever fought someone in the manner in which we do Chi Sao. But, I have used the techniques that we practice during chi sao. In watching a couple of guys Chi Sao I noticed that they did not use good form when doing these hand techniques. Tan sao for instance, is not to leave center line. In order to make it effective we shift our center to intersect the elbow or forarm of the attacker. This makes it work. When Chi Sao'ing I noticed that most will be making the tan sao off to the right or left of center. They did not shift their center to intersect contact. So if you are not real careful and do not practice proper alignment of center you will be subject to being hammered in a fight.
Chi Sao is a repetitive action. You do the same over and over again. You can use a lot of different techniques during Chi Sao, not just the 3. But you need to understand that is is just a cooperative way for 2 people to practice their defense moves. And you need to learn to shift your center while doing all this. You can even practice your attack moves as well. It is not a compitition at all, but simply 2 people cooperating to practice their skills. Mostly the basic stuff you learn within the first form. Sil Lim Tao, it actually means, use your imagination.
Common sort of "how I see chi-sao" but you fail to mention the basic purpose of the drill..it is preceded by a one arm drill , that takes that development to 2 arms , then random attack/counter drills...
BUT one thing being developed the whole time even without 'contact reflexes' its in the dummy , same ideas....developing what ?
It started in the SLT...the young idea, basic set, little idea, 1st form....?
why would you wait until chi-sao to be developing IT ?
Why do you always post in questions? Just say what you want to say! What's your point? I never said that Chi Sao was the exclusive and only way to develop IT. Its just one of the ways in a progression of training.
Chi Sao is used to train your weapons as well as your defenses. It can also work to exercise your footwork to a small extent.
---I would say that it is more than a "small" extent. :)
It teaches you to use both or either hand equally well, and it teaches you to multi task with your hands and arms. Defend with one hand while attacking with the other, defending and attacking with the same hand, and back and forth.
---Good points. I guess I see that as being part of both "good structure" and "contact reflexes."
But you need to understand that is is just a cooperative way for 2 people to practice their defense moves.
---Ah! But one of my points was that it shouldn't be too cooperative! If your partner never challenges you, you don't advance and develop. So at a certain point of development, it can seem very "uncooperative"! :D
stonecrusher69
05-11-2008, 06:40 AM
You made the comparison between Judo Randori and WC Chi sao again.
The difference is that Judo Randori covers almost all the techniques of Judo. Chi sao does not cover almost all the techniques of WC. WC sparring would be the "equivalent" of Judo Randori.
In Judo you don't just come to grips like you describe. There's a fight for grips. You don't just allow someone to even get a grip ideally.
In Chi Sao all techniques can be used that I can think of.I can't think of any techinque that can't be used if needed.
k gledhill
05-11-2008, 06:54 AM
How would you describe IT ?
How would you describe IT ?
And I'll ask again....why do you always post in question? Just say what you're thinking! Hendrik liked to play the "oriental master" role around here in the past and it didn't go over well. We're all here to discuss, not to be treated like your student. Say what you want to say and stop the BS.
Edmund
05-11-2008, 07:55 PM
In Chi Sao all techniques can be used that I can think of.I can't think of any techinque that can't be used if needed.
Bridging techniques.
Chi sao is after bridging has occurred.
Graychuan
05-11-2008, 08:05 PM
KPM blog:
'Chi Sao is a developmental training exercise, not an end in itself. It was designed to develop the range at which the Wing Chun system excels. This is often referred to as the “contact range.” It is the distance at which two fighters can reach out and cross forearms.'
I can understand what you are getting at there except that the explaination isnt complete. Just because Chunnas are touching wrists doesnt mean they are training a practical distance in thier Chi-Sao. Just as important is the follow-through range. Chi-Sao also needs to be done at a range where the strikes or attacks actually penetrate through an opponent not just strike at him/her. Touching is one thing but from that point is thier any real followthough? Are you actually close enough to hit with power from the contact at the wrists or are your arms already fully or almost fully extended? Important questions.
It is unanswered questions like these that make it difficult for Chunnas to see how Chi-Sao is the bridge between the art and the application, the form and the function.
Lee Chiang Po
05-11-2008, 09:37 PM
When I say cooperative I mean exactly that. You can make it more realistic by being resistant to your training partner, but that in itself is cooperating. You do what you can to make training more realistic. Like I said earlier, I have been envolved in a number of altercations in my life and have yet to fight anyone in the manner in which I do Chi Sao. 2 WC pratitionsers might be able to do this in training themselves, but if one is not trained in WC he is not going to be cooperative as such. This has proven to be the way of it. The techniques I trained were still good to go, just not like you would expect. And it is simply not realistic to expect anything more. I do not think about range, because if a man is close enough to strike me, I am close enough to strike him.
You can still grab and jerk his hands or arm down to clear way to hit him, and you can grab and pull him off balance and into your punch, and you do not have to have your arms crossed to do this. The cross armed training is just a way of training your defenses and also striking from your defense. It is just a drill that has little to nothing to do with actual fighting. I find it most useful in training your hands to do actions seperate from one another in a rapid and fluid motion.
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 04:47 AM
And I'll ask again....why do you always post in question? Just say what you're thinking! Hendrik liked to play the "oriental master" role around here in the past and it didn't go over well. We're all here to discuss, not to be treated like your student. Say what you want to say and stop the BS.
I'm writing for everyone to ask themselves , not just you ;)
Bridging techniques.
Chi sao is after bridging has occurred.
---I don't see Chi Sao as happening "after bridging." I see it as establishing and crossing the bridge. The Chi Sao platform is a way to maintain the bridge. The skill is learning to cross the bridge effectively and safely.
KPM blog:
'Chi Sao is a developmental training exercise, not an end in itself. It was designed to develop the range at which the Wing Chun system excels. This is often referred to as the “contact range.” It is the distance at which two fighters can reach out and cross forearms.'
I can understand what you are getting at there except that the explaination isnt complete. Just because Chunnas are touching wrists doesnt mean they are training a practical distance in thier Chi-Sao. Just as important is the follow-through range. Chi-Sao also needs to be done at a range where the strikes or attacks actually penetrate through an opponent not just strike at him/her. Touching is one thing but from that point is thier any real followthough? Are you actually close enough to hit with power from the contact at the wrists or are your arms already fully or almost fully extended? Important questions.
It is unanswered questions like these that make it difficult for Chunnas to see how Chi-Sao is the bridge between the art and the application, the form and the function.
At the "follow through range" you are still in contact....its still the same range. Its when you reach the point that you can hit with elbows or have body to body contact that you have moved into the next range. Then Chi Sao becomes more of a standing grappling situation or clinch game. Then it is no longer "classic" Chi Sao.
I have my answer .
---Then feel free to share it!
I'm writing for everyone to ask themselves , not just you
---None of us are your students.
You post a thread and ask people to discuss, then you get the 'hump' when questioned
---I don't have the "hump." Whatever IT is! :) Its just that few of us appreciate the "oriental master" act. If you have something to say and a point to make, then DO it. That is discussing. Playing the "I know the answer, do you!?" game is not discussing.
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 05:26 AM
My apologies for upsetting you. I bow out of your thread humbly.
guy b.
05-12-2008, 05:46 AM
k gledhill, I don't think he's upset, it's just that your form of nudge wink secret knowledge stuff is pointless on a forum. You have to put your ideas forth for people to be able to discuss them.
I've seen you do this routine many times before and I think you don't actually want to discuss anything..you'd rather wait for people to say things that you don't agree with and then s****** and appear superior. As I said this is completely pointless. Just say what you want to say.
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 05:57 AM
Sorry no more posts , Guy B. you can ask KPM :D again sorry for upsetting you too .
you both should be telling me what I'm asking ...its a common idea .
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 06:00 AM
I have my answer .
---Then feel free to share it!
I'm writing for everyone to ask themselves , not just you
---None of us are your students.
You post a thread and ask people to discuss, then you get the 'hump' when questioned
---I don't have the "hump." Whatever IT is! :) Its just that few of us appreciate the "oriental master" act. If you have something to say and a point to make, then DO it. That is discussing. Playing the "I know the answer, do you!?" game is not discussing.
lastly.....We are ALL students of the VT system...;)
guy b.
05-12-2008, 06:32 AM
Lol at you taking your ball and going home. I already know what you want to say. Maybe KPM doesn't but your method of trying to tell him leaves a lot to be desired
;)
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 06:57 AM
:D I cant say it in words , maybe I'll do a you tube link soon. We all share the same terms but not the same ideas.
Then you can all heckle me ;)
the hump= british slang for being defensive, upset ..."why do you have the hump on ?" or hes got the hump about something ...
HUMP.
I told you Kevin that I'm not the only one that doesn't appreciate the "oriental master" act. If you have a point to make or something to say, then just say it! Now who's getting in a "hump" and not wanting to play with others?! :)
guy b.
05-12-2008, 07:03 AM
We all share the same terms but not the same ideas.
Nobody wants to heckle the ideas Kevin, it's just the method of putting them across that is a pain. You also assume nobody knows what you are trying to say..maybe more people are familiar with WSL ideas than you think?
You should do a youtube clip
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 07:11 AM
I said its a common idea ..guy b has been through this with me as well so he's post hump.
I havent got the hump at all :D
I tried to convey the thinking but I get "the tan cant hold the same space as the punch "
Im trying to say the tan is just [basic] punch itself 'in training' for a simple strike in a more advanced state...same with Jum... are you with me ? or do you have the hump still
:D
Does asking a question make one an"oriental master" ? oops there I go again !
Does asking a question make one an"oriental master" ? oops there I go again !No, asking questions is good. But if after reflection people don't provide the answer you have in mind then it would be more helpful to provide a clearer and more direct explanation of your (or rather WSL -> PB's) ideas. It is good that you are trying to get people to think for themselves, but it isn't helpful when you keep saying "nope, try again".
Based on my level of understanding I can see glimpses of what you're trying to say. But I do get lost very easily in some of your more detailed posts. A shame (for me).
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 09:07 AM
ok...
SLT is a break down of arm angles for free-fighting from a face off. IOW we arent trying to develop a tan sao for use as that shape alone like a block , its a psotion for training a line specific strike idea later , developed through dan chisao > chi-sao etc...dummy etc...all the same thinking.
Attacking someone , not waiting to do a turning tan sao and other arm hits front and center like chi-sao.
So how do we achieve this ability to sustain an attack that doesn't stop to think ?
We attempt to overwhelm isolated sides/arms from facing us as chi-sao, so we get an advantage to fight with 2 arms , one leading , one following in a free striking idea , like any fighter hitting with 2 hands jab -x hook -jab -upper cut ...flowing at us. And yet we train [ some] to fight with one arm doing a block while we have one left. Why do boxers give us a hard time ? we are fighting with one arm at full capacity , while the other chase , sticks , does all the things to help the guy we are trying to pulverize.
By isolating our arm angles in SLT we aren't developing a Tan to do a lateral block while hitting with the other ...same for Jum sao.
These are the starting points fro the elbow to travel along to the target. Coupled with rear pak sao/vusao, jut sao' bong sao's etc...as after thoughts to a punch being stopped or deflected.....
he chi-sao is done to create each arms capacity to act as 2 actions per strike along the line before us. Functional at the sides , x ing over or parrying and going under etc...
we develop the arms not to stick and feel entry but to strike and prep for contact force , opposing our strikes and what we need to develop structurally , shoulders , elbows, stances , legs , hips...to deliver full body [ ours] shots with alignment to a point while our arms rotate as senk sao /tut sao to a target...the arms wrsits x our centerline slightly creating a natural 'pass it to you' partnership of arms [ours] that don't open the line for counter entry from someone attacking us ...it is a chain punch with more :D
Many do a jumming punch but don't do a tanning punch , because they are throwing a punch off line to clear a path for the rear hand...that clearing action should be done by both a punch and acute angle of the striking lead arm...attack leads the action, attack follows the action and so on and so forth...
IF ! an attempt is made to defelct stop the lead we use actions to stay facing that attack [ ours] by adopting jut sao [ from blocked tanning punch] to a rear follow up...all done at the speed of light . same with bong sao's ..they should be trained in chi-sao to natural shift objects left or right to our rear follow up strike , not trained to be followed by a lateral off line lop sao.... we use lop to regain the bad use of a lifting up and down bong [ up & down bong is wrong] why you resort to kick boxing in sparring , your trying to use it facing square on, try it from the side to a punch that has been xed at the wrist from the sides, turn the bong so the arm is shifted to clear a shot ON ITS OWN , not using 2 hands to simply throw a 3 beat counter or 2 if your fast ; )
SLT is the basis for the angles to strike...elbows in , shifting the 'facing' working attack lines with chum kil, chum kil is like shooting people while they shoot back...dont be in front chasing bullets ...maneuver to the opposite sides of the attempted shots. Avoid being in the path of two shots coming in move shift to isolate one side form functioning as we do....Even if it means allowing them to over chase you [ mistake] overturn , wwhy we do small stepping attacks, it allows instant line shift as opposed to adeep lunging lines of force/attack against us, aka trying to use force against you....we simply use the same striking angles /arms to wail at high speed , but using the chi-sao to hold our low lines of defensive counters , WITHOUT THINKING.
We can only achieve this kind of attack if we dont seek to stick /feel/ chase...but to simply attack and allow the lead hand [ man sao] to tell us the next shot if it stopped , xed over under..etc...then the rear hand follow's it...and the lead recovers the rear .
Doing chi-sao in a constant facing feeling thinking is wrong , redundant . Its teaching you to seek contact to become 'safe' functional, controlling bs ...your F$%#ing attacking someone not being safe ! :D
How good is that attack ? can it be sustained without resorting to sticking redundantly to let the guy your 'attacking' breath ? oh oh question !? ;)
We are like arobots delivering this angling constantly to a given line of force , all the time attacking with 1 hand at a time in the lead , only resorting to a 2 handed 2-3 beat counter if the intial assault is stopped or needs fixing ...ie bad bong sao' or loss of space to hit...ergo po-pais to shove the guy covering up back into strike range/kick range, down stairs , into wall, over chair...
Doing dirty clinch work is a mystery to me ? why would a smaller person engage a larger stronger one front and center to fight each arm delivering flanking blows to YOU ?
you should be training to not be ther from a face off...if sh*t happens open up your bil gee bag of responses to recover the out side lines asap and keep delivering the blitz ..dont stop firing or turn away from the shot line coming at you while holding center.
shift like a boxer use our tactics dont shift back jabbing shift to an offside to a following strike from the guy but staying close enought to counter that stiking attack with your own...and deliver a stop shot to his head ..or 2.
hows that ?
Cheers Kevin, still can't really say I got that but don't let that stop you! :D
Attacking someone , not waiting to do a turning tan sao and other arm hits front and center like chi-sao.Yes, I can't say I've ever liked this when I've stopped to think about it. Leaves you a bit open even if you can deliver the punch. And I think you've (?) already mentioned the "see-sawing" left and right.
Many do a jumming punch but don't do a tanning punch , because they are throwing a punch off line to clear a path for the rear hand...that clearing action should be done by both a punch and acute angle of the striking lead arm...attack leads the action, attack follows the action and so on and so forth...Are your tans always from the flank and hence to the outside of your opponent? If so I think I can see how your punch would develop from the tan and still maintain the "covering" elbow. But from the inside?
IF ! an attempt is made to defelct stop the lead we use actions to stay facing that attack [ ours] by adopting jut sao [ from blocked tanning punch] to a rear follow up...all done at the speed of light .Sorry, I can't picture jut from tan. Is the jut against their "other" hand/punch?
same with bong sao's ..they should be trained in chi-sao to natural shift objects left or right to our rear follow up strike , not trained to be followed by a lateral off line lop sao.... I think drills like bong-lap fuel this problem.
we use lop to regain the bad use of a lifting up and down bong [ up & down bong is wrong] why you resort to kick boxing in sparring , your trying to use it facing square on, try it from the side to a punch that has been xed at the wrist from the sides, turn the bong so the arm is shifted to clear a shot ON ITS OWN , not using 2 hands to simply throw a 3 beat counter or 2 if your fast ; )Again I can't picture this. Have you got the flank again?
We can only achieve this kind of attack if we dont seek to stick /feel/ chase...but to simply attack and allow the lead hand [ man sao] to tell us the next shot if it stopped , xed over under..etc...then the rear hand follow's it...and the lead recovers the rear .I was going to ask how you knew which way to move!
Doing chi-sao in a constant facing feeling thinking is wrong , redundant . Its teaching you to seek contact to become 'safe' functional, controlling bs ...your F$%#ing attacking someone not being safe ! :DI do have some reservations about chi sau that I probably haven't had answered to my satisfication. But, I think there is a difference between chi sau and sparring/free fighting. I do think that in sparring/fighting you should not be trying to stick because that can give your game plan away too. But in any exchange there are going to be "bridged" situations which is where the chi sau responses should fleetingly kick in (IMO). But I don't think we should then strive to always keep one hand on a detained limb and cycle through control-hit like we see in many demos. Maybe I am wrong about this. I am admittedly not very skilled, just a novice.
I would love to see a video of your arguments in action. Maybe when you hook up with Phil Redmond. Now he really is switched on with Internet video!
I do have some reservations about chi sau that I probably haven't had answered to my satisfication. But, I think there is a difference between chi sau and sparring/free fighting. I do think that in sparring/fighting you should not be trying to stick because that can give your game plan away too. But in any exchange there are going to be "bridged" situations which is where the chi sau responses should fleetingly kick in (IMO). But I don't think we should then strive to always keep one hand on a detained limb and cycle through control-hit like we see in many demos. Maybe I am wrong about this. I am admittedly not very skilled, just a novice.
---Did you read my article? That's pretty much what I said! :) Do you have other specific reservations to talk about?
Hey Kevin!
---You expected me to come up with all of this by just asking me what "IT" is?? :eek:
SLT is a break down of arm angles for free-fighting from a face off. IOW we arent trying to develop a tan sao for use as that shape alone like a block , its a psotion for training a line specific strike idea later , developed through dan chisao > chi-sao etc...dummy etc...all the same thinking.
---I agree. We are training lines and angles more than specific techniques.
Why do boxers give us a hard time ? we are fighting with one arm at full capacity , while the other chase , sticks , does all the things to help the guy we are trying to pulverize.
---And that is one of the things that Chi Sao training helps up overcome. Both arms should be active and ready!
These are the starting points fro the elbow to travel along to the target. Coupled with rear pak sao/vusao, jut sao' bong sao's etc...as after thoughts to a punch being stopped or deflected.....
---Ok. I follow you. The idea is training a line, not a specific technique.
we develop the arms not to stick and feel entry but to strike and prep for contact force ,
---I would say its both....not either/or.
the arms wrsits x our centerline slightly creating a natural 'pass it to you' partnership of arms [ours] that don't open the line for counter entry
---Sure! That's the whole point of maintaining forward pressure. :)
Many do a jumming punch but don't do a tanning punch , because they are throwing a punch off line to clear a path for the rear hand...that clearing action should be done by both a punch and acute angle of the striking lead arm...attack leads the action, attack follows the action and so on and so forth...
---This is where your ideas get kind of hazzy for me. I can see the point that we are learning lines of movement and not a specific technique. But that line of movement can become a specific technique like a Tan or a punch. But its either one or the other. In the past you seemed to be saying it was both at the same time, which is what was confusing to me. The action may start as a punch and convert to a Tan if interrupted, but even then it is not both at the same time.
IF ! an attempt is made to defelct stop the lead we use actions to stay facing that attack [ ours] by adopting jut sao [ from blocked tanning punch] to a rear follow up...all done at the speed of light .
----I see what you are calling a "tanning punch" as cutting the opponent's line from the inside outward. To me, that is the line that is being used in the SLT form. So I don't see how it would then convert to a Jut Sao, since the Jut Sao moves inward.....unless you huen around to the outside of his block first?
bong sao's ..they should be trained in chi-sao to natural shift objects left or right to our rear follow up strike , not trained to be followed by a lateral off line lop sao.... we use lop to regain the bad use of a lifting up and down bong [ up & down bong is wrong]
---I agree with the idea that the lifting Bong is not a great application, though sometimes necessary. But I see the Lop Sao as more than just a recovery from a bad Bong. It can be used to move the opponent and break his base when done properly.
why you resort to kick boxing in sparring , your trying to use it facing square on, try it from the side to a punch that has been xed at the wrist from the sides, turn the bong so the arm is shifted to clear a shot ON ITS OWN , not using 2 hands to simply throw a 3 beat counter or 2 if your fast ; )
---That one's kind of convulated. Not sure I follow you.
SLT is the basis for the angles to strike...elbows in , shifting the 'facing' working attack lines with chum kil, chum kil is like shooting people while they shoot back...dont be in front chasing bullets ...maneuver to the opposite sides of the attempted shots. Avoid being in the path of two shots coming in move shift to isolate one side
---Good explanation for Chum Kiu! I like that analogy. :)
We can only achieve this kind of attack if we dont seek to stick /feel/ chase...but to simply attack and allow the lead hand [ man sao] to tell us the next shot if it stopped , xed over under..etc...then the rear hand follow's it...and the lead recovers the rear .
---I see what you're saying here, but if the lead hand is going to "tell us the next shot" isn't it because it was sticking and feeling the reaction from the opponent? I agree with not chasing hands. But a big part of the contact reflexes developed in Chi Sao involve sticking and feeling for just that brief moment it takes to get a read on what the opponent is doing.
Doing chi-sao in a constant facing feeling thinking is wrong , redundant . Its teaching you to seek contact to become 'safe' functional, controlling bs ...your F$%#ing attacking someone not being safe ! :D
---I agree. That's doing Chi Sao without good forward pressure and without the partners challenging each other's structure and position.
Doing dirty clinch work is a mystery to me ? why would a smaller person engage a larger stronger one front and center to fight each arm delivering flanking blows to YOU ?
---Maybe because he was unable to keep the other guy from moving in on him and coming to the clinch!? Maybe because the other guy didn't stop HIM from moving in? I see the clinch range as a natural progression from Chi Sao if you haven't knocked the guy down or out with a blow and he is still there as you move in.
you should be training to not be ther from a face off...if sh*t happens open up your bil gee bag of responses to recover the out side lines asap and keep delivering the blitz ..dont stop firing or turn away from the shot line coming at you while holding center.
---Right! Take his space and smash his face! :D
hows that ?
---Better! Thanks! :)
k gledhill
05-12-2008, 11:44 AM
Hey Kevin!
---You expected me to come up with all of this by just asking me what "IT" is?? :eek:
SLT is a break down of arm angles for free-fighting from a face off. IOW we arent trying to develop a tan sao for use as that shape alone like a block , its a psotion for training a line specific strike idea later , developed through dan chisao > chi-sao etc...dummy etc...all the same thinking.
---I agree. We are training lines and angles more than specific techniques.
acute 'cutting lines' from tight elbow training..
Why do boxers give us a hard time ? we are fighting with one arm at full capacity , while the other chase , sticks , does all the things to help the guy we are trying to pulverize.
---And that is one of the things that Chi Sao training helps up overcome. Both arms should be active and ready!
given
These are the starting points fro the elbow to travel along to the target. Coupled with rear pak sao/vusao, jut sao' bong sao's etc...as after thoughts to a punch being stopped or deflected.....
---Ok. I follow you. The idea is training a line, not a specific technique.
ok
we develop the arms not to stick and feel entry but to strike and prep for contact force ,
---I would say its both....not either/or.
primarily to strike with alignmnet of a pole strike all force to the tip
the arms wrsits x our centerline slightly creating a natural 'pass it to you' partnership of arms [ours] that don't open the line for counter entry
---Sure! That's the whole point of maintaining forward pressure. :)
sorry me again, but your confusing with my lead hand striking in a freefight passes whatever to the now 'taking its place AND covering my line attacking in'
NOT with a partner in forward pressure chi-sao thinking...
Many do a jumming punch but don't do a tanning punch , because they are throwing a punch off line to clear a path for the rear hand...that clearing action should be done by both a punch and acute angle of the striking lead arm...attack leads the action, attack follows the action and so on and so forth...
---This is where your ideas get kind of hazzy for me. I can see the point that we are learning lines of movement and not a specific technique. But that line of movement can become a specific technique like a Tan or a punch. But its either one or the other. In the past you seemed to be saying it was both at the same time, which is what was confusing to me. The action may start as a punch and convert to a Tan if interrupted, but even then it is not both at the same time.
the tan elbow spreads the guys arm out side our 'inner triangle of space' tans go to form ther outside angle [either side depending which flank is attacked] the jum holds thew center as they swap...striking in altarnating along the flank..like mentioned we are talking a few moves to a strike WSL normally didnt use more than 3 .
The tan points like a gun and fire across abridged arm keeping the elbow low as it expands off our centerlines , striking forwards, the elbow acts like a pak...the following jumming force inward keeps the line shut ..
IF ! an attempt is made to defelct stop the lead we use actions to stay facing that attack [ ours] by adopting jut sao [ from blocked tanning punch] to a rear follow up...all done at the speed of light .
----I see what you are calling a "tanning punch" as cutting the opponent's line from the inside outward. To me, that is the line that is being used in the SLT form. So I don't see how it would then convert to a Jut Sao, since the Jut Sao moves inward.....unless you huen around to the outside of his block first?
our lead tan or jum strike doent fight the other arm because it can treach or is unable to develop force, flanking attacking like knives isolates and weakens the guy to one knife against our 2.
if an arm stops a tanpunching arm [left outsde forearm v left punch or left arm position] we simply apply shocking force in the same position to JUT the arm down for the rear vusao to strike in...as chum kil [ only the tan with a jut is done to the wrist area not like an arm break :rolleyes:] in chum kil we jut our own arms and do a tan to get the elbow in to strike again..
remember tan is a punch in training its palm open , fighting you dont see a plam open unless you make it so.
bong sao's ..they should be trained in chi-sao to natural shift objects left or right to our rear follow up strike , not trained to be followed by a lateral off line lop sao.... we use lop to regain the bad use of a lifting up and down bong [ up & down bong is wrong]
---I agree with the idea that the lifting Bong is not a great application, though sometimes necessary. But I see the Lop Sao as more than just a recovery from a bad Bong. It can be used to move the opponent and break his base when done properly.
thats why lop is in bil gee not SLT...agreed. you stop my attack I twist you on your axis point with lop. head to floor I open you like a gate with your arm.
why you resort to kick boxing in sparring , your trying to use it facing square on, try it from the side to a punch that has been xed at the wrist from the sides, turn the bong so the arm is shifted to clear a shot ON ITS OWN , not using 2 hands to simply throw a 3 beat counter or 2 if your fast ; )
---That one's kind of convulated. Not sure I follow you.
bong is like a boxers raised arm deflecting a punch at his head from under the punch, only we strive to knock it sideways so we can puch with the free hand ...not tie ourselves up using 2 for 1 always ...sloooow.
SLT is the basis for the angles to strike...elbows in , shifting the 'facing' working attack lines with chum kil, chum kil is like shooting people while they shoot back...dont be in front chasing bullets ...maneuver to the opposite sides of the attempted shots. Avoid being in the path of two shots coming in move shift to isolate one side
---Good explanation for Chum Kiu! I like that analogy. :)
straight from PB firing a rifle in your stance shifting to avoid water in a pending water fight
We can only achieve this kind of attack if we dont seek to stick /feel/ chase...but to simply attack and allow the lead hand [ man sao] to tell us the next shot if it stopped , xed over under..etc...then the rear hand follow's it...and the lead recovers the rear .
---I see what you're saying here, but if the lead hand is going to "tell us the next shot" isn't it because it was sticking and feeling the reaction from the opponent? I agree with not chasing hands. But a big part of the contact reflexes developed in Chi Sao involve sticking and feeling for just that brief moment it takes to get a read on what the opponent is doing.
the only reason we stop to feel is because they made us by interrupting the attack lines [ chi-sao kicks in unthinking to recover the attack not suddenly stop n chill on their arm ]...if I attack anyone longer than they attack me who has a better % ? ah ? again :D they found our arms not us find theirs we should be hrowing punches along a shifting chasing attacking flank available, even if its them just turning their lines wildly to avoid us.
Doing chi-sao in a constant facing feeling thinking is wrong , redundant . Its teaching you to seek contact to become 'safe' functional, controlling bs ...your F$%#ing attacking someone not being safe ! :D
---I agree. That's doing Chi Sao without good forward pressure and without the partners challenging each other's structure and position.
Doing dirty clinch work is a mystery to me ? why would a smaller person engage a larger stronger one front and center to fight each arm delivering flanking blows to YOU ?
---Maybe because he was unable to keep the other guy from moving in on him and coming to the clinch!? Maybe because the other guy didn't stop HIM from moving in? I see the clinch range as a natural progression from Chi Sao if you haven't knocked the guy down or out with a blow and he is still there as you move in.
You can use anything if it works for you, I have used it fighting guys who are ina standing scrum in bars fighting each other, I use the 'force' to shift them like a huge beach balloon out the exit. :D
you should be training to not be ther from a face off...if sh*t happens open up your bil gee bag of responses to recover the out side lines asap and keep delivering the blitz ..dont stop firing or turn away from the shot line coming at you while holding center.
---Right! Take his space and smash his face! :D
hows that ?
---Better! Thanks! :)
usually it takes one good timed smash to change a guys intent.
Edmund
05-12-2008, 05:21 PM
---I don't see Chi Sao as happening "after bridging." I see it as establishing and crossing the bridge.
If you feel that way then what bridge-establishing techniques do you practice in chi sao?
If you feel that way then what bridge-establishing techniques do you practice in chi sao?
Uh...touching forearms! :rolleyes:
k gledhill
05-13-2008, 06:38 AM
We are developing striking USING a partner to achieve this simple ability.
A fight starts from space and time to react to movement along certain paths towards you.
We develop a shape before us that our arms travel along in rotation, that intersect naturally , anything coming into them, like a spider web. The web doesn't go after the fly . It stays put , the vibrations tell the spider it's dinner time.
Our arms are a web , each one takes the lead and rear in a constant swap, we train for in SLT, we add striking to the deflecting 'web' angles. Then we maneuver the angles to the incoming fly ...the fly may just fly into the spiders mouth without touching the web...we just hit the head , over...or the fly attempts to avoid the spider and strikes the web at odd angles..the spider doesn't care because it just goes for the fly ..it doesn't worry about the web the web is by design just there alternating as it goes for lunch. It is trained to be a strong web that doesnt tear easily from a simple wind passing [ that didnt sound right :D]
The web doesn't chase after the flies.
ergo the arms are being developed to strike along our lines , relative to us , as we angle ourselves to make them the most efficient. dealing with one fly at a time . not turning one way for one fly and another for the other..if we adopt one side and go in we can devour both in one fell swoop...either left to right or right to left...it only matters how the flies fly that we know were to start.
silly analogy but sometimes they work
Hey Kevin!
We develop a shape before us that our arms travel along in rotation, that intersect naturally , anything coming into them, like a spider web. The web doesn't go after the fly . It stays put , the vibrations tell the spider it's dinner time.
Our arms are a web , each one takes the lead and rear in a constant swap, we train for in SLT, we add striking to the deflecting 'web' angles. Then we maneuver the angles to the incoming fly ...the fly may just fly into the spiders mouth without touching the web...we just hit the head , over...or the fly attempts to avoid the spider and strikes the web at odd angles..the spider doesn't care because it just goes for the fly ..it doesn't worry about the web the web is by design just there alternating as it goes for lunch.
---Good analogy! :) "Bridge-establishing techniques" aren't really necessary. You go after the guy! The spider after the fly! If he throws up a defense so that his arm contacts yours he gets caught in the "web" of your Chi Sao reactions. Then you "cross the bridge" in order to continue your forward assault.
k gledhill
05-13-2008, 10:34 AM
Give this man a cigar....the chi-sao is so we dont think about our angles relative to contact, they do their thing without thinking ...we just attack, the chi-sao trains the whole to function , structure to back up the idea of attacking, the chi-sao to back up the arms intent to hold low lines of strike/deflection without hinging at the shoulder and offering 'levers'. Same for swapping along the line ..the lead simply shoots in , if a block is performed up down sideways it doesnt matter because the rear takes the next shot with what was just presented....before it, still striking in at angles to the other guy so he cant use his other arm as well as he would like to...we fight with 2arms like anyone fast striking not one blocks chasing if it never had to ...by flanking a lot of the 2 handed arm applications are a waste of time any way becasue the other arm isnt able to strike us anyway...so why touch it or care about it, unless it happens to face us , then we shift or perimeter fight to the tactical position again and again ....not fighting like heavy bags with simultaneous block & hit g.
Ergo bilgee to recover guys lifting our lead arms..we simply do the same tut sao senk sao but under and out again...or recover a lead arm grabbed at the wrist, a common thing I faced in real fights.
the space we attack on is all we care about . thats why so much time is spent along the line but shifting to fire in a fire fight with ck. BJ to recover the 'bubble' of SLT/CK.
the tactics of knives and pole techniques of ballistic displacemnt while holding our own line not over extending across our own 'ideas'.
its genius use of spatial awareness.
why its critical not to fight like a chi-sao drill facing equally...
we need to angle across or fight at a perimeter to the attacker , like a protractor before them...we should avoid attacking at 90deg. but go 45 or 125 [ no real exact degree ] .
The seung ma toi ma drills of chi-sao need to be understood to function this idea, or many simply move back and forth in a constant facing arm game of slap n tickle trap 234. waste of time , wont develop the bigger picture of how to take the idea to a fight , that also , but for slightly longer distances, mimics the knives... no stopping to think about tactics , same for each just the arms are used or the knives are used....the knives have 'knuckle dusters aka brass knuckles' ..ie loss of knife cutting I still control and strike in on 'arm cutting across your arm' fist strike...I lose the fist strike, I cut you...
: )
Give this man a cigar....
---How about a lollie? I don't smoke. :)
the chi-sao is so we dont think about our angles relative to contact, they do their thing without thinking ...we just attack, the chi-sao trains the whole to function , structure to back up the idea of attacking, the chi-sao to back up the arms intent to hold low lines of strike/deflection without hinging at the shoulder and offering 'levers'.
---Exactly. That is what I was getting at in my article when I pointed out that the rolling platform is not realistic and is not really meant to be realistic. Its meant to provide the circumstance where your partner is giving you energy and pressure at the contact points on the forearm. And it really doesn't matter what the technique is that he uses, what matters is training your sensitivity and reactions. That's why the Chi Sao itself shouldn't be allowed to become too complicated and a game in and of itself. That's why people look at Chi Sao and think it doesn't apply to a real fight. They just have the wrong attitude or understanding about what is really accomplished by training Chi Sao.
why its critical not to fight like a chi-sao drill facing equally...
---Exactly. You don't want him to be in a position where he can use both of his arms at will. You want to keep the advantage of your two arms to his one. Hence learning to use good body structure in Chi Sao and learning to turn and control the opponent's base.
k gledhill
05-13-2008, 12:01 PM
Give this man a cigar....
---How about a lollie? I don't smoke. :)
the chi-sao is so we dont think about our angles relative to contact, they do their thing without thinking ...we just attack, the chi-sao trains the whole to function , structure to back up the idea of attacking, the chi-sao to back up the arms intent to hold low lines of strike/deflection without hinging at the shoulder and offering 'levers'.
---Exactly. That is what I was getting at in my article when I pointed out that the rolling platform is not realistic and is not really meant to be realistic. Its meant to provide the circumstance where your partner is giving you energy and pressure at the contact points on the forearm. And it really doesn't matter what the technique is that he uses, what matters is training your sensitivity and reactions. That's why the Chi Sao itself shouldn't be allowed to become too complicated and a game in and of itself. That's why people look at Chi Sao and think it doesn't apply to a real fight. They just have the wrong attitude or understanding about what is really accomplished by training Chi Sao.
we are being the attacker & the counter attacker in role play...certain redundancy has to be understood when doing the drill...each partner is training to develop themselves not develop touchy feely ..thats a byproduct not the goal.
why its critical not to fight like a chi-sao drill facing equally...
---Exactly. You don't want him to be in a position where he can use both of his arms at will. You want to keep the advantage of your two arms to his one. Hence learning to use good body structure in Chi Sao and learning to turn and control the opponent's base.
the partners adopt a random position so each can counter the entry and side attempted and not accidentally turn to the wrong side of the other arm etc... add space and time and you have more 'space & time' to maneuver to your angles of attack & counter attack...
ie tan step is a line of force entry we angle and strike across as it comes..to get set and balanced to deliver enough stopping force by using the partner entry...we do the same for them :D add random entry from both sides and presto it becomes alive way of reacting to lines and appropriate angles.
Edmund
05-13-2008, 03:18 PM
Uh...touching forearms! :rolleyes:
You're already touching. That isn't establishing a bridge.
From a non-contact position, you and your opponent are not bridged. That is not Chi sao.
Chi sao is not training those non-contact situations.
You're already touching. That isn't establishing a bridge.
---Sure it is. Bridge in place....cross bridge....no bridge...strike direct. You are learning to respond to pressure. Each time the pressure changes in amount and angle, that's a new bridge to react to.
From a non-contact position, you and your opponent are not bridged. That is not Chi sao.
---I agree. But the moment your arms touch, Chi Sao skills kick in!
Chi sao is not training those non-contact situations.
---I never said it did. It seems we have a different definition of "bridging." You seem to mean "closing the gap."
Edmund
05-13-2008, 05:17 PM
You're already touching. That isn't establishing a bridge.
---Sure it is. Bridge in place....cross bridge....no bridge...strike direct. You are learning to respond to pressure. Each time the pressure changes in amount and angle, that's a new bridge to react to.
From a non-contact position, you and your opponent are not bridged. That is not Chi sao.
---I agree. But the moment your arms touch, Chi Sao skills kick in!
Chi sao is not training those non-contact situations.
---I never said it did. It seems we have a different definition of "bridging." You seem to mean "closing the gap."
Correct. That is my definition.
All non-contact situations aren't trained in chi sao.
Not all WC techniques are for in-contact situations. Therefore chi sao can't train those techniques.
This is why WC chi sao is not really the equivalent of Judo randori. This is my point!
k gledhill
05-13-2008, 09:24 PM
we train for lat sao chit chung through chi-sao...loss of contact hit in...nothing to do with making a bridge ...impact with partner , can you hurt your partner if they let you hit them on the chest ? can you reach ? to close etc... right angles and arm angles and strike with force as they step in....with or without any bridge work.
Edmund
05-14-2008, 12:24 AM
we train for lat sao chit chung through chi-sao...loss of contact hit in...nothing to do with making a bridge
Well 1st that's a saying not a technique.
2nd I think you can't expect every opponent to act the way you think they should. Lai Lao, Hui Soong etc. From a distance, they could kick or change levels and shoot a double leg. You can't train those situations without starting at that distance.
BTW I think you need a better translation.
"Lut sao" - Free Hand
"Jik Chung" - Straight charge
k gledhill
05-14-2008, 04:48 AM
Its an ability trained through chi-sao drills with us , free hands hits through...random removal of an arm by a partner in chi-sao at first to check force of impact..can be a humbling experience to a veteran Vt'er when allowed , no asked, to be hit with enough force to move you backwards ends up in the puncher moving back :D
Add inward 'space mugging' and the simple ability to hit someone standing 2ft in front of you with force becomes a skill to work on.
VT fighting begins at distance of a face off...tactical maneuvering to attempted shoots etc..
stabbing lunges by weapons etc...
phonetics Edmund, lat sao, lut, laat sao etc... chi, cjik, jik, context ....I learned to write, read and speak cantonese for a while ;) basic as it is...;)
the way wsl trains chi-sao is to incorporate shifting and angling to attempted entry along the line to us be it from 6ft away or 2ft away ...the chi-sao is the point in the apex when impact timing to an attack is critical to have all the 'components' functional and tactically maneuvering into or offside to attack or counter attack. then stay with what comes and follow it as it attempts to run for recovery...
I'll leave you to give the translation ; ) stay with what comes counter attack , not like a statue, follow it as it retreats , attack ! ; )
Correct. That is my definition.
All non-contact situations aren't trained in chi sao.
Not all WC techniques are for in-contact situations. Therefore chi sao can't train those techniques.
This is why WC chi sao is not really the equivalent of Judo randori. This is my point!
You seem to be much more familiar with Judo than I am. But I don't recall seeing Judo players working much in the way of non-contact techniques to close the gap either. In the simple Judo Randori I've seen, the players basically face off, move around a bit, and then come together and grab onto each other's jacket. Maybe they do a simple feint with the hand or foot on the way in, but that's about all I've seen. So, IMHO, its a "close enough" analogy that many martial arts people will be able to relate to. ;)
You seem to be much more familiar with Judo than I am. But I don't recall seeing Judo players working much in the way of non-contact techniques to close the gap either. In the simple Judo Randori I've seen, the players basically face off, move around a bit, and then come together and grab onto each other's jacket. Maybe they do a simple feint with the hand or foot on the way in, but that's about all I've seen. So, IMHO, its a "close enough" analogy that many martial arts people will be able to relate to. ;)Yes, but in judo randori they get into the attack straight away. If we're talking about chi sau as a strict drill incorporating the mutual rolling hands portion then clearly they are not equivalent.
k gledhill
05-14-2008, 05:51 AM
One of my sparring partners/fellow student of vt, was a Judo black belt training along with his VT .
he would try to use it when we sparred sweeping entry etc... all good for us to do 20 years ago ;)
He found that his VT made the simple act of grabbing his gi much harder for gaining a hand to control him in judo class . So the face off was more a vying for a controlling hand to clothing/Gi
no gi no control....so SHOOT n sprawl ...:D
btw ...I did Judo when I was 10 years old so i had arm submissions , chokes going whenever I hit the floor, always had the edge on the ground in sparring even with simple chokes /holds.
Yes, but in judo randori they get into the attack straight away. If we're talking about chi sau as a strict drill incorporating the mutual rolling hands portion then clearly they are not equivalent.
You guys are over-analyzing and trying to be too nit-picky. Its just an analogy. Use it for what its worth. Like Kevin's analogy of the spider web. :) Randori is a drill designed to work on what Judo does best....standing grapple to throw. Chi Sao is a drill designed to work on what Wing Chun does best...contact reactions to bridge in. The "roll" in BJJ is a drill designed to work on what BJJ does best....ground control and transitions to chokes and submissions. Pad work with a coach in boxing is a drill designed to work on what boxing does best...hitting hard and fast from multiple angles. Are they all exactly equivalent? Probably not! Do the comparisons serve to make a point? I think so! :)
sanjuro_ronin
05-14-2008, 08:24 AM
Randori is not a drill, it is free sparring.
The only difference between randori and shiai (competition) is who you fight and if you get a medal.
Randori CAN be used to focus on a specific skill set like throws only or ground work only, but typically it is free sparring.
Randori is not a drill, it is free sparring.
The only difference between randori and shiai (competition) is who you fight and if you get a medal.
Randori CAN be used to focus on a specific skill set like throws only or ground work only, but typically it is free sparring.
The over-analyzing continues!! Randori may be free-sparring...but in a Judo context! How many people are throwing head kicks and uppercuts during Judo Randori? Chi Sao can be free-sparring in a Wing Chun context when partners are giving each other realistic pressure and not just cooperating.
sanjuro_ronin
05-14-2008, 09:55 AM
The over-analyzing continues!! Randori may be free-sparring...but in a Judo context! How many people are throwing head kicks and uppercuts during Judo Randori? Chi Sao can be free-sparring in a Wing Chun context when partners are giving each other realistic pressure and not just cooperating.
My issue:
Randori is a drill designed to work on what Judo does best
Don't call it a drill is my point, it isn't a drill.
My issue:
Don't call it a drill is my point, it isn't a drill.
You said:
"Randori CAN be used to focus on a specific skill set like throws only or ground work only, but typically it is free sparring."
---Focusing on a specific skill set like throws only or ground work only makes it a drill. Going all out makes it sparring. Chi Sao can be a give and take exercise with different levels of resistance and cooperation, making it a drill. But Chi Sao can also be "all out" and become a Wing Chun specific sparring exercise. Why are we belaboring this point?
Edmund
05-14-2008, 07:05 PM
You seem to be much more familiar with Judo than I am. But I don't recall seeing Judo players working much in the way of non-contact techniques to close the gap either. In the simple Judo Randori I've seen, the players basically face off, move around a bit, and then come together and grab onto each other's jacket. Maybe they do a simple feint with the hand or foot on the way in, but that's about all I've seen. So, IMHO, its a "close enough" analogy that many martial arts people will be able to relate to. ;)
You stated in the article, that Judo players come to grips grabbing each others jacket. That implies that they mutually allow each other to grab onto the jackets. This is just not the case as I stated before. You can start from a distance and shoot a double leg if you like. Or do a flying triangle choke.
---Focusing on a specific skill set like throws only or ground work only makes it a drill. Going all out makes it sparring. Chi Sao can be a give and take exercise with different levels of resistance and cooperation, making it a drill. But Chi Sao can also be "all out" and become a Wing Chun specific sparring exercise. Why are we belaboring this point?
Because it makes a massive difference...
In striking, the chance of you defending a strike is lower when you are not in contact with the opponent! You have to read your opponent with your eyes.
*Plainly* being good at WC means you should be able to apply it starting from a non-contact situation where you have to use your eyes first.
Because you're cooperating by starting in-contact in chi sao, that element is neglected.
k gledhill
05-15-2008, 04:56 AM
We defend by striking not blocking ...'no mind' attacks freely ....intersecting lines of force with angles that work if contact is made by the opponent, no contact and we strike . Then it boils down to your punch
good or bad ? simple really.
Good basics with movement along a protractor face off, for an unpredictable entry or counter . preparation for this event is practiced by random angling to each others lines of entry in chi-sao 'step in attacks and angle off side striking attacks....done in a random manner in the 'here and now' speed of gor sao....add space & time to cover the distances between 2 fighters with no contact and we simply attempt to strike with angling similar to that we have trained and follow it by attacking ...a 10 second engagement with 9 seconds of me attacking is better than the opposite for % of outcome.
how good is my attack ? that is what I strive to improve , not my stickiness ; )
You stated in the article, that Judo players come to grips grabbing each others jacket. That implies that they mutually allow each other to grab onto the jackets. This is just not the case as I stated before. You can start from a distance and shoot a double leg if you like. Or do a flying triangle choke.
----As you note....I said Judo players come to grips grabbing each others jacket. I didn't elaborate any further than that. Take it at face value. The "implication" is your own perception. I've often done Chi Sao that begins as light sparring from a distance, closing the gap, making contact at Chi Sao range to roll and respond, and then breaking contact to do it again. Have you? To me, that is part of training Chi Sao.
*Plainly* being good at WC means you should be able to apply it starting from a non-contact situation where you have to use your eyes first.
---Where have I said otherwise? Is seems to me that, *plainly*, by making a comparsion to Judo Randori I have already *implied* that idea. But you choose to see negative implications in the analogy rather than positive ones. Why is that?
Edmund
05-15-2008, 03:42 PM
----As you note....I said Judo players come to grips grabbing each others jacket. I didn't elaborate any further than that. Take it at face value. The "implication" is your own perception. I've often done Chi Sao that begins as light sparring from a distance, closing the gap, making contact at Chi Sao range to roll and respond, and then breaking contact to do it again. Have you? To me, that is part of training Chi Sao.
I think I'd have to see what you mean.
How is it chi sao? And how is it light sparring if you know eventually you are going to make contact in chi sao range?
*Plainly* being good at WC means you should be able to apply it starting from a non-contact situation where you have to use your eyes first.
---Where have I said otherwise? Is seems to me that, *plainly*, by making a comparsion to Judo Randori I have already *implied* that idea. But you choose to see negative implications in the analogy rather than positive ones. Why is that?
Because there are more negative implications than positive ones.
Judo Randori basically is the same as a real competition match. The reason you don't see head kicks in Judo is that Judo doesn't have head kicks. It's basically a pure grappling art.
WC *Sparring* is basically the same as a real fight. Chi sao isn't. Maybe you could demonstrate how you do it so it's "free sparring".
Phil Redmond
05-15-2008, 04:24 PM
Here's some clips of chi sao.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCul_gaa-w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4qKtjk6JHk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbcNzmJASYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=162NkojmIvI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e34jbDX3HY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYFiNNXTD4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FbRfyWx1uE
Edmund
05-15-2008, 04:47 PM
some WC sparring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ&feature=related
I think I'd have to see what you mean.
How is it chi sao?
---Ah! So your answer is "no." You only train Chi Sao by standing and rolling. Chi Sao trains a very specific range of interaction. But that doesn't mean you neglect the other ranges. Chi Sao represents that moment when you touch forearms....make a bridge....and react to the opponent's energy or intent. But you have to get there somehow. The way I learned and teach Chi Sao, at one stage of the progression you start from a distance, launch a technique, encounter an obstruction, and then effectively move into Chi Sao rolling and responses. This helps to emphasize what you are trying to learn in Chi Sao...contact reflexes and sensitivity. How long you stay on the "outside" is up to the partners. One may move in immediately, or they may have a short exchange.
And how is it light sparring if you know eventually you are going to make contact in chi sao range?
----Its a progression. Light sparring is a drill like any of the others. You're just agreeing to combine two drills ahead time. That way you train for the transitions. In a more modern context....you could agree to combine even more drills. You could start from light sparring at a distance, transition to Chi Sao, and then transition to a stand grapple or takedown. The lines between training platforms become fluid once you get to higher levels. If you do this.....work on the transition from light sparring into Chi Sao and back out, then you will find that your "all out" free sparring will start having more Chi Sao "elements" than it did previously.
Because there are more negative implications than positive ones.
---That's only your opinion. Maybe you need to change your perspective. It seems obvious to me that your impression of Chi Sao is somewhat limited.
Judo Randori basically is the same as a real competition match. The reason you don't see head kicks in Judo is that Judo doesn't have head kicks. It's basically a pure grappling art.
---As I said before (have you been paying attention?) Randori may be free-sparring...but in a Judo context! How many people are throwing head kicks and uppercuts during Judo Randori? Chi Sao can be free-sparring in a Wing Chun context when partners are giving each other realistic pressure and not just cooperating. Did you watch the recent clips from SENI? Were those not of a "real competition match"? Are you saying you have never taken your Chi Sao to the level that it was a free exchange?
WC *Sparring* is basically the same as a real fight. Chi sao isn't. Maybe you could demonstrate how you do it so it's "free sparring".
----Judo Randori isn't the same as a "real fight" either. Sparring also has many levels of progression....from essentially cooperative to work defenses against set techniques to going all out. Its a continuum. I think these are simple and basic concepts. No "demonstration" needed. Just open your mind a bit and consider possibilities that are outside what you have been training. You seem to be more intent on arguing whether Judo Randori is a valid comparison to Wing Chun Chi Sao than you are on trying to get a new perspective on what Chi Sao can be.
t_niehoff
05-16-2008, 05:50 AM
Keith, your whole view is built on false theory. The problem with theory is that you can't refute it with theory because in theory almost anything can sound plausible (which is why so much BS is sold in MAs). Do yourself a huge favor, and just get some fairly athletic, nonWCK guys (so they don't behave in brainwashed WCK ways), start in contact, and fight (trying to maintain contact). If you do that, you'll see that all your chi sao and contact reflexes will go out the window. Everything you've trained won't work. You don't need to take my word for it. If you do the work, and give yourself the right experience, you'll see the truth of this for yourself. Only after that experience will you begin to "understand" chi sao. Anyone who hasn't done this work, has no real understanding of chi sao; they are in the dark,and if they teach, it is a matter of the blind leading the blind. And that's because you can only "understand" anything in WCK from the perspective of application (fighting). So you need to start with application (with really fighting). You can't "understand" application except by experience, not from theory (how I "think" it should work).
sanjuro_ronin
05-16-2008, 05:56 AM
some WC sparring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ&feature=related
Nice, good fun was had by all it seems.
k gledhill
05-16-2008, 06:12 AM
T has a great point ...Adopting a 'lets chi-sao' with ANYONE who doesn't strike with inward elbows, and you just put yourself in the worst tactical position you could choose :D
... we use the chi-sao DRILL to angle out of lines of entry to us or as the entry apex by US to movement BEFORE we engaged the guy to hit him...spatial battle before firing.
Edmund
05-16-2008, 06:48 AM
I think I'd have to see what you mean.
How is it chi sao?
---Ah! So your answer is "no." You only train Chi Sao by standing and rolling.
Actually I almost never roll at all.
I never start with rolling and I don't have any particular starting position.
----Its a progression. Light sparring is a drill like any of the others. You're just agreeing to combine two drills ahead time. That way you train for the transitions. In a more modern context....you could agree to combine even more drills. You could start from light sparring at a distance, transition to Chi Sao, and then transition to a stand grapple or takedown. The lines between training platforms become fluid once you get to higher levels. If you do this.....work on the transition from light sparring into Chi Sao and back out, then you will find that your "all out" free sparring will start having more Chi Sao "elements" than it did previously.
If chi sao becomes sparring then it is one level of the progression. Sparring is the last level you can practice. (More on this below)
Did you watch the recent clips from SENI? Were those not of a "real competition match"? Are you saying you have never taken your Chi Sao to the level that it was a free exchange?
All the time other than the rolling. It's not sparring though.
The problem with the SENI matches was it started in the chi sao position.
They rolled 3 times. This is already cooperation between opponents.
You seem to be more intent on arguing whether Judo Randori is a valid comparison to Wing Chun Chi Sao than you are on trying to get a new perspective on what Chi Sao can be.
What chi sao can be? Sparring is all that and more. Why does chi sao have to be randori? Sparring is randori already.
I *am* concerned about whether Judo Randori is a valid comparison to Chi sao.
I think WC people like chi sao a bit too much and maybe they need to focus on sparring rather than trying to make their chi sao realistic.
When you spar I don't think you are suddenly going to be able to transition into chi sao when you get into contact.
Someone throwing strikes at you at a distance feels a bit different from someone attacking at contact ranges. You can see in lots of sparring clips like the one I previously posted as soon as it moves that close, standing grappling is going to occur.
The reason is because when someone throws for real they are trying to punch through you and you're doing the same. This is why Kevin is saying chi sao is more about the angle of your arms to cover yourself from the pressure of strikes IMO. When you and opponent are both throwing at each other your arms are only going to meet in the briefest and most ballistic way if at all. Strikes are heading in opposite directions to each other. AND they are trying to extend the strike through the other person. That's a lot of pressure.
I'm not saying you're never going to catch their arm with your arm. You can but it's going to be coming quick with power. The position of your arms is real important AND it's not going to end up like a transition into chi sao range. It's going to be far more like guys smacking each other or tying up.
Edmund
05-16-2008, 07:27 AM
Nice, good fun was had by all it seems.
Found another nice one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAHlKXdGcew&feature=related
sanjuro_ronin
05-16-2008, 07:29 AM
Found another nice one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAHlKXdGcew&feature=related
That one kind of sucked...never liked it when people "lift" their face while punching, very silly thing to do.
The problem with the SENI matches was it started in the chi sao position.
They rolled 3 times. This is already cooperation between opponents.
---Its still sparring. As I said before, there are graduations and progressions even in sparring. Your view of sparring seems to be as narrow as your view of Chi Sao.
I *am* concerned about whether Judo Randori is a valid comparison to Chi sao.
---Why? Take the analogy for what its worth. If it works to give you a better understanding of Chi Sao, then great! If it doesn't, then just drop it. Like Kevin's analogy of the spiderweb. :)
I think WC people like chi sao a bit too much and maybe they need to focus on sparring rather than trying to make their chi sao realistic.
---I agree! Did you even read my article?
When you spar I don't think you are suddenly going to be able to transition into chi sao when you get into contact.
---You will if you've agreed on it as part of the drill you are doing. Again, my point was that it helps you to train the transitions. Are you going to do that in a "real" fight or an "all out" sparring session? No! But if you can't transition smoothly from a non-contact to a bridging situation, then your Chi Sao skills are never going to show their full potential in the "free fight" situation.
Someone throwing strikes at you at a distance feels a bit different from someone attacking at contact ranges. You can see in lots of sparring clips like the one I previously posted as soon as it moves that close, standing grappling is going to occur.
---If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren't emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
The reason is because when someone throws for real they are trying to punch through you and you're doing the same. This is why Kevin is saying chi sao is more about the angle of your arms to cover yourself from the pressure of strikes IMO.
---And I don't disagree with what Kevin has said. I think you need to go back and reread my article.
When you and opponent are both throwing at each other your arms are only going to meet in the briefest and most ballistic way if at all. Strikes are heading in opposite directions to each other. AND they are trying to extend the strike through the other person. That's a lot of pressure.
---Absolutely! And Chi Sao helps build the skills to read, redirect, divert, etc that pressure.
I'm not saying you're never going to catch their arm with your arm. You can but it's going to be coming quick with power. The position of your arms is real important AND it's not going to end up like a transition into chi sao range.
---You have missed the point I have been trying to make about Chi Sao entirely! How can it NOT end up in Chi Sao range? Chi Sao range is contact with the arms. Chi Sao is not an end in itself. Its a structured drill designed to teach good responses at contact distance.
It's going to be far more like guys smacking each other or tying up.
---Only because you haven't brought your Chi Sao skills into the exchange.
Ali. R
05-16-2008, 07:56 AM
That one kind of sucked...never liked it when people "lift" their face while punching, very silly thing to do.
Same energy, but very different from what I’m accustom too… Yes, in some ways they did free their minds, but through deviation…
And I truly believe that’s because they choose too be that way, or their understanding is not just there yet, sparring way too early in which their understanding is just too weak for that level…
And if they continue that way, their wing chun will stay just like that when under pressure (total deviation for self gravitation), it may not be their fought, cuz maybe its how their taught too spar…
Ali Rahim.
Keith, your whole view is built on false theory.
---Ah....Terence. I wondered when you would appear on the thread. I hesitate to even respond to you, because it seldom goes anywhere.
The problem with theory is that you can't refute it with theory because in theory almost anything can sound plausible (which is why so much BS is sold in MAs).
---Yes. We all know your position on "theory." But, like I've pointed out in the past, you can't talk about ANYTHING without involving theory. If the use of theory is invalid, then we might as well just close down this whole forum because we would have nothing to talk about.
Do yourself a huge favor, and just get some fairly athletic, nonWCK guys (so they don't behave in brainwashed WCK ways), start in contact, and fight (trying to maintain contact).
---Yes. We all know your position on training. "Go out and get your ars kicked and then come back and talk to me." I'm willing to bet you didn't even bother to read my article before posting. I pointed out how often Chi Sao is "overdone" or "overemphasized." I pointed out that it has to be informed by good sparring to be valid. I've talked about the skills developed being independant of Chi Sao itself. I talked about not making it a "patty cake" drill. But none of that is good enough. You aren't even willing to meet me half way. Its full out "kick ars" sparring for you and nothing else.
If you do that, you'll see that all your chi sao and contact reflexes will go out the window. Everything you've trained won't work.
---But you've already said in another thread that you've given up on Chi Sao and no longer practice it. Let me say to you what I said to Edmund:
If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren't emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
So you need to start with application (with really fighting). You can't "understand" application except by experience, not from theory (how I "think" it should work).
---I disagree. Again, we've talked about this before and it went nowhere. You can't start with application. I asked you in the past how you teach Wing Chun....do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars? I don't remember getting a very good answer. There has to be structure and a curriculum. Real experience and structured training are two sides of the same coin. I've told you before, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you take it to extremes. Real experience informs structured training, but structured training establishes skills that are used in real experience. There is a middle ground. I see the way I have described Chi Sao as part of that "middle ground" between "patty cake" Chi Sao with lots of complicated moves and full out sparring.
SAAMAG
05-16-2008, 09:01 AM
some WC sparring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ&feature=related
I'm glad you posted this Ed. It reminded me of why I posted my thread about "how much wing chun do you use...".
__________________
That's definitely more realistic fight training...and a very good eye opener as to what's going to work and what isn't. Again, one must decide for his or herself if a particular technique simply needs more work or if it's just fundamentally flawed (for the individual) and needs to be dumped.
Looking at these fights closely, they use the wing chun guard, some straight punches, a couple of wing chun kicks. This only happens for the first couple seconds and then the majority of the remaining time they're using knees in a clinch, elbows, hip throws, and grappling -- none of which is WC (well, the elbows and the LT/EBMAS kicks from the ground thing).
I don't think it's a matter of having someone jump into sparring too early for "self gratification through deviation" (whatever that means)...I think it's a matter of truth. Universal truth in fighting.
Although I do prefer wing chun people to fight like wing chun, this is more like what a fight will look like...a little wing chun on the entry, and the rest is other "stuff". Granted you can still use wing chun theories and principles with the other "stuff" too.
Anyway...those are my thoughts on the subject.
t_niehoff
05-16-2008, 01:27 PM
---Yes. We all know your position on "theory." But, like I've pointed out in the past, you can't talk about ANYTHING without involving theory. If the use of theory is invalid, then we might as well just close down this whole forum because we would have nothing to talk about.
You can talk about stuff without theory -- athletes do it all the time. But people who don't do it can't talk about it except from a theoretical POV.
---Yes. We all know your position on training. "Go out and get your ars kicked and then come back and talk to me." I'm willing to bet you didn't even bother to read my article before posting. I pointed out how often Chi Sao is "overdone" or "overemphasized." I pointed out that it has to be informed by good sparring to be valid. I've talked about the skills developed being independant of Chi Sao itself. I talked about not making it a "patty cake" drill. But none of that is good enough. You aren't even willing to meet me half way. Its full out "kick ars" sparring for you and nothing else.
You don't know by "position on training" or you wouldn't misrepresent it.
I did look at your article.
Chi sao is an artificial, unrealasitic drill/exercise where people can do and practice all sorts of things because they are not constrained by the demands of fighting. So they can -- and theyo, oh, they do! -- practice things that simply won't work in fighting. Chi sao can't give people an understanding of WCK because it is unrealsitic and artificial. Without FIRST understanding those demands, people will tend to go off in fantasy-foo directions. No matter what you talk about, if you don't start with fighting, it can't be anything more than a silly game of patty cake.
---But you've already said in another thread that you've given up on Chi Sao and no longer practice it. Let me say to you what I said to Edmund:
If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren't emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
You use the terms "faith" or "belief" because that is all you have. You say what "WCK is designed for" -- well, how the hell do you know? You have some belief, something you've been told, and you bought into it. You don't know. You only have a belief, and no real evidence to support it.
As I said, go put your belief to the test.
You aren't emphasizing anything in your training other than fantasy. If you can't do it in fighting, how can you tell others how it should be done?
For me, WCK is an attached fighting method. As such, it requires contact fighting skills. But you can't get those fighting skills from chi sao. Chi sao has very limited usefulness, mainly as a way of teaching certain, limited things. It is WCK with the training wheels on. Once you can ride the bike, you don't need to continue with the training wheels. To develop, you must take them off.
So you need to start with application (with really fighting). You can't "understand" application except by experience, not from theory (how I "think" it should work).
---I disagree. Again, we've talked about this before and it went nowhere. You can't start with application. I asked you in the past how you teach Wing Chun....do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars? I don't remember getting a very good answer. There has to be structure and a curriculum. Real experience and structured training are two sides of the same coin. I've told you before, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you take it to extremes. Real experience informs structured training, but structured training establishes skills that are used in real experience. There is a middle ground. I see the way I have described Chi Sao as part of that "middle ground" between "patty cake" Chi Sao with lots of complicated moves and full out sparring.
WCK, like boxing or wrestling, is a skill. A person that doesn't have that skill can't teach it to others. That is the case of the blind leading the blind. If you can't do in fighting against fairly athletic, nonWCK fighters the things you teach, then you are teaching bulsh1t, you're teaching fantasy-foo. You have a theory of how WCK should work, how someone should train, etc. This is not based on experience(this works for me) and not based on performance (results in fighting), it is based on theory. My point is that until YOU have done this work (the fighting), until you've figured out how to make WCK work in fighting for you (not in theory, but in fact), you aren't in a position to teach anyone. You can only teach what you can do. You're understanding is limited to your ability (fighting).
If you get the chance, and are ever coming by way of St. Louis, let me know. We can get together and in a friendly way, I'll show you where you are wrong. FWIW, until you make that first step -- seeing what contact, inside (attached) fighting is really like, what you need to really do and deal with, you will never make progress developing skills to actually do it.
Edmund
05-16-2008, 04:13 PM
---Its still sparring. As I said before, there are graduations and progressions even in sparring. Your view of sparring seems to be as narrow as your view of Chi Sao.
---I agree! Did you even read my article?
When you spar I don't think you are suddenly going to be able to transition into chi sao when you get into contact.
---You will if you've agreed on it as part of the drill you are doing. Again, my point was that it helps you to train the transitions. Are you going to do that in a "real" fight or an "all out" sparring session? No! But if you can't transition smoothly from a non-contact to a bridging situation, then your Chi Sao skills are never going to show their full potential in the "free fight" situation.
---If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren't emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
I'm not saying you're never going to catch their arm with your arm. You can but it's going to be coming quick with power. The position of your arms is real important AND it's not going to end up like a transition into chi sao range.
---You have missed the point I have been trying to make about Chi Sao entirely! How can it NOT end up in Chi Sao range? Chi Sao range is contact with the arms. Chi Sao is not an end in itself. Its a structured drill designed to teach good responses at contact distance.
It's going to be far more like guys smacking each other or tying up.
---Only because you haven't brought your Chi Sao skills into the exchange.
Keith,
I did read your article and I agreed with some of it and disagreed with other parts.
The reason I posted clips of WC sparring was to illustrate that what you are talking about with the chi sao happening in sparring is pretty unlikely. The amount of striking power and movement make it difficult to do what you are saying unless you're both going kinda light.
I'm not saying chi sao skills are useless but those techniques have to adapt to the force that's occurring so they won't look the same as when you are doing chi sao. The type of strikes you can throw from a distance are different than from close contact.
Even in close, the realistic forces that occur still aren't low. They are going to involve standing grappling like MT and stuff like that. That's just reality.
Even going light it's difficult to avoid that. eg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGIhccW8CGE&feature=related
Edmund
05-16-2008, 04:23 PM
Looking at these fights closely, they use the wing chun guard, some straight punches, a couple of wing chun kicks. This only happens for the first couple seconds and then the majority of the remaining time they're using knees in a clinch, elbows, hip throws, and grappling -- none of which is WC (well, the elbows and the LT/EBMAS kicks from the ground thing).
I don't think it's a matter of having someone jump into sparring too early for "self gratification through deviation" (whatever that means)...I think it's a matter of truth. Universal truth in fighting.
Although I do prefer wing chun people to fight like wing chun, this is more like what a fight will look like...a little wing chun on the entry, and the rest is other "stuff". Granted you can still use wing chun theories and principles with the other "stuff" too.
Anyway...those are my thoughts on the subject.
I agree somewhat... I think they used more than a little WC but the techniques that worked weren't the ones that get a lot of attention like say tan/ bong/fook.
The reason I posted clips of WC sparring was to illustrate that what you are talking about with the chi sao happening in sparring is pretty unlikely. The amount of striking power and movement make it difficult to do what you are saying unless you're both going kinda light.
---But I never said that Chi Sao happens in all out sparring! I said that the skills developed in Chi Sao can translate to all out sparring. It seems you keep missing the point. Maybe I am not explaining it very well.
I'm not saying chi sao skills are useless but those techniques have to adapt to the force that's occurring so they won't look the same as when you are doing chi sao.
---When did I ever say otherwise? Chi Sao is a drill. It develops certain skills. Those skills can show up in all out sparring. But there are gradations of sparring drills that help to transition those skills. Structured Chi Sao can be worked as part as that gradation or progressive sparring approach to development. Every sparring session doesn't have to be an "all out take his head off!" exchange.
You can talk about stuff without theory -- athletes do it all the time. But people who don't do it can't talk about it except from a theoretical POV.
---I think you're wrong. Athletes talk about the latest conditioning program and how it might help their game....theory. Athletes talk about who they might train with next and how it might help their game....theory. Athletes talk about what strategy to use at the next outing....theory. Athletes talk about what they could have done better at their last performance....theory. One fighter will talk about what strategy and techniques might work in the ring against their next opponent whom they have never faced before......theory.
Chi sao can't give people an understanding of WCK because it is unrealsitic and artificial.
---That's an interesting viewpoint. There are plenty of high-ranking people who call Chi Sao the "heart" of Wing Chun. I guess they didn't really have an understanding of it all either.
Without FIRST understanding those demands, people will tend to go off in fantasy-foo directions. No matter what you talk about, if you don't start with fighting, it can't be anything more than a silly game of patty cake.
---I think Chi Sao has to be "informed" by fighting to keep it from being a "silly game of patty cake." But how do you "start" with the fight without having some background training?
You say what "WCK is designed for" -- well, how the hell do you know?
---Because the way I was taught to view Wing Chun by three different teachers in three different "families" of Wing Chun. Because of the structure and biomechanics used in Wing Chun. Because of the way I see the majority of my fellow Wing Chun players describe their Wing Chun. How the hell do you NOT know?
You aren't emphasizing anything in your training other than fantasy. If you can't do it in fighting, how can you tell others how it should be done?
---Same old cliched argument Terence. I'd think you'd get tired of it after awhile. You have nothing to discuss about Wing Chun other than whether people are going out and fighting every chance they get. If anyone posts something to suggest otherwise, then its time to trot out the old refrain.
For me, WCK is an attached fighting method. As such, it requires contact fighting skills.
---What does that mean? And just how is that different from what I said? I called it "contact bridging skills" and said "Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance." Doesn't "attached" imply "contact" and "close-range"??? You asked how the hell I know what Wing Chun is designed for, then you turn around and state what sounds like almost the same thing!!
But you can't get those fighting skills from chi sao.
---You can get some of them from Chi Sao. I've explained how. Generations of Wing Chun players that came before us also seemed to think so. Otherwise Chi Sao would have been dropped as a useful training method a long time ago. Maybe you don't think that approach would work for you, and that's OK. But that's no reason to discount the approach entirely.
Chi sao has very limited usefulness, mainly as a way of teaching certain, limited things. It is WCK with the training wheels on. Once you can ride the bike, you don't need to continue with the training wheels. To develop, you must take them off.
---Now it sounds like you are saying that Chi Sao is useful at some stage of training. But I would hate to "misrepresent" your position. So in answer to my previous question of "how do you teach Wing Chun....do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars?" it sounds like you are now saying that you WOULD give that new student some structured background and training before they would be expected to hold their own in sparring. But its still a bit unclear to me.
If you get the chance, and are ever coming by way of St. Louis, let me know. We can get together and in a friendly way,
---Yes, I'd like to do that. You post the same things all the time but never really get around to describing how YOU train and how YOU teach Wing Chun to beginners.
SAAMAG
05-16-2008, 09:45 PM
Athletes talk about the latest conditioning program and how it might help their game....theory. Athletes talk about who they might train with next and how it might help their game....theory. Athletes talk about what strategy to use at the next outing....theory. Athletes talk about what they could have done better at their last performance....theory. One fighter will talk about what strategy and techniques might work in the ring against their next opponent whom they have never faced before......theory.
I think that the difference being is that the athletes you speak of engage in the actual performance of their said sports. Most wing chun folks do it for recreation and more than likely have never sparred in their lives.
There are plenty of high-ranking people who call Chi Sao the "heart" of Wing Chun. I guess they didn't really have an understanding of it all either.
It is the heart...but not because it's the most useful tool...but moreso because it's the most commonly known tool and one that most people associate with wing chun.
I think Chi Sao has to be "informed" by fighting to keep it from being a "silly game of patty cake." But how do you "start" with the fight without having some background training?
There are lots of other ways to practice fighting skills in wing chun without going the way of chi sao. I would often times using segmented sparring drills with my students, using a particular technique, movement, or what have you. I use a lot of man sao drills, wherein the attacker practices entry and the defender deflectes the attack, they are now in clinching range and touching, from there they can pause to reflect on their current positions, how they got there, and how they can go about achieving control from there. Or they can continue in a free flowing manner. I typically hate doing poon sao movements, as I think that is completely useless for fighting (though it develops sensitivity in general by way of forcing the participants to react to a tactile input).
You can get some of them from Chi Sao. I've explained how. Generations of Wing Chun players that came before us also seemed to think so. Otherwise Chi Sao would have been dropped as a useful training method a long time ago. Maybe you don't think that approach would work for you, and that's OK. But that's no reason to discount the approach entirely.
I agree. It's not completely void of usefulness. Though I think it's paramount benefit is simply a general aspect of building sensitivity. I think that if one were to use chi sao as a means of "learning to fight" I think the performance would be a very sad one.
Edmund
05-17-2008, 12:02 AM
The reason I posted clips of WC sparring was to illustrate that what you are talking about with the chi sao happening in sparring is pretty unlikely. The amount of striking power and movement make it difficult to do what you are saying unless you're both going kinda light.
---But I never said that Chi Sao happens in all out sparring! I said that the skills developed in Chi Sao can translate to all out sparring. It seems you keep missing the point. Maybe I am not explaining it very well.
Well you seem to be more about defending your point, than listening to other people's points.
How can you not comment on the contrast between how realistic sparring clips look and how chi sao clips look?
You said in your own article that chi sao is no substitute for sparring and chi sao isn't a fight and not realistic resistance. Your article didn't try play up the importance of chi sao. IF anything it played it down.
Chi Sao is a drill. It develops certain skills. Those skills can show up in all out sparring. But there are gradations of sparring drills that help to transition those skills. Structured Chi Sao can be worked as part as that gradation or progressive sparring approach to development. Every sparring session doesn't have to be an "all out take his head off!" exchange.
I think the clips of all out sparring show what sort of skills work and how far chi sao can develop those skills.
t_niehoff
05-17-2008, 05:01 AM
---I think you're wrong. Athletes talk about the latest conditioning program and how it might help their game....theory. Athletes talk about who they might train with next and how it might help their game....theory. Athletes talk about what strategy to use at the next outing....theory. Athletes talk about what they could have done better at their last performance....theory. One fighter will talk about what strategy and techniques might work in the ring against their next opponent whom they have never faced before......theory.
You still don't get it. Someone who actually does his activity/sport, who is performing, who is getting results, uses that perspective (experience) AS A BASIS for everything they do. To use an analogy, it is like scientists who've done many, many experiments drawing conclusions about their subject. As opposed to someone who has never really played the game coming up with theories of what will and won't work, how things should be done, etc. You have no real basis of experience to draw upon.
Chi sao can't give people an understanding of WCK because it is unrealsitic and artificial.
---That's an interesting viewpoint. There are plenty of high-ranking people who call Chi Sao the "heart" of Wing Chun. I guess they didn't really have an understanding of it all either.
Here's your problem again, taking what others say as true and/or thinking you know what they meant by it. Keith, what made them "high-ranking"? Seriously? What did they ever do to prove they had real fighting skill? Who did they ever fight? You hold these people out as authorities of WCK when there is really no evidence they had much in the way of skill.
---I think Chi Sao has to be "informed" by fighting to keep it from being a "silly game of patty cake." But how do you "start" with the fight without having some background training?
Simple. By fighting, by experiencing what it is really like, seeing the real problems you will encounter, etc. You can begin sparring in BJJ on day one. You won't be any good, but you'll experience the ground. It's the same with WCK.
All kinds of nonsense is taught in chi sao that simply won't work in attached fighting. Worse, people who don't fight, use chi sao as the basis for their WCK.
You say what "WCK is designed for" -- well, how the hell do you know?
---Because the way I was taught to view Wing Chun by three different teachers in three different "families" of Wing Chun. Because of the structure and biomechanics used in Wing Chun. Because of the way I see the majority of my fellow Wing Chun players describe their Wing Chun. How the hell do you NOT know?
And if you and your three teachers fought with some aggressive, nonWCK fighters who were in decent shape, and you'd all get destroyed. Same with the majority of WCK players. They all suck. Maybe some can fight, but are they using the things they train in their fighting as they train them? No. Until you accept the simple fact the only thing that all these guys know is the curriculum of WCK but have no real ability to apply that curriculum beyond a superficial level (skill). There are no authorities in WCK.
When you listen to people with no skill, when you follow their directions, you aren't on the road to progress, you are on some side road to fantasy land. But the good news is you don't need them. What you need is to let application be your sifu, let your results (fighting) guide you and act as your compass.
---Same old cliched argument Terence. I'd think you'd get tired of it after awhile. You have nothing to discuss about Wing Chun other than whether people are going out and fighting every chance they get. If anyone posts something to suggest otherwise, then its time to trot out the old refrain.
I'll be happy to discuss WCK with you when you begin doing WCK. Doing WCK is fighting. As you are not doing that, how can we discuss it? It is only theory to you.
For me, WCK is an attached fighting method. As such, it requires contact fighting skills.
---What does that mean? And just how is that different from what I said? I called it "contact bridging skills" and said "Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance." Doesn't "attached" imply "contact" and "close-range"??? You asked how the hell I know what Wing Chun is designed for, then you turn around and state what sounds like almost the same thing!!
I said FOR ME WCK is attached fighting. For me. I don't know what
WCK was "designed for". Neither of us, nor can anyone, speak for all WCK or for the the founders or anything else other than what we can do. I know what I do. I am not saying that it works best doing what I do. There may be other ways.
The difference between our views is you are talking from a theoretical POV as some authority that can speak for all WCK and I'm saying based on my experience this is how I see it. I see it this way because I'm doing it that way. You are not basing your view on experience.
But you can't get those fighting skills from chi sao.
---You can get some of them from Chi Sao. I've explained how. Generations of Wing Chun players that came before us also seemed to think so. Otherwise Chi Sao would have been dropped as a useful training method a long time ago. Maybe you don't think that approach would work for you, and that's OK. But that's no reason to discount the approach entirely.
Do you see what evidence you marshall? What others have thought (or what you believe they thought). And the good old silly argument, if it didn't work, they wouldn't be doing it. But traditioanl arts do all sorts of silly things that we know aren't particularly useful or necessary, like forms.
The evidence you didn't marshall to support your argument was performance results. You are not saying I practice this is chi sao and when I fight, I do the exact same thing. One, because you are not fighting to know that, and two, because it won't work like that.
I told youo how to get the experience to see for yourself, and you won't do it.
Chi sao has very limited usefulness, mainly as a way of teaching certain, limited things. It is WCK with the training wheels on. Once you can ride the bike, you don't need to continue with the training wheels. To develop, you must take them off.
---Now it sounds like you are saying that Chi Sao is useful at some stage of training. But I would hate to "misrepresent" your position. So in answer to my previous question of "how do you teach Wing Chun....do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars?" it sounds like you are now saying that you WOULD give that new student some structured background and training before they would be expected to hold their own in sparring. But its still a bit unclear to me.
Read what I ****1ing said -- it has limited usefulness for teaching. Teaching. But you can never develop fighting skills from chi sao. People don't behave in fighting like they do in chi sao, so you never learn how to really deal with someone fighting you by doing chi sao.
You want to know how I would teach someone WCK. My point is that before you can teach anyone and before talking about howto do that, YOU need to have the skill. You can't teach what you don't know. If you know it, if you know a skill, that itself will give you insight into how to teach it. Until YOU can do it, you can't teach others. For example, you can't teach wrestling because you can't wrestle. If you were a very good wrestler, you'd know the fundamental skills (not from theory,butfrom your experience) and you could teach them.
If you get the chance, and are ever coming by way of St. Louis, let me know. We can get together and in a friendly way,
---Yes, I'd like to do that. You post the same things all the time but never really get around to describing how YOU train and how YOU teach Wing Chun to beginners.
You are always welcome. The problem about my saying how I "teach" is that when I do teach it is individually-based or learner-centered. There is no set way. Generally, however, I show a trainee the approach (the strategic battle plan of WCK) and focus on developing the 7 or 8 fundamental skills they will need to implement that approach. I use a sparring platform to do that, but also use some of the classical drills, including chi sao, as part of the teaching/learning process.
Well you seem to be more about defending your point, than listening to other people's points.
---I could say the exact same thing of you! How long did we belabour the point of whether Judo Randori was a good analogy for Chi Sao....with you seeing only the differences and not the similarities?
How can you not comment on the contrast between how realistic sparring clips look and how chi sao clips look?
---What difference does that make? They are two different things. I've said over and over that Chi Sao is a structured drill with a specific purpose. It is not realisitic sparring.
You said in your own article that chi sao is no substitute for sparring and chi sao isn't a fight and not realistic resistance. Your article didn't try play up the importance of chi sao. IF anything it played it down.
---Exactly! I was trying to provide the middle ground between saying Chi Sao is useless and throwing it out....like Terence has done....and saying that Chi Sao is ideal way to learn to fight with Wing Chun...which it isn't. I was trying to point out that focusing on long strings of complicated movements against a cooperating partner is not the real intent and purpose of Chi Sao training. I have been trying to show how Chi Sao can be make part of a progressive sparring program in order to better transition the contact reflex skills developed into actual application. But it seems like no one is listening. Rather than trying to see and understand what I am saying, you and others keep harping on the negatives. I have to keep wondering...."do these guys even do Wing Chun?"
I think the clips of all out sparring show what sort of skills work and how far chi sao can develop those skills.
---Unless you know the participants personally you have no way of judging. How do you know what kind of Chi Sao training they have had? Maybe they learned to roll....learned lots of prearranged combinations against a cooperative partner...and that was it. Maybe they were never taught how to transition their Chi Sao skills into sparring. Maybe they've never worked on progressive sparring drills designed to show them how to use Chi Sao skills. Maybe they've never developed any actual Chi Sao skills to begin with!!
To use an analogy, it is like scientists who've done many, many experiments drawing conclusions about their subject.
---Scientists do not start from scratch. Scientists have a background from learning what other scientists have done. Scientists spend years in school training before they ever embark on real experiments of their own. No, I see what you are saying Terence, and have said before that you have a few good points. But you take it too extremes. You alienate nearly everyone you interact with. You won't meet anyone half-way and see the middle ground.
As opposed to someone who has never really played the game coming up with theories of what will and won't work, how things should be done, etc. You have no real basis of experience to draw upon.
---I have sparred with people from other systems. I have examined the biomechanics behind my Wing Chun and made some changes. But I haven't had the opportunity to go out every weekend and find hardcore guys willing to spar. I haven't had the opportunity to enter any kind of local MMA competition and likely never will. Not everyone has access to lots of people from other styles willing to spar on a realistic by friendly level. So we work with it as we can. But I'm sure that's still not good enough for you. You don't see a middle ground in anything. Its "all out" or nothing for you....at least that's how you come across in your posts.
Here's your problem again, taking what others say as true and/or thinking you know what they meant by it. Keith, what made them "high-ranking"? Seriously? What did they ever do to prove they had real fighting skill? Who did they ever fight? You hold these people out as authorities of WCK when there is really no evidence they had much in the way of skill.
---Terence I will ask again....why do you even practice Wing Chun? You don't think that any Wing Chun players in the past were fighters, so how could they have possibly developed an effective fighting system? You don't think that Chi Sao is useful, when it has been one of the main training methods for Wing Chun for generations. So how could Wing Chun possibly be an effective fighting system? You don't trust the historical background of Wing Chun, so why do you practice it? You don't think anyone can actually fight with Wing Chun. Why aren't you doing Muay Thai?
All kinds of nonsense is taught in chi sao that simply won't work in attached fighting. Worse, people who don't fight, use chi sao as the basis for their WCK.
---I agree. That is essentially what I have been writing about. But you don't see a middle ground.
And if you and your three teachers fought with some aggressive, nonWCK fighters who were in decent shape, and you'd all get destroyed.
---I least one of those teachers did fight with aggressive nonWCK fighters in Hong Kong. I wasn't there and can't vouce for their skills or what kind of shape they were in, but he didn't get destroyed.
There are no authorities in WCK.
---Again, why do you practice WCK? And I'm not just being factious. I'm truly interested in why you stick with Wing Chun when you could be doing something like Muay Thai. Muay Thai has a documented fighting background. Lots of Muay Thai teachers are former ring fighters. Muay Thai guys do some serious sparring. Why do you bother with Wing Chun?
What you need is to let application be your sifu, let your results (fighting) guide you and act as your compass.
---Yes. I like that saying from Robert Chu. But as I have said several times in the past, you have to start somewhere! You need a structured curriculum. Then your sparring/fighting to test application can inform what you are doing and how you train.
I'll be happy to discuss WCK with you when you begin doing WCK. Doing WCK is fighting. As you are not doing that, how can we discuss it? It is only theory to you.
---See, this is where you tick off almost everyone you interact with here. If we're not going out and fighting people from other systems on a regular basis, then we're not even doing WCK. That is a pretty lame attitude.
I said FOR ME WCK is attached fighting. For me. I don't know what
WCK was "designed for". Neither of us, nor can anyone, speak for all WCK or for the the founders or anything else other than what we can do. I know what I do. I am not saying that it works best doing what I do. There may be other ways.
---You still haven't described how what you said is different from what I said.
You are not basing your view on experience.
---Sure I am! I am basing it on experience with several teachers. I am basing it on experience with performing and practicing it with an eye towards good biomechanics. I am basing it on experience using it in sparring....maybe not to the level they you would like...but I do more than just forms and Chi Sao.
You are always welcome. The problem about my saying how I "teach" is that when I do teach it is individually-based or learner-centered. There is no set way. Generally, however, I show a trainee the approach (the strategic battle plan of WCK) and focus on developing the 7 or 8 fundamental skills they will need to implement that approach. I use a sparring platform to do that, but also use some of the classical drills, including chi sao, as part of the teaching/learning process.
---That sounds good. But why are you attacking me for describing a little different approach? Why are you never supportive in what you post? You use Chi Sao as part of the teaching/learning process but believe that sparring should be the focus. I've said the same thing. You evidently haven't thrown out Chi Sao totally. I've described how I see Chi Sao as being somewhere between the "be all and end all" of WCK training and being competely useless. It seems we would agree on that point and our differences are essentially in how much or how little we use Chi Sao in training. Why do you attack me for my position rather than see and discuss the similarities that we appear to have? Why is everything a fight for you rather than a discussion?
k gledhill
05-17-2008, 07:16 AM
I would venture that due to the lack of complete knowledge of the system or simply focused on the 'litigation' safe side , a lot of people teaching it in 1/2 measures are the reason for Terence's views . Many simply adopt chi-sao as a 'safe' way of pseudo fighting to prove themselves 'untouchable' withint the realms of patty cake kingdoms.
The VT system starts fighting at 'no contact' by tactical maneuvering to achieve a goal set before us, attacking as a defensive response to being attacked. Counter the attack by attacking back .
Due to the nature of such a goal we spend a lot of time in random contact/angle drills ...not as Terence see's it 'dirty clinching,' but to resolve a myriad of possible positions of a clash from no contact to a strike over and over from either side of the attacking force/line...without thinking ... .Preparing for the point in time we need to have all our actions focused and working with real energy etc...
VT should be introducing the 'face off to engagement' from day 1 and everytime one trains.
It is this attention to the clash point that requires angling to incoming force and then staying with the attacker to finish them off , avoiding head on collisions etc that would favor a larger opponent simply charging in to a smaller one.... using the forces of the given situation to our advantage by making techniques work by overwhelming with 2 striking hands to the weak positions of forceful entry. We can do this by chi-sao drills that allow constant repetition of the simple entry and counter aka attacking or counter attacking each other....to gain entry past the arms to the head/body.
If the entry to each others face off is 'head -on' every time like a dirty clinch...thats not
good for a weaker v stronger opponent or an uneven weight category of real life. Not fighting guys who are equal by weight etc. to make it 'fair'.
Imagine the timing needed to accomplish this 'every time' striking an incoming force with enough force to hurt it, and not fall over by striking it yourself :D...
Not knowing what side to try this idea before hand needs the introduction of random 'offside' angling , not just standing in a basic stance throwing shots like your in a clinch.
...why roll with elbows in then ? oh thats right they dont :D they do lop chops, neck grabs to knee strikes , punches that dont develop an ability but rather just want to hit the guy while the other hand has to trap the guys hands because the striking hand cant do it alone...skill ?
Knowing the knife ideas is key to seeing the bare hands ...would you fight a person armed with 2 knives [ your mirror] by facing square to each other , taking the % of receiving either side in flanking or straight stabbing lines....the strategic positions are equal ! What kind of advantage is that ?
How aboiut a face off that you have prepared for for 1000's of hours to simply take advantage of entry methods or weaknesses of the attacking attempts, or avoiding the strengths ..ie not allowing them to face by maneuvering or taking their movement and using it to position yourself as the training , with little thought now and fighting instinctively using a simple idea /concept as the guide.
works for me
:D
t_niehoff
05-18-2008, 05:03 AM
---Scientists do not start from scratch. Scientists have a background from learning what other scientists have done. Scientists spend years in school training before they ever embark on real experiments of their own. No, I see what you are saying Terence, and have said before that you have a few good points. But you take it too extremes. You alienate nearly everyone you interact with. You won't meet anyone half-way and see the middle ground.
This isn't a popularity contest. I expect to alienate most traditionalists. And I'd say my views aren't extreme, they are mainstream among genuine fighters in functional arts. The extreme views IMO are those of traditionalists.
I have sparred with people from other systems. I have examined the biomechanics behind my Wing Chun and made some changes. But I haven't had the opportunity to go out every weekend and find hardcore guys willing to spar. I haven't had the opportunity to enter any kind of local MMA competition and likely never will. Not everyone has access to lots of people from other styles willing to spar on a realistic by friendly level. So we work with it as we can. But I'm sure that's still not good enough for you. You don't see a middle ground in anything. Its "all out" or nothing for you....at least that's how you come across in your posts.
I've heard people say "I've sparred before". You still don't get it. All I can tell you is come here and we'll show you in a very friendly way.
Terence I will ask again....why do you even practice Wing Chun? You don't think that any Wing Chun players in the past were fighters, so how could they have possibly developed an effective fighting system? You don't think that Chi Sao is useful, when it has been one of the main training methods for Wing Chun for generations. So how could Wing Chun possibly be an effective fighting system? You don't trust the historical background of Wing Chun, so why do you practice it? You don't think anyone can actually fight with Wing Chun. Why aren't you doing Muay Thai?
Certainly some WCK practitioners in our past were fighters, That doesn't make you or your teachers fighters or particularly good fighters. Skill doesn't come from the guys from the past, Keith. It comes from the process, the work, that YOU go through. WCK may be a fine fighting method, as is BJJ and boxing, but understanding comes from skill, skill comes from DOING it (fighting with it). So a person's understanding of WCK will correspond to their fighting skill level. A person can't teach a skill they don't have, and they can't even talk about it since they don't know. Most people in WCK pass on the curriculum, the forms, the drills, the kuit, etc. and never really develop the ability to use that currciulum -- and the use of it, the fighting, IS wing chun kuen. You don't get that ability to use the currciculum from anyone, it can't be passed on, you can't be told how to do it, etc. The only way to learn and develop it is through the process of doing it. You learn to box by boxing, you learn submission grappling by rolling.
---I agree. That is essentially what I have been writing about. But you don't see a middle ground.
This isn't a theoretical exercise, where we can compromise. Reality is uncompromising. Things don't work a certain way because we'd like them to.
And if you and your three teachers fought with some aggressive, nonWCK fighters who were in decent shape, and you'd all get destroyed.
---I least one of those teachers did fight with aggressive nonWCK fighters in Hong Kong. I wasn't there and can't vouce for their skills or what kind of shape they were in, but he didn't get destroyed.
Stories. Don't believe the fairy tales, only believe your eyes. My view is simple, if someone can't step up and show it to me in fighting, then it is BS, plain and simple.
There are no authorities in WCK.
---Again, why do you practice WCK? And I'm not just being factious. I'm truly interested in why you stick with Wing Chun when you could be doing something like Muay Thai. Muay Thai has a documented fighting background. Lots of Muay Thai teachers are former ring fighters. Muay Thai guys do some serious sparring. Why do you bother with Wing Chun?
I don't practice WCK to be told what to do by a bunch of guys that can't do it. I practice WCK because I find it an excellent approach to fighting in the clinch (attached).
What you need is to let application be your sifu, let your results (fighting) guide you and act as your compass.
---Yes. I like that saying from Robert Chu. But as I have said several times in the past, you have to start somewhere! You need a structured curriculum. Then your sparring/fighting to test application can inform what you are doing and how you train.
Dude, you have the curriculum of WCK and that hasn't helped you! You keep saying that you want some structured (fixed) currciculum. This is just reorganizing the same stuff; it won't help. Once again, you are talking soley from a theoretical POV -- that you ned to do X, then Y. But this is theory, it hasn't worked for you, and it hasn't worked for anyone.
I'll be happy to discuss WCK with you when you begin doing WCK. Doing WCK is fighting. As you are not doing that, how can we discuss it? It is only theory to you.
---See, this is where you tick off almost everyone you interact with here. If we're not going out and fighting people from other systems on a regular basis, then we're not even doing WCK. That is a pretty lame attitude.
How can you talk about how to do something in fighting or train to do soemthing in fighting when you can't do that thing in fighting consistently and with success against decent nonWCK fighters? What is there to talk about? All that becomes is a theoretical exercise. From my perspective, the lame attitude is people thinking they can talk about what they cannot even do, people teaching what they cannot even do.
I said FOR ME WCK is attached fighting. For me. I don't know what
WCK was "designed for". Neither of us, nor can anyone, speak for all WCK or for the the founders or anything else other than what we can do. I know what I do. I am not saying that it works best doing what I do. There may be other ways.
---You still haven't described how what you said is different from what I said.
You speak from theory, I speak from my experience (and limit it to my experience). Even if our words appear similar, the meaning is very different. Much ofthis can't be described verbally.
You are not basing your view on experience.
---Sure I am! I am basing it on experience with several teachers. I am basing it on experience with performing and practicing it with an eye towards good biomechanics. I am basing it on experience using it in sparring....maybe not to the level they you would like...but I do more than just forms and Chi Sao.
By "experience" I mean the amount of quality sparring you've done. You're views aren't based on hanging with decent thai boxers. For me, how much time someone has spent with a teacher, has been doing the currciulum of WCK (the forms, drills, etc.), their "reputation", etc. doesn't matter since none of that will pertain to skill and thus understanding of WCK. What matters is the amount of time they've spent doing WCK, the amount of quality sparring they've done, and their ability to use the technical repertoire of WCK in doing that. That experience.
You are always welcome. The problem about my saying how I "teach" is that when I do teach it is individually-based or learner-centered. There is no set way. Generally, however, I show a trainee the approach (the strategic battle plan of WCK) and focus on developing the 7 or 8 fundamental skills they will need to implement that approach. I use a sparring platform to do that, but also use some of the classical drills, including chi sao, as part of the teaching/learning process.
---That sounds good. But why are you attacking me for describing a little different approach? Why are you never supportive in what you post? You use Chi Sao as part of the teaching/learning process but believe that sparring should be the focus. I've said the same thing. You evidently haven't thrown out Chi Sao totally. I've described how I see Chi Sao as being somewhere between the "be all and end all" of WCK training and being competely useless. It seems we would agree on that point and our differences are essentially in how much or how little we use Chi Sao in training. Why do you attack me for my position rather than see and discuss the similarities that we appear to have? Why is everything a fight for you rather than a discussion?
We are not saying the same thing or even something similar. If you come visit us here, you'll leave understanding that. I'm not saying chi sao is completely worthless, but I am saying you don't need it and can develop without it.
The crux of what I am telling you is this -- most TMAists don't have much in the way of real skill (fighting skill), yet believe they know how to train, how to apply WCK, etc., how to get down the progress road. But they can't since they don't realy know where they are going (although they believe they do). When you arein that position, you have two options, find someone that has already gone down that road and work with them (they can hep you by keeping you on track as you do the work) or you can feel yourself down that road using your results as a compass. The absolute worst thing you can do is listen to someone's directions who hasn't made it down that raod, as they will only lead you off it.
Edmund
05-18-2008, 08:33 PM
Well you seem to be more about defending your point, than listening to other people's points.
---I could say the exact same thing of you! How long did we belabour the point of whether Judo Randori was a good analogy for Chi Sao....with you seeing only the differences and not the similarities?
Well you brought up the analogy in Van's thread and I don't think I was alone in commenting that it wasn't accurate. Then you write an article using the analogy and ask for comments on this thread.
---What difference does that make? They are two different things. I've said over and over that Chi Sao is a structured drill with a specific purpose. It is not realisitic sparring.
You said in your own article that chi sao is no substitute for sparring and chi sao isn't a fight and not realistic resistance. Your article didn't try play up the importance of chi sao. IF anything it played it down.
---Exactly! I was trying to provide the middle ground between saying Chi Sao is useless and throwing it out....like Terence has done....and saying that Chi Sao is ideal way to learn to fight with Wing Chun...which it isn't. I was trying to point out that focusing on long strings of complicated movements against a cooperating partner is not the real intent and purpose of Chi Sao training. I have been trying to show how Chi Sao can be make part of a progressive sparring program in order to better transition the contact reflex skills developed into actual application. But it seems like no one is listening. Rather than trying to see and understand what I am saying, you and others keep harping on the negatives. I have to keep wondering...."do these guys even do Wing Chun?"
You know, you can't say that it's unrealistic and only part of a progression towards sparring, THEN turn around and call it the heart of WC.
See below about the transitioning.
I think the clips of all out sparring show what sort of skills work and how far chi sao can develop those skills.
---Unless you know the participants personally you have no way of judging. How do you know what kind of Chi Sao training they have had? Maybe they learned to roll....learned lots of prearranged combinations against a cooperative partner...and that was it. Maybe they were never taught how to transition their Chi Sao skills into sparring. Maybe they've never worked on progressive sparring drills designed to show them how to use Chi Sao skills. Maybe they've never developed any actual Chi Sao skills to begin with!!
Well it's congruent with the universal truths of fighting that Van mentioned so I'm not about to try blame their skills. Especially when I don't expect something unrealistic.
The clips show what works in sparring. That stuff is what chi sao has to transition into.
You don't see a lot of time in arm-on-arm contact for the reasons I stated way back. If there is, it's because someone is grabbing on *super tight*. It's very difficult to avoid standing grappling. That is the speed and power that contact reflex skills have to work at.
If you want to use chi sao as part of a progression, you have to use whatever techniques work in sparring. You can't, for instance, practice all sorts of stuff in chi sao then try it in sparring.
This isn't a popularity contest.
---But don't you get tired of being the "fat kid that nobody likes"?? You know...the kid with no social skills that can only talk about one thing. When you go into the breakroom at work, do people get up and leave the room?
I expect to alienate most traditionalists. And I'd say my views aren't extreme,
---I don't consider myself a traditionalist. And I do think your views are extreme. I see myself as being in the middle of the spectrum between the traditionalists..."it has to be done just like my teacher did it"....on one end and the extremist...."if you aren't going out and fighting tough guys every weekend you are worthless"....on the other.
I've heard people say "I've sparred before". You still don't get it. All I can tell you is come here and we'll show you in a very friendly way.
---So what is "good enough" for you? Having sparred with guys that were good at Tae Kwon Do and Kenpo, and then going back and rethinking and readjusting things? Sparring with guys from other systems twice a year? Sparring with guys from other systems once a month? Sparring with guys from other systems once a week? Just what is the standard when you decide that someone "gets it?" Oh wait....I guess that would be when they have to essentially abandoned Chi Sao and only train like an MMA guy....then they would "get it."
Skill doesn't come from the guys from the past, Keith.
---Of course not!
It comes from the process, the work, that YOU go through.
---Absolutely! But it also comes from the training curriculum. It doesn't evolve by being thrown into the ring to fend for yourself and create a fighting method from scratch. That's why guys in MMA seek out Greg Jackson and other well-known gyms/trainers. The curriculum is important.
A person can't teach a skill they don't have, and they can't even talk about it since they don't know.
---I agree with what you are saying, but again...you take your point to the extreme. Can Greg Jackson hold his own in the ring against Keith Jardine or Georges St. Pierre? Could Cus D'Amato hold his own against Mike Tyson?
Most people in WCK pass on the curriculum, the forms, the drills, the kuit, etc. and never really develop the ability to use that currciulum -- and the use of it, the fighting, IS wing chun kuen.
---Again, I agree with what you are saying. But where you seem to imply that the curriculum is pointless and everything centers around the fighting experience, I'm saying that that curriculum is important and the experience can come from a progressive approach that includes fighting. But wait....that seems to be comparing your theory to my theory, and we can't do that! :eek:
You don't get that ability to use the currciculum from anyone, it can't be passed on, you can't be told how to do it, etc. The only way to learn and develop it is through the process of doing it. You learn to box by boxing, you learn submission grappling by rolling.
---I think you are wrong. If someone cannot teach you how to use the curriculum, then what would be the point of having it? Boxers first learn a "boxing structure"....how to throw a punch, how to cover, how to move around the ring. Their coach doesn't just throw them in the ring and say "ok, now box!" Submission grapplers learn a curriculum that includes all kinds of joint locks and chokes and how to escape from them. Their coach doesn't just throw them on the mat and say "ok, now do a elbow lock!" They are first shown what the technique is and how to apply it.
This isn't a theoretical exercise, where we can compromise. Reality is uncompromising. Things don't work a certain way because we'd like them to.
---There are always multiple paths to the same goal. Alan Orr seems to stick to a fairly "traditional" curriculum, and he is a fighter. From what I've seen, his approach seems closer to what I am describing than to what you are describing. In fact, I just recently received his latest DVDs in the mail and watched his set on Chi Sao. I discovered that what he talks about and shows on those DVDs matches up fairly closely to the way I have come to view Chi Sao. He certainly seems to view Chi Sao as having more than "limited usefulness for teaching." He doesn't appear to have abandoned Chi Sao training with his more advanced students. He seems to think it is important enough to produce a couple of DVDs on the subject. And he and his students fight regularly. They certainly seem to take the approach that I have been talking about......use the curriculum, use realistic fighting/sparring to inform what you are doing...make adjustments to the curriculum as necessarily. They have a starting point and a fairly "traditional" foundation in the Wing Chun curriculum that they adapt as appropriate. At least that's how it appears to me. I've never had the opportunity to meet Alan and his guys.
Stories. Don't believe the fairy tales, only believe your eyes. My view is simple, if someone can't step up and show it to me in fighting, then it is BS, plain and simple.
---Isn't that a "catch 22" argument? First you say that none of my teachers were fighters. Then when I say you are wrong, you're reply is "that's just stories, don't believe it."
Dude, you have the curriculum of WCK and that hasn't helped you!
---How do you know?
You speak from theory, I speak from my experience (and limit it to my experience). Even if our words appear similar, the meaning is very different.
---You still haven't described the difference between "contact distance" and "attached."
Much ofthis can't be described verbally.
---Oh! There it is!!! :eek:
---Look Terence, this is all very "Deja Vu." I could have predicted everything you were going to say. Its not that I "don't get it." Its that you think it has to be extreme or nothing. There is a middle way.
Well you brought up the analogy in Van's thread and I don't think I was alone in commenting that it wasn't accurate. Then you write an article using the analogy and ask for comments on this thread.
---Yes, you are right. I invited comments, and comments are welcome. But we can agree to disagree and go on. :) Terrence brought up Judo Randori on that thread as an example of realistic training, as opposed to Chi Sao which he described as unrealistic training. I said I didn't see such a big difference between the two. Then with further discussion it became apparent that a lot of people, including yourself, were not seeing Chi Sao in the same way that I see it. So I wrote the article to further organize the way I have come to view Chi Sao training. The way that I see and practice Chi Sao has many similarities to Judo Randori as well as development drills/training from other systems. Let me repeat what I said before:
"Its just an analogy. Use it for what its worth. Like Kevin's analogy of the spider web. Randori is a drill designed to work on what Judo does best....standing grapple to throw. Chi Sao is a drill designed to work on what Wing Chun does best...contact reactions to bridge in. The "roll" in BJJ is a drill designed to work on what BJJ does best....ground control and transitions to chokes and submissions. Pad work with a coach in boxing is a drill designed to work on what boxing does best...hitting hard and fast from multiple angles. Are they all exactly equivalent? Probably not! Do the comparisons serve to make a point? I think so!"
You know, you can't say that it's unrealistic and only part of a progression towards sparring, THEN turn around and call it the heart of WC.
---What I said was this: "There are plenty of high-ranking people who call Chi Sao the 'heart' of Wing Chun." I didn't say I considered Chi Sao to be the heart of Wing Chun.
Well it's congruent with the universal truths of fighting that Van mentioned so I'm not about to try blame their skills. Especially when I don't expect something unrealistic.
---I'm not expecting anything unrealistic either. But if you haven't practiced contact reaction skills in the context of sparring, how do you expect it to ever show up in sparring? Have you also completely abandoned Chi Sao training?
The clips show what works in sparring. That stuff is what chi sao has to transition into.
---I never said otherwise. But you seem to think it can't be done.
You don't see a lot of time in arm-on-arm contact for the reasons I stated way back.
---I said that in my article. Chi Sao is training for a relatively brief point in an exchange. That's why the structure of the roll is necessary. It sustains what would otherwise be a brief exchange so that one can work at it in more detail. But you don't roll in a real exchange. The skills transfer, not the rolling structure.
Edmund
05-20-2008, 01:05 AM
---I'm not expecting anything unrealistic either. But if you haven't practiced contact reaction skills in the context of sparring, how do you expect it to ever show up in sparring? Have you also completely abandoned Chi Sao training?
I abandon practicing techniques in chi sao that don't work in sparring.
And I don't practice a heap of chi sao. It's not that important.
You can't practice any old techniques in chi sao. You said that yourself in your article. They have to be realistic. So if you never see them in sparring they probably have a very low chance of working.
---I said that in my article. Chi Sao is training for a relatively brief point in an exchange. That's why the structure of the roll is necessary. It sustains what would otherwise be a brief exchange so that one can work at it in more detail. But you don't roll in a real exchange. The skills transfer, not the rolling structure.
I almost never roll. It's unrealistic. It doesn't help transfer a thing.
I abandon practicing techniques in chi sao that don't work in sparring.
And I don't practice a heap of chi sao. It's not that important.
You can't practice any old techniques in chi sao. You said that yourself in your article. They have to be realistic. So if you never see them in sparring they probably have a very low chance of working.
I almost never roll. It's unrealistic. It doesn't help transfer a thing.
---Ed, it seems to me that you haven't tried to understand a single thing I've said so far. I give up.
k gledhill
05-20-2008, 06:10 AM
The rolling is just to offer each other one side as the other side performs..ie neutral arm
fook turns to jumming punch across your tanpunch arm doing a jumming punch v your tansao tries to strike , the punching jum keeping the elbow in for development of that striking to energy , just for the striking training.
My jumming punch is then deflected by your bong going sideways [ left or right ]only depends what side you attack on] to clear the way for your vusao [ free to strike hand] in a free fight exchange , when your rear hand will always be...Vu sao aka free to hit hand not defend by staying there but striking constantly from the rear , ergo tut sao senk sao .... Then you recover your uplifted bong elbow 'back' to strike with an elbow in, tan , as you lower your bong your other hand is ...? punching ! bong up deflect down and strike while its going down with the other hand ...if this is done in a fight defect / strike and not a rolling face on clinch you can see its just a simple routine...
other scenarios..
Or my jumming punch elbow socks and your tanning elbow makes my strike go off line as you just strike in with your tan-palm [ vertical palm moves elbow out] to show me 'it' [ my elbow positions developed in SLT ] sucked...the jummer needs tighter elbow control to either stalemate the partner or his partners tanning elbow pops out [ bad because the strike will jam itself in a free fight] and cant stop your punch by deflection or swapping hits . Elbow strike control training [ not with the elbow :D] , not using the wrists to deflect each other...thats in bil gee [ some vt family's mix in the wristing in SLT ] ...
A simple sequence if seen as this role for each other to do opposites, you add the attacking entry to 'prove ' the chi-sao, SOoooo upon making contact on a flank or a perimeter face off moving laterally etc.. back and forth...
Then we add entry stepping and countering depending on the side the strike enters from we use that as the response and get all the things we require to come to a focused point then and there in real time.
Coupled with 'hand free, strikes' training we develop an instinctive 'just hit' and attack when we can. And we allow it 'randomly' just to help develop our training partners.
Man sao vu sao drills in bong /jut scenarios....for entering and having your arm xed over to recover the rear hand striking in to jut ing in etc...
The addition of following through with attacking entry to stepping in and angling to a guy who moves away from your entry seung ma toi ma roles...
and more :D
Seen as not clinching or 'rolling ' up and down using the wrists to 'suddenly' :D perform a questionable exchange [still makes me smile]. WE do 'clearing' attack training to remove arms to transfer our rear striking arm into the space to take over from the lead , opening hand .
The angles , speed of execution , reactions to scenarios all comes to a head . With the attention to entry lines from the attacker we can utilize the space and time involved to a face off to vie for positions that will work our ideas. fading left /right to entry to us . Not a big side shifting 'jump' to avoid the guy, rather a tight cutting angle that is avoiding the head on by chi-sao seung ma toi ma thinkign and attacking past that point to take the guy out the 'exit ' door behind him. I teach guys to take the fight to the guy so he is going out an imaginary door ...were that door is ? just keep taking him to it :D using a fist,palm, shove, kick, strike, trap to hit so you never stop attacking the guy once the 'event' has started.
It requires a certain degree of aerobic ability to simply out fight using this method of attacking/defense as one . Done correctly it raises the odds to your advantage .
One should view the chi-sao as the apex of the triangle , you either enter to or angle off the point of impact, relative to the charge or escaping route the guy takes or changes as you fight. By adopting the thinking of using the 'same' idea either side to his weak or strong we can deliver the assault without backing off to recover our strong side delivery . Ergo the need for equal attention to both sides in chi-sao.
If you see chi-sao as a touchy feely thing with no striking development at angles in a progressive systematic process then question [ sounds like many have already] what the F%*k are you doing ? :D just rolling around for contact sensitivity training ? thats a by-product of the exercise not the goal. The contact on attacking entry will be very brief
so the ideas should be to develop ballistic energy to make you bongsao capable of displacing an arm sideways , relative to your centerline as you attack in from either side.
Your fook [ neutral doing nothing hand but recovering the elbow levels] is becoming a inward jumming punch v the partners tan outward elbow ...a punch from tan inside the arm or out side does the same elbow spread off line so the elbow leaving your centerline will strike and clear by elbow movement off your line ...one arm in training to do 2 actions , strike and clear your space as you attack without thinking, it works with or without contact from the attacker...if he contacts or comes into the space of the strike it will strike through or stalemate or be deflected , the rear hand , vusao kicks in without stopping to simply follow the lead of the resulting leading actions....ergo we always fight lead hand rear hand , not double leading as chisao or basic drills that 'look' like applications.
The VT fight is an attacking entry , but not down the pipe head on , a classic mistake that will get your head cut off later ;) to decide what side we go requires no lead leg face off , rather a side on short shifting stance to take the lead the guy gives or to attack his obvious weakness from angles or a converging line as the guy moves laterally back and forth etc....CK is this movement for us.to 'hunt' the guy down constantly not wait and do a tan sao punch :rolleyes: turning ourselves from the attacker to chase a hand in the air while adopting a 'wait in the center of the hurricane mentality' sooner or later 'debris' from the fight will come at you...so move around , be alert like aboxer shifts only think to attack and finish by timing entry , not parry back off , kick step back...it ain't easy to attack in close proximity with a relentless barrage delivered in a flow that leaves little chance for the recipient.
The Chi-sao should NOT be the point we stop to roll or feel or clinch. We should be out, face off waiting for a sign to enter,and into it , attack, and out again, meaning back to simply striking /kicking/shoving out the 'exit door' asap..
Use the momentum of the attack with heel into the ground /strikes one can generate the force [some call Qi !] to damage the guy . If you catch them coming into you then from my experience , you wont have to hit them twice. You may not ko them every time, but ! you just delivered a full body strike with perfect timing to a guys head.
If you do heavy bag training it doesnt matter what style name you give it :D
another misleading training drill is dummy, the dummy is only proving elbows and angles in rotation to the attack, one arm becomes a defensive partner to do an attack again. repeat 2-3-4 add jut saos
etc...and the ideas are repeated with a protractor mind.
The high gaun sao many perform in a high/low is in WSL a jumming strike with a low gaun sao [from bil gee then SLT later after fighting ...] not a double block , but high [B]hit low parry, too low for the huen sao to remove.The the high hit [jum] becomes a defecting bong [ done low for ballistic training] while the low gan sao becomes a strike from tan positions...sequentially each arm adopts a strike from a parry/deflection to continue uninterupted attacks going...
When we move across the face of the dummy from entry to either side as the attack angles , we are hunting down the guy in a lateral shuffling attack across th face of the dummy to an imaginary one moving parallel to the supporting slats holding the dummy up. The main bod of the dummy isnt the 'constant' position of an attaker. If we think this way them we do mistake number one [bad] stand in front of an attack and turn away using 2 arms to respond ie kwan -sao not a picture pose application. look at the actions of the arms preceeding the next , individually, and you see the SLT later section sequences . These latter sequences involve 'recovery' of obstructed attack lines or countering and striking in 1 beat using 2 arms , that at anytime could fall back on the basic lead /follow man sao vu-sao thinking....
LIke going after a guy along the cage walls as he avoids your attack you dont step at him directly you 'converge' to his side/s attacking ...its not a stand front and center pose off and block 2-3 [ouch take down] its to make you go after the guy . Using the dummy to develop inward elbow strikes along 'facing [chu-ying] lines of perpetual attacking to the 'exit door ' behind him.
To try to emulate the dummy in chi-sao wont work out side in a freefight ...why many wonder why the chi-sao if this stuff doesnt work in a real fight , simple its not meant to. It works in chi-sao 'land'
were you have a willing partner 'holding ' the exact lines you need to make it work ,as you turn his energy and then re-face him ; ) ? add unwilling fighter who doesnt care what his elbow is doing as he smashes your face and hey presto , just moving around avoiding him is a good idea % better !
just random thoughts ....
t_niehoff
05-22-2008, 07:50 AM
Keith,
If you are interested in pursuing this, contact me offlist (tniehoff@gmail.com).
Terence
couch
05-22-2008, 09:24 AM
You don't get that ability to use the currciculum from anyone, it can't be passed on, you can't be told how to do it, etc. The only way to learn and develop it is through the process of doing it. You learn to box by boxing, you learn submission grappling by rolling.
---I think you are wrong. If someone cannot teach you how to use the curriculum, then what would be the point of having it? Boxers first learn a "boxing structure"....how to throw a punch, how to cover, how to move around the ring. Their coach doesn't just throw them in the ring and say "ok, now box!" Submission grapplers learn a curriculum that includes all kinds of joint locks and chokes and how to escape from them. Their coach doesn't just throw them on the mat and say "ok, now do a elbow lock!" They are first shown what the technique is and how to apply it.
I know you want to talk offlist T, but just to continue a discussion....
In the boxing gym I trained at, I was told I'd be *lucky* if coach would let me spar/box in under a year. Spent most of the time running stairs, skipping, footwork, throwing gloves on the bag, and some partner work (eg: stuffing a jab).
But what we're talking about is maybe just some 'missing links' in training.
We have the forms,
we have the partner drills (eg: Pak/Pak Da, Tan/Tan Da, etc)
we have the co-operative semi-real-time drill of Chi Sau...
What's missing?
Maybe two-three things IMO:
'Sucker punch drills (maybe LARPing)' and 'Sparring'
So where *some* (I didn't say most! :) ) schools stop at the Chi Sau stage, there could be those other things I mentioned added to their curriculum. Thoughts, anyone?
Hey Kenton!
In the boxing gym I trained at, I was told I'd be *lucky* if coach would let me spar/box in under a year.
---Thanks for backing up the point I was trying to make.
But what we're talking about is maybe just some 'missing links' in training.
---No "maybe" about it. There often is some "missing links" in training.
We have the forms,
we have the partner drills (eg: Pak/Pak Da, Tan/Tan Da, etc)
we have the co-operative semi-real-time drill of Chi Sau...
What's missing?
---What's missing is a structured and systematic method for transitioning the skills gained from those things into a "realistic" sparring or fighting situation. On this thread I've been talking about an approach to transition the skills gained from Chi Sao into a sparring format.
Maybe two-three things IMO:
'Sucker punch drills (maybe LARPing)' and 'Sparring'
---I'm not sure what you mean by "sucker punch drills".....?
So where *some* (I didn't say most! :) ) schools stop at the Chi Sau stage, there could be those other things I mentioned added to their curriculum. Thoughts, anyone?
---I agree. Just read my article. :) But it also seems from the posts on this thread that some have simply skipped or eliminated the Chi Sao stage. There are two extremes in training WCK. One sees Chi Sao as all you need to learn to apply WCK skills and puts a heavy emphasis on it. The other sees Chi Sao as essentially worthless when it comes to real fighting, barely trains it at all if any, and puts a heavy emphasis on free sparring. I think there is a middle way.
couch
05-23-2008, 05:33 AM
---I'm not sure what you mean by "sucker punch drills".....?
---I agree. Just read my article. :) But it also seems from the posts on this thread that some have simply skipped or eliminated the Chi Sao stage. There are two extremes in training WCK. One sees Chi Sao as all you need to learn to apply WCK skills and puts a heavy emphasis on it. The other sees Chi Sao as essentially worthless when it comes to real fighting, barely trains it at all if any, and puts a heavy emphasis on free sparring. I think there is a middle way.
An example of a 'sucker punch drill:'
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jk_Ai8qT2s4
We trained this under my last Sifu quite a bit. I enjoy showing people this...sort of a one-step sparring scenario. First, you show the class some stationary stuff, like Tan, then move to Tan Da (then with shift, step, etc). Very controlled environment. Then you make everyone line up to attack one person. Each person will walk up and get in the defender's three feet of personal space and fire an attack. You make it have as many training wheels as you want (only a centre-punch for beginners to defend) or not (any attack for the inter. or seniors). Just some ideas on how I was trained and perform our 'sucker punch drills.' I like Tony's stuff, et al. I, too am concerned with the sucker punch and the ambush.
I recently had a client who, in the age of 60, was ambushed by 7 18-year-olds and assaulted in a sexual way. She didn't see them coming. They all came from behind to scare and control her. I spent a lot of time treating mental-emotional problems, not just her sciatica. Just a story to illustrate the threats out there. "You never understand why you devote so much of yourself to a dream, until the day the dream saves your life."
...and of course there is a middle way! Isn't that what the centreline is all about? ;)
sanjuro_ronin
05-23-2008, 05:41 AM
The sucker punch drills we used to do involved surprise attacks, coming into the dojo, while stretching, changing into clothes, coming out of the shower, while weight training.
Of course we all got good at it to a point that no one wanted to be the "attacker" because the attacker kept getting KO'd !
LOL !
k gledhill
05-23-2008, 06:29 AM
Surprise never fails , or it wouldn't be er ah ...surprise ! Tora Tora Tora etc...battle of midway...blitzkrieg...ambush.
I read a book by an old Karate Sensei who would always take a wide curve around corners when walking around his neighborhood . To avoid the surprise factor.
T Blauer has good info , I can translate that thinking into vt chi-sao. Not as sticking feeling , but from the space of no contact and a line of entry , left or right hand/foot . And how we react to the whole event. not just standing doing redundant arm tan sao in the air while holding the same spot twisting . Rather training to react instinctively by movement to avoid certain areas of a persons strengths . To ingrain the actions to the subconscious levels that will take us out of the strong lines of incoming force and angle to them, before any arm contact is even made. Why would you stand in the same spot waiting anyway ? to do a demo perhaps ? ....add reality and you don't know whats going to happen or when, like TB 's 'jack in the box' analogy.
So are you training to hold the center , the strongest point for your attacker , being his heavy bag, or a moving target by instinct.
I adopted similar ideas when facing guys at bar doors doing bouncing work , I would have my head down slightly to avoid the head butt on the bridge of my nose , a common flinch action, hard to defend by 'reaction'. I would stand slightly off line left lead so my strong right would follow. If a guy ever looked away from me while we had this 'event' friendly or not I would shift subtly out of his line by a 1/2 ft ...sometimes I could see the faces as they saw I wasn't as they expected , had I disrupted their intent , who knows ? I would hold my hands like a prayer in center, but without ever showing my preparation to the scenario. Experience and a 'gut' feeling take over after a while that only comes with personal experience of 100's of such scenarios.
Then you can try to teach from experience, these thoughts .
sanjuro_ronin
05-23-2008, 06:53 AM
I read a book by an old Karate Sensei who would always take a wide curve around corners when walking around his neighborhood . To avoid the surprise factor.
Ginchin Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan.
k gledhill
05-23-2008, 07:01 AM
I read a book on Shotokan !! :D
sanjuro_ronin
05-23-2008, 08:12 AM
I read a book on Shotokan !! :D
I wouldn't go that far !
I think its from his auto biography, though it has been quoted and paraphrased in other books too.
He was kind of an SOB at times in regards to reality training, shoving chop sticks down his students throats when they mishandled them to show them how easily they could be used as a weapon by your enemy.
k gledhill
05-23-2008, 09:52 AM
I remember that part ...note to self, avoid having lunch with his students :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.