Grappling/Takedown Chi sao

[HardWork8]

Interesting comments on Wing Chun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcqOQVThK0k&feature=related



Grappling/takedown chi sao:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEcsbtkPwf8&feature=related


PS. Sorry if they have been posted before.

[anerlich]

The first guy sounds like a good teacher, and appears to have decent short power.

I've seen several KF teachers show that figure 4 takedown application, including my own WC instructor and William Cheung. The kimura from top is generally taught with the knee in front of the face on the floor, not up like in the video, because the knee up offers more opportunity to escape, and the knee down can also be used to trap the other arm with the shin or behind the crook of the knee and prevent interference with the lock.

Otherwise the lock was technically correct. It is a basic technique taught to BJJ white belts.

The guy has skills, but no particularly unusual techniques.

[HardWork8]

The first guy sounds like a good teacher, and appears to have decent short power.

The first guy and the second guy are the same people.:)

[HardWork8]

This is why all this quasi kung fu groundfighting that they half @$$ ripped off from bjj is ineffective.
Kung fu had ground fighting centuries before bjj was invented!


this shaolin wing chun phonyjutsu does poorly in control. But without control and position, on a resisting opponent there is no submission...
Actually as far as I am aware the sifu in the video is not an exponent of the Shaolin (siulam) lineage of Wing Chun.


At least this guy wasn't THAT bad. Now hyena man from the last clip...yeah that was craptacular in craptastic proportions...
Well, thank you for that "expert" comment. I am sure your McKwoon sifus will be proud of you for that one.

[HardWork8]

Anyway, you have made your comment on the clips provided and thank you for your insight. Please allow others to comment without hijacking this thread. If you have personal issues with me then take it to the thread provided.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Anerlich is correct: William Cheung has taught the standing figure 4 armlock to a sweep takedown - against a knife or a stick attack that's being launched at you from a 3/4 overhand direction/angle.

Not a bad move. It's do-able if you get to jam the attack before he gets a chance to extend his arm.

BUT COMING OUT OF CHI SAO?

I don't get that at all :confused:

Because now we're assuming an empty hand scenario.

The chances of getting that lock (and then on to the takedown) during an empty hand striking/grabbing exchange are slim-to-none. He won't be putting such a commitment into the one "deadly" strike if he has no weapon - and then surely his other hand will be coming into play in a heartbeat - and therefore in all probability in time to nullify the attempt at a two-arms-on-one-arm lock.

Not realistic at all.

[HardWork8]

Anerlich is correct: William Cheung has taught the standing figure 4 armlock to a sweep takedown - against a knife or a stick attack that's being launched at you from a 3/4 overhand direction/angle.

Not a bad move. It's do-able if you get to jam the attack before he gets a chance to extend his arm.

BUT COMING OUT OF CHI SAO?

I don't get that at all :confused:

Because now we're assuming an empty hand scenario.

The chances of getting that lock (and then on to the takedown) during an empty hand striking/grabbing exchange are slim-to-none. He won't be putting such a commitment into the one "deadly" strike if he has no weapon - and then surely his other hand will be coming into play in a heartbeat - and therefore in all probability in time to nullify the attempt at a two-arms-on-one-arm lock.

Not realistic at all.

The technique shown in that clip is just one example of a grappling technique that one can use off the chi sao. I believe that this type of chi sao training is useful as it familiarizes the practitioners with stand up grappling scenarios and the various techniques and possibilities involving the use of chi-na techniques.

[cjurakpt]

Anerlich is correct: William Cheung has taught the standing figure 4 armlock to a sweep takedown - against a knife or a stick attack that's being launched at you from a 3/4 overhand direction/angle.

Not a bad move. It's do-able if you get to jam the attack before he gets a chance to extend his arm.

BUT COMING OUT OF CHI SAO?

I don't get that at all :confused:

Because now we're assuming an empty hand scenario.

The chances of getting that lock (and then on to the takedown) during an empty hand striking/grabbing exchange are slim-to-none. He won't be putting such a commitment into the one "deadly" strike if he has no weapon - and then surely his other hand will be coming into play in a heartbeat - and therefore in all probability in time to nullify the attempt at a two-arms-on-one-arm lock.

Not realistic at all.

especially based on the biomechanics: you have to take the guys arm which is already internally rotated at the shoulder past neutral, and fight against his strong flexor muscles to derotate his arm - you might be able to do it, but not without a struggle; actually, what would happen probably even if you managed to do that, he could easily step around to follow w/the other side leg while dropping his elbow; and finally, hello, he's got his other hand free! notice how his left hand instinctively went to the instructor's right shoulder? he could use that contact as a counterbalance to neutralize the technique; or he could go to the guy's right elbow to neutralize the lever generated by that arm; or he could just blast the guy in the head! I mean, the instructor is turning his back to the guy's free arm while he's using both hands on the other! odds are, he's going to get nailed...

[anerlich]

The first guy and the second guy are the same people.

Oh ... he changed his hair I guess ... I was looking at the tech, not his face.


Kung fu had ground fighting centuries before bjj was invented!


And so did the Japanese, upon whose arts BJJ is based.

I recommend "Mastering JuJitsu by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher for an excellent summary of Ju Jitsu history going back to at least the 12th century. Also wrestling is the oldest documented art in the world.

Of course, the age of a discipline or tradition has only an incidental relationship with its effectiveness.



or he could just blast the guy in the head!

I noticed that too, but you could say the same about a number of judo throws and other takedowns as well. One thing to be able to nail the guy with a left hook at demo speed, another to do it while he's actually trying to take you down full speed.

That said, I think getting control of at least two points of his body before a takedown would be higher percentage. With a weapon? Maybe the two on one strategy would give better control of the weapon.

[SoCo KungFu]

That said, I think getting control of at least two points of his body before a takedown would be higher percentage.

This might sound condescending but its not meant that way or its just a stupid question. I don't actually practice judo...

but isn't that the general idea in most of the judo techniques? From what I've seen it just seems that way.

Actually I think I remember reading somewhere, the author said that typically the first to secure two grips is typically going to be the one to obtain dominant leverage and land the throw in turn gaining dominant positioning and in more times than not winning the match.

[lkfmdc]

Most submission based systems stress POSITION before submission, ie you must imobilize the person or at least reduce mobility....

[SoCo KungFu]

Most submission based systems stress POSITION before submission, ie you must imobilize the person or at least reduce mobility....

Yeah I hear that at least once a night. I still gotta work on being more patient with the technique.

But that's also something that I see a lot of with kung fu in general in regards to trying to adapt a ground game. Its the same situation that was in those clips posted a while back. No body control, no position. And why I posted this earlier...


this shaolin wing chun phonyjutsu does poorly in control. But without control and position, on a resisting opponent there is no submission...

Am I guilty of it too? Yeah I'm the first to admit. Afterall I'm still dealing with months on the ground as opposed to years. Learning techniques are one thing...fighting habits is another....

[lkfmdc]

But that's also something that I see a lot of with kung fu in general in regards to trying to adapt a ground game.



Does TCMA have ground FIGHTING? YES. You see "deih tong/di tang", and other forms where throws, trips, falling, rolling, scissors, kicks from the ground, kip ups, spin ups, etc are used

Within the TCMA mindset, the idea was to prevent a standing opponent from stomping on you (or killing you with a weapon) and/or getting back to your feet pretty quickly.

It is NOT a coincidence that this is how classical Japanese Jiu Jitsu used to address the issue, when classical Japanese Jiu Jitsu was used by bushi for purposes of warfare primarily

The idea of ground GRAPPLING is very different and a feature of late 19th/early 20th century developments, civilians engaging in "self defense" and matters of honor (dueling)

TCMA is just now catching up to this, often too proud to just admit they are behind teh curve

[monji112000]

Most submission based systems stress POSITION before submission, ie you must imobilize the person or at least reduce mobility....
immobilizing... you mean like trapping and cover, making sure you are "safe". Hmm that sounds like BS kung fu garbage to me..

I haven't really tried this out, but my ideas on adding takedowns and clinching would be..

classic positions like pak or any position were you would strike the head and controle.. feed into a thai clinch..which feeds into pummeling ect..

also a few positions exist were you pushing the arm and jam in with a body or head shot, this can be replaced with pushing the arm into a duck under ect..

honesty so many examples could be created were you can do arm drags, leg trips, 50/50 stuff.. into no gi throws or whatever.. its really not that hard to start doing it.

I remmber a conversation with my sifu about watching someone do a hip throw from chi sao, I said thats completly wrong and "not wing chun". He was happy to point out how I know nothing and if its setup without putting yourself in harms way.. and its very much "wing chung".

Its not "wing chun" movements, but it fitting something else into chi sao that follows the "wing chun" mentality.

again I haven't played with allot of these ideas that much but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do it Just two people who understand both ideas .. then start playing with them.

JMO GFY if you don't like it. :D

[anerlich]

This might sound condescending but its not meant that way or its just a stupid question. I don't actually practice judo...

but isn't that the general idea in most of the judo techniques? From what I've seen it just seems that way.


Well, yeah. That's why I said it.

I don't practice judo either. But my BJJ class does have a 6th dan judoka who teaches us throws and the like.

[Edmund]

The chances of getting that lock (and then on to the takedown) during an empty hand striking/grabbing exchange are slim-to-none. He won't be putting such a commitment into the one "deadly" strike if he has no weapon - and then surely his other hand will be coming into play in a heartbeat - and therefore in all probability in time to nullify the attempt at a two-arms-on-one-arm lock.


That's the inherent problem with that technique. It needs some tweaking.

Probably safer to try a waki gatame.

[HardWork8]

Some interesting points and thank you.

In Siu Lam Wing Chun this grappling (kum Na) chi sao is pretty flexible. The intention is to use any effective lock or Chi-na technique to take down or stop your opponent. This may even include grabbing available finger of your opponent to twist and control him or even to take him down.

I believe that this training will enable the practitioner to incorporate and understand stand up grappling within a Wing Chun framework.

Of course this type of Chi sao is incorporated within the striking chi sao that we all know and love. Then it becomes an "anything goes" chi sao where you can be hit or be grappled/Chinna-ed. It is worth adding that at this stage the chi sao is mobile and not stationary.

[Ali. R]

Some interesting points and thank you.

In Siu Lam Wing Chun this grappling (kum Na) chi sao is pretty flexible. The intention is to use any effective lock or Chi-na technique to take down or stop your opponent. This may even include grabbing available finger of your opponent to twist and control him or even to take him down.

I believe that this training will enable the practitioner to incorporate and understand stand up grappling within a Wing Chun framework.

Of course this type of Chi sao is incorporated within the striking chi sao that we all know and love. Then it becomes an "anything goes" chi sao where you can be hit or be grappled/Chinna-ed. It is worth adding that at this stage the chi sao is mobile and not stationary.


That’s interesting stuff you have there because most systems that I heard of don’t use their wing chun /chin na as locks, but some and my wing chun system uses our chin na more on a breaking (fingers wrist and arms) aspect, rather then stopping and controlling the limbs…

The techniques works with very little use of the hands if at all, but putting it more in simple terms, we would rather break then control when using our chin na, to keep the tension within the hands at a very low percentage… It's really nothing special; it’s just what we do…

It will start off like chin na but, will end with a break…


Take care,


Ali Rahim.

[Ali. R]

Like this technique; when I laid my hand over his with very little tension in the fingers, almost like a light press, or I would never have that continuation of flow to move on with control…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o


Ali Rahim.

[HardWork8]

That’s interesting stuff you have there because most systems that I heard of don’t use their wing chun /chin na as locks, but some and my wing chun system uses our chin na more on a breaking (fingers wrist and arms) aspect, rather then stopping and controlling the limbs…

I suppose that it will depend on the situation as well. Sometimes the intention will be to control and at other times the intention would be to break. Other times it is purely a takedown technique which in some cases continues on the ground as this lineage of Wing Chun trains ground fighting as well (using Wing Chun principles and concepts).



… It is really nothing special; it’s just what we do…
But I bet it works.:)

[HardWork8]

Like this technique; when I laid my hand over his with very little tension in the fingers, almost like a light press, or I would never have that continuation of flow to move on with control…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o


Ali Rahim.

Thanks, great clip. You are right, it seems that correct relaxation opens the door to varied possibilities.

The all important continuation of flow is something that seems to be lacking at some Wing Chun schools I have come across. Sometimes unnecessary tension is added to the limbs and this isolates the movements thus sacrificing flow for some perceived gain in power.

Great Wing Chun.:)

[Ali. R]

Hey thanks,

When the chin na/ breaks are done correctly even in training you will steal your opponents breath, and his whole body will go limp, just watch his wrist and that will tell the whole story…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o

In that case for me, I have no need to control, I’ll just become poetic with punches...


Ali Rahim.

[monji112000]

The first guy sounds like a good teacher, and appears to have decent short power.

I've seen several KF teachers show that figure 4 takedown application, including my own WC instructor and William Cheung. The kimura from top is generally taught with the knee in front of the face on the floor, not up like in the video, because the knee up offers more opportunity to escape, and the knee down can also be used to trap the other arm with the shin or behind the crook of the knee and prevent interference with the lock.

Otherwise the lock was technically correct. It is a basic technique taught to BJJ white belts.

The guy has skills, but no particularly unusual techniques.

are you talking about the second clip? I would be willing to bet money that the takedown would only work on a half dead person. Or as lkfmdc says he needs to have no pulse...

that situation would work better with a gua sao and a duck under .. into many other things.

JMO what do I know..

[t_niehoff]

I would be willing to bet money that the takedown would only work on a half dead person. Or as lkfmdc says he needs to have no pulse...

JMO what do I know..

Of course no one would be able to pull that off against a genuinely resisting opponent. And that's true of so much that is fobbed off as "application" in WCK and the TCMAs. You have people teaching stuff (nonsense) that THEY have never successfully (let alone regularly and consistently) used in fighting/sparring. Then this stuff gets passed down ("transmitted") by the followers of the people who teach this nonsense. It's the blind leading the blind.

My question is do the people teaching "applications" like this know/understand that it is fantasy nonsense? If so, then what does it say about them that they teach to intentionally mislead their followers? If they don't know/understand (which I think most likely), should they really be teaching in the first place?

[hunt1]

My question is do the people teaching "applications" like this know/understand that it is fantasy nonsense? If so, then what does it say about them that they teach to intentionally mislead their followers? If they don't know/understand (which I think most likely), should they really be teaching in the first place?


You only know if you have paid the price to know in blood , injuries, hard smacks to the face , slams to the ground etc. Since most haven't paid the price they believe that what they are teaching is real.

The price is not paid by training with students or fellow classmates etc. Only with someone that wants to prove in no uncertain terms they are better than you can the price be paid over and over again.

[sanjuro_ronin]

First of all, it is a demo and as such, must be take with a grain of salt, as all demos are.
But...
The price is not paid by training with students or fellow classmates etc. Only with someone that wants to prove in no uncertain terms they are better than you can the price be paid over and over again.
Very well said.

[t_niehoff]

First of all, it is a demo and as such, must be take with a grain of salt, as all demos are.


I don't buy this excuse (though I've heard it before).

Why would anyone demo something that simply can't and won't work? Why demo fantasy? If you want to demo your martial art, demo what you can and will do, not what you can't. All that these sorts of demos prove is that the demonstrator doesn't really grasp reality.

[lkfmdc]

A student of the person in the second clip has said that they are aware the technique is being done wrong.... or, rather, they said "well, that is from 1994 so it is a bit old"

To me, this seems to say "we were trying to incorporate some stuff we didn't really understand very well into what we were doing"

CROSS TRAINING IS ADMIRABLE.... ie go out and find a BJJ, Judo, Sambo or wrestling coach and learn the techniques correctly

Do NOT try and "wing it", doing the technique incorrectly and then passing it on to students that way....

Or, worst of all, try and tell people it has been part of Wing Chun all along :rolleyes:

[CFT]

Why would anyone demo something that simply can't and won't work? Why demo fantasy? If you want to demo your martial art, demo what you can and will do, not what you can't. All that these sorts of demos prove is that the demonstrator doesn't really grasp reality.

Surely this depends on the audience for the demo? If it is just for 'entertainment' then you want the techniques to be clearly demonstrated and crisp which really can only be done with compliance or prior choreography and practice (for demo only). Otherwise with real intent and resistance it will just look messy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't buy this excuse (though I've heard it before).

Why would anyone demo something that simply can't and won't work? Why demo fantasy? If you want to demo your martial art, demo what you can and will do, not what you can't. All that these sorts of demos prove is that the demonstrator doesn't really grasp reality.

I tend to see it not as the technique doesn't work, but that it doesn't work as it is demoed, which is the case of most demos not done in a "full contact" mode.
Heck, we know that the "key lock", or "americana", or whatever name you choose to use, works well, perhaps not the way it is applied here, but the technique is a vlaid one.
IF the demo was at full speed and pace and he pulled it off, we would not have as MANY issues with it as we do now.

This is why I always advocate that, when demoing a technique one should follow the ways of the DBMA - see it taught, see it fought.

[t_niehoff]

Surely this depends on the audience for the demo? If it is just for 'entertainment' then you want the techniques to be clearly demonstrated and crisp which really can only be done with compliance or prior choreography and practice (for demo only). Otherwise with real intent and resistance it will just look messy.

If by entertainment you mean "theatrical" spectacle, like movies, that's a horse of a different color.

What I am talking about is demo'ing your martial art to show others how your art works. You can't demo how your art works by showing things that can't and won't work. Yes, you can slow things down, you can make them more cooperative, to make things more clear to an audience -- but those things need to be things that actually will (and HAVE) work (which, of course, you can only know from experience -- doing them regularly and consistently in sparring/fighting).

[t_niehoff]

I tend to see it not as the technique doesn't work, but that it doesn't work as it is demoed, which is the case of most demos not done in a "full contact" mode.
Heck, we know that the "key lock", or "americana", or whatever name you choose to use, works well, perhaps not the way it is applied here, but the technique is a vlaid one.
IF the demo was at full speed and pace and he pulled it off, we would not have as MANY issues with it as we do now.

This is why I always advocate that, when demoing a technique one should follow the ways of the DBMA - see it taught, see it fought.

You'll never get a standing keylock (particularly not off a strike) against a genuinely resisting opponent. Standing joint locks are so extremely low percentage that we can say they are a waste of time to learn.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You'll never get a standing keylock (particularly not off a strike) against a genuinely resisting opponent. Standing joint locks are so extremely low percentage that we can say they are a waste of time to learn.

Well, never is incorrect, very rarely, yes.
But I woudl agree that a standing key lock, because it is going AGAINST the movement, is not the best one to go for in that situation.
I have always said that, in terms of percentage, you are what you train.
I am sure that if someone trained standing joint locks and drilled them consistently and test them consistently, they could pull them off at a higher rate than most.
Its common sense.
Do people that advocate standing joint locks do that?
The vast majority don't.

[t_niehoff]

A student of the person in the second clip has said that they are aware the technique is being done wrong.... or, rather, they said "well, that is from 1994 so it is a bit old"

To me, this seems to say "we were trying to incorporate some stuff we didn't really understand very well into what we were doing"


I would amend that to read "we were trying to incorporate some stuff we didn't really understand very well into some stuff we didn't really understand very well."



CROSS TRAINING IS ADMIRABLE.... ie go out and find a BJJ, Judo, Sambo or wrestling coach and learn the techniques correctly


The notion of going to someone qualified and really training is outside the experience and interest of most people in TCMAs.



Do NOT try and "wing it", doing the technique incorrectly and then passing it on to students that way....

Or, worst of all, try and tell people it has been part of Wing Chun all along :rolleyes:

My view is that in most cases, that's how they've been teaching all along with everything (including their WCK) they "know." Just as they couldn't pass the fantasy test with this key-lock takedown, they couldn't pass the test with most of what they teach.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The notion of going to someone qualified and really training is outside the experience and interest of most people in TCMAs.

If that is the case now, one wonder when it became that way since in the past that was never the case.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This key lock take down is one of the most common one, even used against the over hand vertical knife stab, I am sure everyone has been taught that one.

I learned it in almost every system I have trained in, except Kali because they actual know how to use a knife, but it is very common, even in the military we were taught it.

[lkfmdc]

This key lock take down is one of the most common one, even used against the over hand vertical knife stab, I am sure everyone has been taught that one.



It is a commonly taught tactic, it is also usually taught incorrectly. I remember an article in (not to mess with Gene name of magazine deleted) magazine where they showed that block against a knife, the person with the knife grabbed it with the other hand and sunk the knife into the person's exposed kidney :eek: This was back in the early 80's I admit so most probably never saw this article (it was from the Philipines)

That aside, the obvious problem still remains that once on the ground, he applies the lock incorrectly....

[t_niehoff]

Well, never is incorrect, very rarely, yes.
But I woudl agree that a standing key lock, because it is going AGAINST the movement, is not the best one to go for in that situation.
I have always said that, in terms of percentage, you are what you train.
I am sure that if someone trained standing joint locks and drilled them consistently and test them consistently, they could pull them off at a higher rate than most.
Its common sense.
Do people that advocate standing joint locks do that?
The vast majority don't.

Show me anyone who can consistently and regularly pull off standing joint locks in sparring/fighting against people their size or larger. They don't exist. Standing joint locks are essentially fantasy martial art. People who teach them are teaching fantasy. It doesn't matter how much you practice nonsense (things that won't work), you'll never transform nonsense into sense (things that do).

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is a commonly taught tactic, it is also usually taught incorrectly. I remember an article in (not to mess with Gene name of magazine deleted) magazine where they showed that block against a knife, the person with the knife grabbed it with the other hand and sunk the knife into the person's exposed kidney :eek: This was back in the early 80's I admit so most probably never saw this article (it was from the Philipines)

That aside, the obvious problem still remains that once on the ground, he applies the lock incorrectly....

I think I recall the one of which you speak of.
The thing is, the key lock is one of the more tricky ones to pull off even on the ground, its easy to counter and most try to force it rather than set it up and it does need a good set up.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Show me anyone who can consistently and regularly pull off standing joint locks in sparring/fighting against people their size or larger. They don't exist. Standing joint locks are essentially fantasy martial art. People who teach them are teaching fantasy. It doesn't matter how much you practice nonsense (things that won't work), you'll never transform nonsense into sense (things that do).

I know of a few that have done it and I have done it VS untrained people (bouncing), but I never count those times.
I never tired to pull it off VS trained people because the action is too fast and my "bread-n-butter' while standing is striking, not joint locks and you don't try to pull off anything other than your A stuff VS a trained fighter.
The waki-gatame is one that works well, but tricky to pull off.

[t_niehoff]

This key lock take down is one of the most common one, even used against the over hand vertical knife stab, I am sure everyone has been taught that one.

I learned it in almost every system I have trained in, except Kali because they actual know how to use a knife, but it is very common, even in the military we were taught it.

It is commonly taught -- which just underscores how bad information gets promulgated and accepted (though apparently never questioned and/or tested). This sort of thing pervades WCK.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is commonly taught -- which just underscores how bad information gets promulgated and accepted (though apparently never questioned and/or tested). This sort of thing pervades WCK.

Not just WCK, almost every MA has it.

[t_niehoff]

I know of a few that have done it and I have done it VS untrained people (bouncing), but I never count those times.
I never tired to pull it off VS trained people because the action is too fast and my "bread-n-butter' while standing is striking, not joint locks and you don't try to pull off anything other than your A stuff VS a trained fighter.
The waki-gatame is one that works well, but tricky to pull off.

Here's the thing about skill -- if you can do something skillfully, then you can do it on demand (at least regularly and consistently). Right? Or was it just a fluke?

If someone can do this on demand, then why can't we ever see it done with a genuinely resisting opponent? Why do we only ever hear about it in stories? ;)

[t_niehoff]

Not just WCK, almost every MA has it.

No. There is a fantasy-filter that some martial arts have. That filter will screen out the nonsense, the bullsh1t, the liars, the fantasy, etc.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here's the thing about skill -- if you can do something skillfully, then you can do it on demand (at least regularly and consistently). Right? Or was it just a fluke?

If someone can do this on demand, then why can't we ever see it done with a genuinely resisting opponent? Why do we only ever hear about it in stories? ;)

I agree, but you need to remember that many moves are stuck in some MA simply because that can work on an untrained individual.
Bouncers use standing locks "all the time", to varying degrees of effectiveness mind you.
Though I have never used the key lock myself even against an untrained resiting opponent.


No. There is a fantasy-filter that some martial arts have. That filter will screen out the nonsense, the bullsh1t, the liars, the fantasy, etc.

I would agree that most grappling based arts have a far more practical view of grappling than striking arts that throw grappling into the mix.
But then again I have seen some strange views on striking in the grappling world.

[lkfmdc]

I think I recall the one of which you speak of.
The thing is, the key lock is one of the more tricky ones to pull off even on the ground, its easy to counter and most try to force it rather than set it up and it does need a good set up.

In Judo, ude garami is BOTH hand up an hand down... so sort of confusing

Hard up (near head) can be called top wrist lock, americana, paintbrush, or figure 4 (it is what the 2nd clip is using, yet he pulls it in the WRONG DIRECTION on teh ground) - this lock is commonly felt to be the sort of thing that steals candy from babies and nickles from paperboys (that is Gene LeBell's quote, I stole it!)

The hand down, kimura, double wrist lock is considered more versatile and more reliable

[HardWork8]

The comments from posts 23 up have been "interesting". I have a feeling that many of the followers of "Modern Cross-training is King" movement are not seeing the Wood For The Trees.

The question also concerns the validity of the grappling/Chin-na chi sao as a training tool and not any individual techniques that you may or may not consider "practical", which in most cases depend on who you are; "what you put in"; and the actual situation of the combat/encounter.

I practice this form of chi sao and find it to be a great training tool which familiarises the pratitioner to the various grappling/chin na possibilities and help them recognize the relevant opportunities when they present themselves, during combat (whether they are locks, breaks or takedowns), all WITHIN a Wing Chun context.

[MasterKiller]

Well, never is incorrect, very rarely, yes.
But I woudl agree that a standing key lock, because it is going AGAINST the movement, is not the best one to go for in that situation.
I have always said that, in terms of percentage, you are what you train.
I am sure that if someone trained standing joint locks and drilled them consistently and test them consistently, they could pull them off at a higher rate than most.
Its common sense.
Do people that advocate standing joint locks do that?
The vast majority don't.

Didn't Royce once win a fight by using a standing key lock to break a clinch from the back?

[t_niehoff]

I agree, but you need to remember that many moves are stuck in some MA simply because that can work on an untrained individual.


I think you may be right -- but that's a large part of the problem. You're doing something fundamentaally unsound and relying on your opponent being unskilled, weaker, drunk(?), slower, etc. and not doing something fundamentally sound. To me, this is not good martial art. That's just junk.



Bouncers use standing locks "all the time", to varying degrees of effectiveness mind you.


And if they do, they are taking a big risk (since those things are so easily countered).

BTW, from my observations, the bouncers here use a different strategy -- when things start to go violent they typically will have one guy wrap you (often falling to the ground) and then have several other bouncers come over and "escort" you out.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In Judo, ude garami is BOTH hand up an hand down... so sort of confusing

Hard up (near head) can be called top wrist lock, americana, paintbrush, or figure 4 (it is what the 2nd clip is using, yet he pulls it in the WRONG DIRECTION on teh ground) - this lock is commonly felt to be the sort of thing that steals candy from babies and nickles from paperboys (that is Gene LeBell's quote, I stole it!)

The hand down, kimura, double wrist lock is considered more versatile and more reliable

Correctumondo.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Didn't Royce once win a fight by using a standing key lock to break a clinch from the back?

It was a Kimura I think....

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think you may be right -- but that's a large part of the problem. You're doing something fundamentaally unsound and relying on your opponent being unskilled, weaker, drunk(?), slower, etc. and not doing something fundamentally sound. To me, this is not good martial art. That's just junk.

Unfortunately, most people with "practical" experience have gained that against untrained people.


BTW, from my observations, the bouncers here use a different strategy -- when things start to go violent they typically will have one guy wrap you (often falling to the ground) and then have several other bouncers come over and "escort" you out.

Yes, and that is where I think standing joint lock work best, with numerical superiority and in a "controlled" situation.

[HardWork8]

I think you may be right -- but that's a large part of the problem. You're doing something fundamentaally unsound and relying on your opponent being unskilled, weaker, drunk(?), slower, etc.
Not really. You are training to see and recognize the opportunities as they present themselves.

Your intention may be to hit your adversary but if a grappling opportunity presents itself in situation which does not warrant beating your opponent to a pulp, then perhaps a lock is a better idea and I am not necessarily talking about that particular technique in that clip that everyone here seems to be so obsessed about either.


And if they do, they are taking a big risk (since those things are so easily countered).
Tell that to all the bouncers and law enforcement officers that regularly use those techniques. I am sure that they would be interested in your "fantasy" percpective.

However, and I do work in nightclubs, lone bouncers do use stand up locks successfuly on troublemakers and more often than you could ever imagine.

[HardWork8]

Yes, and that is where I think standing joint lock work best, with numerical superiority and in a "controlled" situation.
Striking works best with numerical superiority as well, making the introduction of the concept of numerical superiority to the argument by t_niehoff, irrelevant.

[t_niehoff]

Hardwork8,

I don't want to have any discussion with you. Take your views down to a good MMA school, good muay thai gym, and spar. See for yourself whether your theories hold any water. Show us all that you can apply any standing locks. I know you haven't done this because if you had, you would know better.

Having discussions about what you believe bouncers can do to drunks is meaningless. Next you'll be telling me what techniques you can use against little 10 year old girls. These things don't interest me. What interests me is fundamentally sound martial art -- things that will work against genuinely resisting opponents who have some decent skills and attributes. The only way to know that is from having done it, from having worked (sparred) with good, solid fighters. You haven't done that work, so you don't know. Your views are typical of the fantasy-based martial artist. As such, I'm sure you are appreciated here. Your theories will serve you as well as the death rays that you shoot from your eyes.

Theory and fantasy can't be refuted over the internet. Almost anything can be argued or presented plausibly, particularly to the inexperienced (who make up most of this forum). After all, this is why this nonsense sells -- because the people it is being sold to don't know any better.

There is a very simple fantasy filter -- if you can't see it for yourself in full-contact fighting, can't see it used successfully, consistently and regularly, against genuinely resisting opponents. then it is fantasy. So if you want to convince me this isn't fantasy, just show me that you or anyone can do it in fighting/sparring against someone their size or larger who is really fighting back. Since you can't do that, all your words, all your theory, is bullsh1t.

[HardWork8]

Take your views down to a good MMA school, good muay thai gym, and spar.
Why?

Have you taken your "views" to a good kung fu school and made a challenge and won?


Show us all that you can apply any standing locks. I know you haven't done this because if you had, you would know better.
Well, from what you said above, I sure know that YOU haven't!


Having discussions about what you believe bouncers can do to drunks is meaningless.
Assuming that all those who make trouble in nightclubs are drunks shows a lack of knowledge regarding the night club scenario. You don't get around much do you?


These things don't interest me.
Of course, they don't, because if they did then you would have used your valuable time practicing kung fu rather than some form of glorified kickboxing and hence WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE POINT OF THIS THREAD THAT WAS ADDRESSING THE RELEVANCE/IMPORTANCE OF CHI-NA/GRAPPLING CHI SAO IN REGARDS TO WING CHUN TRAINING AND NOT WETHER THE INDIVIDUAL TECHNIQUE WAS TO YOUR LIKING!


What interests me is fundamentally sound martial art -- things that will work against genuinely resisting opponents who have some decent skills and attributes.
This may come as a surprise to "functionally" trained kickboxers such as yourself, but most opponenets that you are likely to come across are going to be resisting ones!

"Decent" skills and attributes are relative.


The only way to know that is from having done it, from having worked (sparred) with good, solid fighters.
I have told many times before here in the Forum that we have WC sparring that is hard and as you would put it, "functional"!


Your views are typical of the fantasy-based martial artist. As such, I'm sure you are appreciated here. Your theories will serve you as well as the death rays that you shoot from your eyes.

Your theories are fantasy based from where I am looking. They will stop being so when you Terence prove your point by beating some decent kung fu sifus with your functional kickboxing skills.


Theory and fantasy can't be refuted over the internet. Almost anything can be argued or presented plausibly, particularly to the inexperienced (who make up most of this forum).
That is why I object to non-kung fu practitioners selling their methods to anyone who may be genuinely interested in studying TCMA. They just don't have a solid base of knowledge and that they talk a lot of, dare I say, "fantasy"?


After all, this is why this nonsense sells -- because the people it is being sold to don't know any better.

Exactly my point!


There is a very simple fantasy filter -- if you can't see it for yourself in full-contact fighting, can't see it used successfully, consistently and regularly, against genuinely resisting opponents.

And I haven't seen you beat any TCMA sifus IN REAL FIGHTS AND NOT IN COMPETITION SPORTS FIGHTING! Therefore what you say is just fantasy!


then it is fantasy.

Again, exactly my point!


So if you want to convince me this isn't fantasy, just show me that you or anyone can do it in fighting/sparring against someone their size or larger who is really fighting back.

Why don't YOU show me? Go and fight some traditional kung fu sifus in your local China Town and come back and tell us how you defeated them with your kickboxing skills?

I would still appreciate comments on what posters think of the CONCEPT OF GRAPPLING/CHI-NA CHI SAO as training tool for Wing Chun studies.

I would prefer answers from people who ahem, actually practice Wing Chun?

[Ultimatewingchun]

You're wasting your time, Hardwork...I don't read his posts anymore but I read yours - so now I get the gist of your back-and-forth with the guy.

He'll NEVER go to some "traditional kung fu school" and do what you suggest. Always quick to tell everybody else to go to some mma gym and do a challenge, though.

Don't waste your energy. :rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

Btw, sanjuro...the top wristlock can be gotten with some misdirection as a setup and by grabbing him at the hand and twisting it so that his palm starts to face the floor...this makes the actual lock twice as hard to resist....

as well as always making sure you reel his arm in and then lift his elbow as you're pulling his entire arm down toward his lower body. (And use your chest and shoulders to stop him from lifting his elbow up before you've reeled him in).

All to be done when in cross chest position (side control), of course.

[unkokusai]

So anyway,

Any WCers here who actually grapple with non-WCers who have successfully employed this 'takedown' (or any other) live?

[anerlich]

Didn't Royce once win a fight by using a standing key lock to break a clinch from the back?

I don't think I've seen that match. However, I do remember Sakuraba breaking Renzo's rear clinch, applying a standing kimura, flipping Renzo over and breaking his arm to win the match. I mention the last mainly for those chin-na devotees who tnink grapplers aren't aware of the possibilty of breaks (as if).

I've seen people tap to standing wrist locks and chokes in BJJ. Not often and not against advanced practitioners, but it does happen, Standing guillotines happen reasonably often as well. A friend choked out a pub agressor with a standing guillotine not long ago.

My first KF instructor, David Crook, is very good at standing joint locks and chin-na. He CAN apply standing joint locks and incapacitate resisting opponents. But he'd probably hit you hard first (nidan in Goju karate, dan rank in JJJ, boxed a lot, his father was a British Army boxing champ and longtime judoka).

Canberra, Australia, Terence. He's only a small guy and approaching 60, but if you get in his face and push he won't just talk a good fight. A friend and fellow student mused that he had a need to inflict pain regularly and enjoys it.

David trained WC with William Cheung for a few years. But most of his chin-na comes from Northen Sil Lum.


I practice this form of chi sao and find it to be a great training tool which familiarises the pratitioner to the various grappling/chin na possibilities and help them recognize the relevant opportunities when they present themselves

Grapplers and MMers have similar drills, except they generally do it from the pummelling drill, or as if they were sparring light. You can wrestle and add takedowns, throws and light striking, standing locks and chokes if they present themselves. I'm sure every WC guy who has done some form of grappling from whatever source has tried doing sometnig similar from the "steering wheel" position. This is neither revolutionary nor original.


Your intention may be to hit your adversary but if a grappling opportunity presents itself in situation which does not warrant beating your opponent to a pulp, then perhaps a lock is a better idea

Careful. Youre starting to sound like your parroting the arguments of your enemies, the grapplers.


I am not necessarily talking about that particular technique in that clip that everyone here seems to be so obsessed about either.

You posted the vids. They're the subject of the thread. "Everyone" is discussing the subject. What did you expect?

[monji112000]

I would still appreciate comments on what posters think of the CONCEPT OF GRAPPLING/CHI-NA CHI SAO as training tool for Wing Chun studies.

I would prefer answers from people who ahem, actually practice Wing Chun?
I did you never responded.
I mentioned incorporating arm drags, duck unders, body locks, leg trips, pummeling, 50/50 clinch, thai clinch, judo throws and just about anything else you think would work setup in a "chi sao" environment. I posted it without any inflammatory tones or comments.

:rolleyes:

or maybe my opinions arn't wanted? its not becouse I'm jewish is it?:D

[HardWork8]

You're wasting your time, Hardwork...I don't read his posts anymore but I read yours - so now I get the gist of your back-and-forth with the guy.

Unfortunately I have been wasting my time with a few of them in this Forum, recently. Terrence is a member of a "gang" of modern pseudo kung fu-ist kickboxers and masters of "mish mash".

That is no problem and if their MMA/Cross training makes them happy then that is fine. What we don't need is these people spewing their "advice" (specially to newbies who come to this Forum for genuine kung fu/Wing Chun info and advice).

Now whenever I come across a Wing Chun subject I half expect Mr Terrence to come in with his "Fantasy" monologue.

It is beyond me why someone who is so convinced of the attributes and the 'superiority' of the so called "Modern" and "Functional" martial arts and or MMA, keeps insisting in posting in a KUNG FU FORUM and denegrading TCMAs.


He'll NEVER go to some "traditional kung fu school" and do what you suggest.
Maybe just as well. If he did and if he didn't come out of that encounter with both his testicles or with only part of his wind pipe, then I would have had his blood on my hands.

Maybe he is just being sensible and knows the limitations of his fighting ability if not his "vocal" ones.

At least he managed to keep out of the ugly prank engineered by Ikfmdc (with support from Sanjuro,cjurakpt,unkokusai), that made me out to be a Nazi, satanist and anti semetic, which then continued on to suggest that I had been banished from my sifu's organization.:rolleyes:

So not only do these non-kung fu exponents infest this forum they even go further and gang up on anyone who argues against their crosstraining,"modern" etc., doctrine.

No need to say that the prank collapsed around their collective ears and the empty spaces between those ears, but not before fooling some innocent parties who post here.

What did all these people have in common? They like Terence are cross-training modernists who had previously had disagreements with me on the issue of kung fu training.

What are they doing here in this forum? Who knows! All I know is that they aren't teaching anyone about kung fu, some individual MA techniques and approaches maybe, but not kung fu and that is because of the simple fact that they are not qualified.



Always quick to tell everybody else to go to some mma gym and do a challenge, though.
Well it is always easy to tell then do. ;)


Don't waste your energy. :rolleyes:
The only reason that I waste energy with him and his kidkboxers is that I want the third party readers and specially newbies to see the loop holes in their "kung fu" thinking.

Of course to tell the truth, I also like the sight of them running around the forum afterwards like headless chickens with their glowing Sore Butts.:D

[monji112000]

A student of the person in the second clip has said that they are aware the technique is being done wrong.... or, rather, they said "well, that is from 1994 so it is a bit old"

To me, this seems to say "we were trying to incorporate some stuff we didn't really understand very well into what we were doing"

CROSS TRAINING IS ADMIRABLE.... ie go out and find a BJJ, Judo, Sambo or wrestling coach and learn the techniques correctly

Do NOT try and "wing it", doing the technique incorrectly and then passing it on to students that way....

Or, worst of all, try and tell people it has been part of Wing Chun all along :rolleyes:

look Dave, I told you before bjj really comes from Wing Chun. Well the story goes Yim muy later in life went to Japan and was Kano's first teacher. judo ... BJJ you can read between the lines..

Key lock -wing arm ,twister-gun sao rnc .- qwan sao , do you want me to name more moves that come from Wing Chun?

[HardWork8]

Grapplers and MMers have similar drills, except they generally do it from the pummelling drill, or as if they were sparring light. You can wrestle and add takedowns, throws and light striking, standing locks and chokes if they present themselves. I'm sure every WC guy who has done some form of grappling from whatever source has tried doing sometnig similar from the "steering wheel" position. This is neither revolutionary nor original.

I did not say that it was revolutionary nor original. Some Wing Chun schools do it and some don't. I want to know WC-ers take on this type of training.[/quote]


Careful. Youre starting to sound like your parroting the arguments of your enemies, the grapplers.
They are not my enemies. What I described is a holistic kung fu approach. The grapplers may have a different take on the same concepts and if so the good luck to them.



You posted the vids. They're the subject of the thread. "Everyone" is discussing the subject. What did you expect?
They discussed that particular technique and fair enough but I hope they are not going to beat it to death, LOL.

It is just that there are other aspects to this thread that are also relevant and can be explored to further the discussion.

[cjurakpt]

Like this technique; when I laid my hand over his with very little tension in the fingers, almost like a light press, or I would never have that continuation of flow to move on with control…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o


Ali Rahim.

I was waiting for someone else to discuss this link - no one did, so I will ask a question: when he does the inside top deflection w/his left, he spears the attacker in the throat (no matter that the attackers left arm hangs limp at his side, but we'll just ignore that for the sake of argument...); anyway, he's got the guys midline, he's poked him in the throat for cryin' out loud, he's inside w/forward momentum and nothing stopping him - why not just continue in the absence of a response from the attacker ?

so, maybe it's just me, but I can't seem to find a rationale for not only backing off, but actually switching to the guys outside by going under the arm, stopping his attack for two beats to do it, so that he can pull the guy forwards at the wrist, and then reversing that momentum to strike to the throat; again, this was done with no impetus - it's not like the attacker created a situation requiring this, he just goes; now, I'm not saying that you might need to do that sometime, but it would have to be in response to a defense by the attacker necessitating a lengthy and relatively complex switch like that (meaning that you loose two beats that could be strikes and also run the risk of tying your own hands up that way...I can tell you that the bagua version of this is when you get there, you just drive forwards and take the guy down hard, no follin' around by backing off and switiching lines for no reason)

any thoughts?

[Edmund]

As I mentioned before the standing waki gatame is pretty solid. It is now banned in judo competitions but it used to be a regular thing. The problem was people kept getting their arms broken.

Shinya Aoki broke someone's arm in Shooto doing one.

I think I recall a Japanese woman fighter doing a lot of them as well: Megumi Something.




I've seen people tap to standing wrist locks and chokes in BJJ. Not often and not against advanced practitioners, but it does happen, Standing guillotines happen reasonably often as well. A friend choked out a pub agressor with a standing guillotine not long ago.

[Mr Punch]

First, for where I'm coming from:
Any WCers… No, I haven't, and I've tried.

If everyone doesn’t know by now, I've trained in aikido and aiki-based koryu since 1990, and while I'm not claiming any mastery, I know the ins and outs of literally hundreds of variations of standing joint locks and those SJL that lead to takedowns. I've been taught many of these locks by LEOs and more importantly LEO trainers with years of front-line experience (a top riot squad trainer and top side handle baton and CQ trainer).

I should at this point point out also that in various lineages of wing chun I've been taught the (traditional) WC version of many of these moves from chi sao and 'SD' set-ups, and they were most weak and ineffective compared to the aiki-based arts.

I've regularly failed in my many attempts to use them in MMA FC. BTW, I should say, my default reflex action is often aiki: I don't 'try' to get these locks, but I naturally get them if there is an opportunity as part of a 'combo'. Of course, you can say I am crap or that aiki's crap (many do), but aiki's basics are still taught to LEOs world over.

The ones I have pulled off occasionally are the flying arm-bar and the wing-arm shihonage (ironically outlawed from scores of aiki dojo for being 'too dangerous' :rolleyes: ).


I know of a few that have done it and I have done it VS untrained people (bouncing), but I never count those times
I agree, but you need to remember that many moves are stuck in some MA simply because that can work on an untrained individual.
Bouncers use standing locks "all the time", to varying degrees of effectiveness mind you.

… but that's a large part of the problem. You're doing something fundamentally unsound… That's just junk.This is where I disagree. Of course I want to practise against the best available. But why should I 'not count' the two times I've used supposedly unfeasible techniques in street situations? I've had maybe twenty-odd altercations, and on two occasions (actually maybe more) I've tried and pulled off stuff that I've later read (on Bullshido etc) doesn't work. Well, I've used them about 10% of the time with a 100% success rate. One of the occasions I know my attacker was trained in various fighting styles.

In my 20-odd altercations maybe two have been against people with any training at all, and at least four have been against nasty pieces of work I can guarantee had plenty of street nastiness. Scrubs prevail. So yeah, while I can see the logic that training against the best is better than training for scrubs, it's an extreme: I want to train for whatever I'm up against.

Thus, it's situational smarts to include some of these low-percentage techs and principles. The other thing about SJLs is that if you're taught right and you **** them up, you can easily recover your position and you've disadvantaged your opponent. When I teach ikkyo (the aikido 'first principle') which is basically a flying arm bar, I don't teach it like a lot of aikido teachers: as a technique, but literally as a principle. The technique is to do the flying arm bar until they are 'taken down' on their faces. As I've stated, it doesn't work on the trained and works to some degree on scrubs. The principle is avoidance, keeping your centre, uprooting and getting kuzushi (crushing/unbalancing) at the point of musubi (first contact). And with that technique, if you fail you’ve lost nothing, and most times you succeed you will have disrupted your opponent’s balance, although the takedown comes under fantasy.

Why should I train something that only works on the untrained? Because on the untrained some of these techs/principles will make it easier for you to subdue them without inflicting serious damage than the overkill of many MMA techs vs the trained. Of course, in this day and age where everyone seems to be carrying a knife, and everybody trains something maybe you want the overkill… but wait, knife crime stats aren’t actually up, and there are still as many craply trained people (and drunken friends/relatives!) as ever: so the techs warrant some training, even if not a main emphasis.



Show me anyone who can consistently and regularly pull off standing joint locks in sparring/fighting against people their size or larger…Next time I get into a street fight I’ll make sure I choose my attacker based on size and training. :rolleyes: You know, I’ve heard this ‘argument’ many times, and while it often works against some people who bull**** about street experience, it’s still a crap argument.

As I’ve said on here before, in my MMA class I’ve often pulled off wristlocks when mounted: as in breaking the person’s balance and getting a submission/escape. Why? Because nobody trains for them. Now, I shouldn’t get it on a BJJer who doesn’t just do sport-oriented stuff, and after my coach saw me do them he soon easily taught my ‘victims’ how to counter (or more often the positional nuance that would have prevented them in the first place), but that doesn’t deny the fact that at first they worked on sometimes bigger and better trained people than I was.


BTW, from my observations, the bouncers here use a different strategy -- when things start to go violent they typically will have one guy wrap you (often falling to the ground) and then have several other bouncers come over and "escort" you out.Agreed. Most of the SJL and related takedowns I’ve been taught seriously by bouncer-trainers and LEO trainers have been for those situations: for the ‘escort’.

Summary:
1) This tech usually won’t work on scrubs or trained people.
2) It’s bad for chi sao, it’s bad for live. It’s easy to counter, or just force through, it takes too much setting up and two hands on one for too long.
3) Enough SJLs work to make in various situations it worthwhile practicing the useful ones IMO.
4) Failed SJLs are easy to recover from, and even failed ones can provide openings.
5) Usual caveats about live training apply, as do those about position and structure coming first.
6) It’s always better to train with the best trained, but it’s still useful to train for scrubs.

Sorry, ****ing long post.

[Mr Punch]

I would still appreciate comments on what posters think of the CONCEPT OF GRAPPLING/CHI-NA CHI SAO as training tool for Wing Chun studies.

I would prefer answers from people who ahem, actually practice Wing Chun?Most wing chun chin-na sucks. Plus, most supposedly wing chun chin-na is against the principles of wing chun:

two hands on one

chasing hands

wing chun's jing specialises in jerky break-out movements: that key lock should NEVER work on a chunner

etc...

Of course, IF the practioner does the chin-na to effect the opponent's centre and base from the point of contact, being mindful of his own structure and position first then you may have something. But, a good chunner should have sufficient body structure to negate the need for gripping techniques: your stance and positioning should be uprooting/crushing/overwhelming/leaking/stealing/cutting off before an opportunity to grab even comes up. And the second you start looking for a grip, a grab, a tweak, you've failed in your reflex and you're chasing hands and playing catch-up.

[Mr Punch]

As I mentioned before the standing waki gatame is pretty solid. ...BTW, the takedowns from the first, second, third and especially fifth and sixth principles of aikido's SJLs are basically wakigatame finishes if practised live.

[Edmund]

Most wing chun chin-na sucks. Plus, most supposedly wing chun chin-na is against the principles of wing chun:

two hands on one

chasing hands

wing chun's jing specialises in jerky break-out movements: that key lock should NEVER work on a chunner

etc...


I think WC chin na is applied *with* the WC principles.

That's the whole point! i.e. you don't try to grab a hand with two hands to apply WC chin na:

You are bridged with the opponent. You want to strike them. They are protecting their centre and have good posture. You *sink the bridge* to attack them - attacking the arm without committing 2 hands to the arm. This breaks their posture and guard.

[cjurakpt]

BTW, all this talk of incorporating grappling / kahm-na into chi sao (or trapping as we used to call it); I don't get what the big deal about it is - I mean, when we trapped, it was always part of what we did - meaning that we would flow from striking (incliding hands, forearms, elbows and occasionally headbuts) to locking and back, moving to takedowns if possible; low line kicks were also a part of it - I mean, it wasn't ever a big deal, you just did what you needed to do at the right point; arms bars were big; two-on-one locks weren't

so it was always functional and moved on a continuum...

[HardWork8]

Most wing chun chin-na sucks.
Most Wing Chun striking sucks too. It is called the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenom.



Plus, most supposedly wing chun chin-na is against the principles of wing chun:

two hands on one Not really. There are blocks in WC that use 2 hands on one and there is also a double punch and a double palm strike, which by your account would be against WC principles.


chasing hands Again, not really. You are supposed to use chi-na when the opportunity presents itself.

Furthermore, you are not supposed to chase hands in any style of kung fu but most major styles have chi-na techniques as part of their arsenal.


wing chun's jing specialises in jerky break-out movements: that key lock should NEVER work on a chunner

Most styles that I am familiar with use jing and as far as I know, there are no un-jerky jings.

Also, even if what you say was true then it is good to remember that Wing chunners don't always necessarily fight Wing Chuners.

One more point is that Chi-na goes a lot deeper than people give it credit for.




But, a good chunner should have sufficient body structure to negate the need for gripping techniques:
I don't know about the other lineages but as far as Siu Lam Wing Chun is concerned then Chi-na plays a very important role in completing the Wing Chun arsenal and more so at the advanced levels where the Tiger elements manifest themselves and where anatomy is also studied.

And just like Wing Chun the other major kung fu styles use Chi-na techniques as a potent part of their arsenal as they do most of the following approaches:


your stance and positioning should be uprooting/crushing/overwhelming/leaking/stealing/cutting off


before an opportunity to grab even comes up.
The minute you make the bridge then you have to be ready for any "opportunity". No one is saying that WC is not primarily a striking art.

However it does have Chi-na elements for a REASON and that is because we do not always choose the opportunities that present themselves to us in combat.

It is just one more weapon in our arsenal and not just in Wing Chun, but all major kung fu styles (if they are practiced the way they were meant to:rolleyes:).


And the second you start looking for a grip, a grab, a tweak, you've failed in your reflex and you're chasing hands and playing catch-up.
Again, in Wing Chun you are told to wait for the opponent to make his move and then you react! If he does not give you the opportunity to grab then you don't grab you strike.

Awareness of the Chi-na possibiliy can even make one finish a fight before it starts by for example, grabbing a threateningly pointed finger (with one hand and not two).

That was just an example and please I don't want ot see 20 posts telling me how you couldn't do that agains Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock or Tarzan..lol

I remember practicing this chi sao with sifu and once he even grabbed my hair(with one hand and not two), and took me down. Why? Because he saw the opportunity and had the training and ability to take that opportunity.

If the opportunity presents itself then take it. That is what WC is all about.

[Mr Punch]

I think WC chin na is applied *with* the WC principles.

That's the whole point! i.e. you don't try to grab a hand with two hands to apply WC chin na:

You are bridged with the opponent. You want to strike them. They are protecting their centre and have good posture. You *sink the bridge* to attack them - attacking the arm without committing 2 hands to the arm. This breaks their posture and guard.OK OK, I see that point... but correct me if I'm wrong in saying that sinking your bridge is not chin na: if you take the 'chin' to mean trap you can say it is, but if you look at traditional chin na it's splitting tendons/muscles, joint breaks, pressure points and disrupting breathing patterns...

Maybe it's semantics and maybe I'm wrong - I'm no expert. But, to me those main elements of chin na are different to anything we have in chun with the exception of a couple of half-arsed joint attacks and minor pressure point stuff.

[Mr Punch]

BTW, all this talk of incorporating grappling / kahm-na into chi sao (or trapping as we used to call it); I don't get what the big deal about it is - I mean, when we trapped, it was always part of what we did - ...weren't

so it was always functional and moved on a continuum...


...I don't 'try' to get these locks, but I naturally get them if there is an opportunity ...And the second you start looking for a grip, a grab, a tweak, you've failed in your reflex and you're chasing hands and playing catch-up.We agree.

.

[Mr Punch]

There are blocks in WC that use 2 hands on one and there is also a double punch and a double palm strike, which by your account would be against WC principles.There is precisely one movement in my WC that has two hands on one. It's the double hand lop in biu jee. It's good. It works against things where you've already ****ed up your WC principles, and it works by directly and immediately destroying the person's balance by taking their centre... which fits in with what I was saying. But even then, it doesn't rely on actually getting both of the hands on one arm in any kind of 'right' position: if I miss with one hand it's already an elbow or palm strike. It's also immediately released and doesn't tie your hands up for any time. Of course there are exceptions: especially from BJ.

The double punch and the double palm are not chin na, and nor are they two hands on one, so they are irrlevant to your argument.


Again, not really. You are supposed to use chi-na when the opportunity presents itself.Er, that's precisely my point! Any time you decide you're going to do chin na you've lost your principles! And IME most chunners who emphasize chin na chase hands. I'm not focusing on your example from the first clip that you don't want us to talk about any more (?!) but it's good example.

You say you've been taught to use that and others like it in chi sao - the thing that all your despised 'kickboxers' are ranting about about it being impossible to apply against full-speed opponents etc are the same as what I'm saying: it's chasing hands, against wing chun principles for the reason that it's unrealistic inapplicable flowery hands.


Furthermore, you are not supposed to chase hands in any style of kung fu but most major styles have chi-na techniques as part of their arsenal.Your point being? I've played with mantis people who say they don't chase hands but they do things that definitely would fit the chun description of chasing hands, that my sifu would have punched me in the face for! It's hard enough to get two lines of wing chun to come close to agreeing on terminology; do you think other styles do too, or is it all part of your big lovey dovey 'we are kung fu' idea?!

Another reality news flash: it's not just most wing chun that sucks but most kung fu in general!


Most styles that I am familiar with use jing and as far as I know, there are no un-jerky jings. ...


Also, even if what you say was true... as a potent part of their arsenal as they do most of the following approaches... None of which counters my point that good chun negates the need for grabbing techs. You can include them if you want, and if that's part of your lineage's tradition, fine, of course I'm not disagreeing with that.


However it does have Chi-na elements for a REASON and that is because we do not always choose the opportunities that present themselves to us in combat. Wait, so first you said: "You are supposed to use chi-na when the opportunity presents itself." and now you're saying that chin na is some kind of back-up if you've missed an opportunity. So, to cut all the theoretical double-talk, what you're saying is, "If you missed the chance to beat down the swiftly advancing MMA kickboxer, you'll have a chance to grab him and grapple him"? It usually goes like this: if you miss the chance to beat down the swiftly advancing MMA kickboxer, he wipes the floor with your face, breaks your limbs, chokes you out and stamps on you. In my humble experience. YMMV.

The main reason for standing chin na type malarkey in a modern setting to me, is as I said for subdual and usually when you have a couple of big friends with you.


Again, in Wing Chun you are told to wait for the opponent to make his move and then you react! If he does not give you the opportunity to grab then you don't grab you strike.The kuen kuit about 'Strike second, arrive first' isn't a command, it's a conditional! I've never been told to 'wait around', and I don't like playing a reactive game. The first serious street altercation I had taught me that when I waited for his move and got cracked on the head with a very fast moving chain.


Awareness of the Chi-na possibiliy can even make one finish a fight before it starts by for example, grabbing a threateningly pointed finger (with one hand and not two). Are you saying you have 'finger grabs' as a set chin na move? If you're trying to say that only by 'having a chin na mindset' will I be able to de-escalate situations and subdue people meek as a lamb before the **** kicks off, I'm afraid I'll have to laugh and say I have common sense, thank you.


I remember practicing this chi sao with sifu and once he even grabbed my hair(with one hand and not two), and took me down. Why? Because he saw the opportunity and had the training and ability to take that opportunity.

If the opportunity presents itself then take it. That is what WC is all about.I completely agree.

So, anyway, what was your point again in relation to the subject? You said:
The technique shown in that clip is just one example of a grappling technique that one can use off the chi sao. I believe that this type of chi sao training is useful as it familiarizes the practitioners with stand up grappling scenarios and the various techniques and possibilities involving the use of chi-na techniques.It's bollocks. It familiarizes you with bad crappling techs with compliant people. Anyone thinking that shows any possibilities to do with stand-up grappling will soon get introduced rudely to lie-down grappling, followed by their own spine! Even if you try to tie up a scrub like that chances are you're so focused on the overcomplicated hand nonsense you'll get your legs tied up and he'll dump you on your arse.

[anerlich]

I did not say that it was revolutionary nor original.

Never said you did. Other people seemed to think it was something no one else had ever though of.

It's not all about YOU.

[Edmund]

OK OK, I see that point... but correct me if I'm wrong in saying that sinking your bridge is not chin na: if you take the 'chin' to mean trap you can say it is, but if you look at traditional chin na it's splitting tendons/muscles, joint breaks, pressure points and disrupting breathing patterns...


WC Chin na attacks the joint to break it. "Sinking the bridge" can refer to a joint break. In fact, that is the more literal interpretation. "Bridge" is a metaphor referring to the opponent's arm. Extending the metaphor, "sinking the bridge" would require demolishing the "bridge" so it sinks under the water.

When I said, "you attack the arm" I mean you try break the arm but *without* committing two hands to hold one arm.




Maybe it's semantics and maybe I'm wrong - I'm no expert. But, to me those main elements of chin na are different to anything we have in chun with the exception of a couple of half-arsed joint attacks and minor pressure point stuff.

Possibly you are referring to some other chin na techniques that are half-arsed.

In WC we have the common sense to realize that you can't commit two hands to mess with one arm from a standing position. There's all sorts of fancy locks in kung fu styles that plainly suck because they have that problem. The "main elements" of other chin na don't take that into account. Plus the fact that they are set up by trying to chase the arm. It reduces the chances of it working.

I think the main elements of WC chin na fit just fine with other WC principles.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Btw, sanjuro...the top wristlock can be gotten with some misdirection as a setup and by grabbing him at the hand and twisting it so that his palm starts to face the floor...this makes the actual lock twice as hard to resist....

as well as always making sure you reel his arm in and then lift his elbow as you're pulling his entire arm down toward his lower body. (And use your chest and shoulders to stop him from lifting his elbow up before you've reeled him in).

All to be done when in cross chest position (side control), of course.

Of course ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

As I mentioned before the standing waki gatame is pretty solid. It is now banned in judo competitions but it used to be a regular thing. The problem was people kept getting their arms broken.

Shinya Aoki broke someone's arm in Shooto doing one.

I think I recall a Japanese woman fighter doing a lot of them as well: Megumi Something.

I've used it once vs an attempted knife attack, it works very well.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that most with practical standing grappling experience will agree that, those times it does work it usually has the element of surprise, a very noticeable skill difference between applier and "victim", there typically is a some "soften up" done prior to application and is usually applied when beating the living crap out of the person is for some reason, not applicable.

The key elements in standing grappling is still position, even more so when you commit 2 hands to one limb/joint.
You must be in position to apply the lock in the best possible way and be in position NOT to get pasted by his free hand ( or any weapon that hand my have).

[Toby]

Where do you guys have a double punch? I can't think of one offhand ...

[t_niehoff]

This is where I disagree. Of course I want to practise against the best available. But why should I 'not count' the two times I've used supposedly unfeasible techniques in street situations? I've had maybe twenty-odd altercations, and on two occasions (actually maybe more) I've tried and pulled off stuff that I've later read (on Bullshido etc) doesn't work. Well, I've used them about 10% of the time with a 100% success rate. One of the occasions I know my attacker was trained in various fighting styles.


In any sport/activity there is always "junk", stuff that is fundamentally unsound yet will sometimes, often frequently, work against the poorly skilled, the untrained, etc.

My view is that junk is a tactic -- and it may be an appropriate tactic in certain situations, like when facing a scrub. However, we need to recognize its weaknesses. And, recognize why it isn't a good idea to base our martial art, base what we do, on something fundamentally unsound. It's unsound since it won't hold up to pressure, since it creates opportunites for our opponent, etc. When you train and rely on something unsound, you are training to fail. You are training weaknesses into your game. Junk is also self-limiting, whereas fundamentally sound stuff can take you far (even world-class). So if you have the choice between training junk and training somethig fundamentally sound, where junk only works against scrubs and the sound stuff can work against anyone, which does it make the most sense to train?

[sanjuro_ronin]

BTW Terrence, you asked me about someone that could do standing grappling on a trained resisting opponent.
My boxer buddy told me how when he went to his friends Aikido place to see a class, he mentioned that after class he raised his concerns about the practicality of Aikido VS boxing.
This was a Yoshinkan class in Toronto and Yoshinkan tends to be a bit over stylized at times, but they do like to be rough n tumble too, so they proceeded to "fool around" for a bit with the boxer getting the best of his friend and his class mates.
To be fair my buddy is Ranked in the top 10 on the LH and was on the Canadian Olympic team in 2000.
This fun and games caught the attention of Sensei Kimeda (whom I know) and he decided he wanted a try at it too.
He took the boxer down off a left hook and pinned him neatly, to quote my friend "fastest **** I ever felt".
Now, he was able to do that because Kimeada Sensei knows how to box too.
Nevertheless.
Yes, this is anecdotal and not proof per say and my friend being a boxer didn't tell me what move was used.
And no Kimeada won't be going into a MMA match anytime soon ;)

[t_niehoff]

Of course, they don't, because if they did then you would have used your valuable time practicing kung fu rather than some form of glorified kickboxing and hence WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE POINT OF THIS THREAD THAT WAS ADDRESSING THE RELEVANCE/IMPORTANCE OF CHI-NA/GRAPPLING CHI SAO IN REGARDS TO WING CHUN TRAINING AND NOT WETHER THE INDIVIDUAL TECHNIQUE WAS TO YOUR LIKING!


It doesn't matter what the individual technique is -- training to do standing joint locks is pointless, meaningless, silly, stupid, etc. since all standing joint locks are fundamentally unsound, and won't work against a genuinely resisting opponent. So training to do them is wasting your time, it is fantasy. People who talk about standing joint locks, breaking joints, etc. are living in a fantasy world. People who practice them are practicing fantasy. Putting them into chi sao is putting fantasy into chi sao.

You fantasy types always say there are people who can really do this nonsense -- in "real fighting", and that we just haven't seen/met these highly skilled traditional masters. If these fantasy masters exist, let's see them. Show me anyone -- ANYONE -- who can go to decent local MMA school and spar, and use this nonsense successfully. You can't name anyone, you can't provide any proof for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. You can't do it, your teacher (if you have one) can't do it, no one can. It is a fantasy. If your teacher is teaching this, he is teaching fantasy.

Now you'll just keep repeating the same old fantasy mantra -- this stuff really exists, it is really good, etc. -- but you'll never provide any evidence that it works against a genuinely resisting opponent. And that's because with fantasy there is no evidence of it working.

But there is plenty of evidence of it not working.

I tell you to go to any -- ANY -- decent MMA school (by decent I mean has produced a couple of MMA competition fighters), a place where they train proven fighters. And you'll see you won't be able to make this fantasy stuff work. YOu can search youtube for any taped fight (street or competition) and you'll see you won't be able to find standing joint locks (except maybe if you get some drunk who can't fight back).

[t_niehoff]

BTW Terrence, you asked me about someone that could do standing grappling on a trained resisting opponent.
My boxer buddy told me how when he went to his friends Aikido place to see a class, he mentioned that after class he raised his concerns about the practicality of Aikido VS boxing.
This was a Yoshinkan class in Toronto and Yoshinkan tends to be a bit over stylized at times, but they do like to be rough n tumble too, so they proceeded to "fool around" for a bit with the boxer getting the best of his friend and his class mates.
To be fair my buddy is Ranked in the top 10 on the LH and was on the Canadian Olympic team in 2000.
This fun and games caught the attention of Sensei Kimeda (whom I know) and he decided he wanted a try at it too.
He took the boxer down off a left hook and pinned him neatly, to quote my friend "fastest **** I ever felt".
Now, he was able to do that because Kimeada Sensei knows how to box too.
Nevertheless.
Yes, this is anecdotal and not proof per say and my friend being a boxer didn't tell me what move was used.
And no Kimeada won't be going into a MMA match anytime soon ;)

Where is the standing joint lock? You said he pinned him on the ground -- of course joint locks work on the ground, so do pins.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ah Terrence, there was that MMA fight where the Waki Gatame was used off a clinch to break the opponents arm.
One case yes, so doesn't really prove much, but nevertheless, its is a case.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Where is the standing joint lock? You said he pinned him on the ground -- of course joint locks work on the ground, so do pins.

He used the standing joint lock to take him to the ground, it was a wrist lock, but as we know in Aikido, standing locks are the means to the end, not the end.

[t_niehoff]

Ah Terrence, there was that MMA fight where the Waki Gatame was used off a clinch to break the opponents arm.
One case yes, so doesn't really prove much, but nevertheless, its is a case.


There are a few rare instances where in a tight clinch, you can get a kimura or something (like Sak did to Royler). That's not what is being taught or used in these people's fantasy chi sao.

[t_niehoff]

He used the standing joint lock to take him to the ground, it was a wrist lock, but as we know in Aikido, standing locks are the means to the end, not the end.

Maybe you could point me to some clips of aikido people pulling these things off while fighting/sparring nonaikido people, like boxers or kickboxers or MMA fighters.

Or is this just another instance where we have stories?

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are a few rare instances where in a tight clinch, you can get a kimura or something (like Sak did to Royler). That's not what is being taught or used in these people's fantasy chi sao.

Yes, agreed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Maybe you could point me to some clips of aikido people pulling these things off while fighting/sparring nonaikido people, like boxers or kickboxers or MMA fighters.

Or is this just another instance where we have stories?

Like I said, its anecdotal, so it should be taken with a grain of salt by anyone that doesn't KNOW the people involved, that is how I view all anecdotal "evidence".
But I know Kimeada and I know my friend.
But the simple fact that there is a strong lack of evidence, as you mention, is enough to make one take note.

[HardWork8]

There is precisely one movement in my WC that has two hands on one. It's the double hand lop in biu jee. It's good.
Perhaps then that is YOUR Wing Chun. Logically speaking, if there is one such movement then why shouldn't there be more?


The double punch and the double palm are not chin na, and nor are they two hands on one, so they are irrlevant to your argument.
You are right, that was my misunderstanding. However, there is still the matter of double handed/arm blocks and the arm break that one sees in most Chun Kiu forms.


Er, that's precisely my point! Any time you decide you're going to do chin na you've lost your principles!
The way I have learnt Wing Chun one doesn't decide on anything. If an opportunity comes you take it. It happens.

There is no thinking nor deciding, even if the circumstances do "decide" how severe your action may or may not be.


And IME most chunners who emphasize chin na chase hands.
Most Wing Chunners couldn't punch their way out of paper bags, unfortunately and the same goes for most traditional kung fu and karate exponents. For reasons please see the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenom.

As a result we need to be very careful when we discuss the effectiveness of certain modes of practice.

In Wing Chun one is not supposed to chase hands and if they do then the fault lies with their schooling.


I'm not focusing on your example from the first clip that you don't want us to talk about any more (?!) but it's good example.
As far as I am concerned that clip was an example of how a joint lock can be applied prior to a takedown. Just an example.

The issue is the idea of Kun na chi sao and its potential for additional grappling techniques that some of you may consider "practical". The point being that what some consider impractical others see as useful depending on scenarios, hence kumna chi sao can be a very suitable vehicle for Wing Chunners to train those grappling techniques they would consider useful and do so within a Wing Chun context.


You say you've been taught to use that and others like it in chi sao - the thing that all your despised 'kickboxers' are ranting about about it being impossible to apply against full-speed opponents etc are the same as what I'm saying: it's chasing hands, against wing chun principles for the reason that it's unrealistic inapplicable flowery hands.

As it is becoming more and more apparent from other posters on this thread, standing locks are not so "impossible" to apply. I do admit that they would more difficult to apply for kickboxers whose training is well, kickboxing.

By the way, I don't despise kickboxers and I believe it to be an enterntaining sport. My issue is that there are people here who are nothing more than kickboxers who make "knowledgable" and sometimes smart-ass critiques on kung fu training. However, let's not digress.


Your point being? I've played with mantis people who say they don't chase hands but they do things that definitely would fit the chun description of chasing hands, that my sifu would have punched me in the face for!
And so he should.

I have made this point here already and god knows how many times in other threads, but I will do it again and that is, MOST KUNG FU SCHOOLS ARE MEDIOCRE! That means yes you are going to meet kung fu-ists who are going to chase hands;who lack power;who lack general fighting skills; who wouldn't know the internals if it fell on them;who do not have proper rooting;who crosstrain in Tae kwon do "because no good kicks in Wing Chun" and etc, etc, and unfortunately these lot are in the majority and I am talking 95% plus.

So if you are going to make sweeping judgments about concepts and technique that have been present in kung fu for sometimes centuries then you better make sure that you kung fu schooling and those of the people you play or touch hands with falls outside that 95%+ barrier.


It's hard enough to get two lines of wing chun to come close to agreeing on terminology; do you think other styles do too, or is it all part of your big lovey dovey 'we are kung fu' idea?!
They can argue on whatever they wish. Chasing hands is chasing hands, just like a lousy punch is a lousy punch. I don't care much for politics in kung fu nor in life in general.


Another reality news flash: it's not just most wing chun that sucks but most kung fu in general!
Agreed! and they do not suck because of some inherent weakness. They suck because of the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenom. In most cases a lot of the essentials have been taken out to make kung fu, shall we say, "consumer friendly". In other cases, it is the blind leading the blind.

...

None of which counters my point that good chun negates the need for grabbing techs.
Grabbing techniques ARE part and parcel of good Wing Chun (and good kung fu in general) and they have been for a long time - before the birth of Mc Donald kung fu that is.


Wait, so first you said: "You are supposed to use chi-na when the opportunity presents itself." and now you're saying that chin na is some kind of back-up if you've missed an opportunity.
I am saying that if you have the opportunity to hit you hit! IF you get an opportunity to grab/immobalize/break then you do so. Of course the severness of the situation and one's intentions play their part.

In short,we do not choose the opportunities in a fight even if we do our best to create them.


So, to cut all the theoretical double-talk, what you're saying is, "If you missed the chance to beat down the swiftly advancing MMA kickboxer, you'll have a chance to grab him and grapple him"?
Actually, it could happen that way too. Except that despite popular belief most low life trouble makers out there are not MMA or BJJ fighters. However, by that statement you have demonstrated the logic of standing grappling and WC ground fighting(in some lineages).

Meaning that you just don't know if a fight will turn into a grappling encounter and it is good to have familiarity in this area of combat. Of course, you are going to say that then you prefer judo or bjj rather than kung fu grappling, but then that is your right.


The main reason for standing chin na type malarkey in a modern setting to me, is as I said for subdual and usually when you have a couple of big friends with you.
As I stated before, I have seen bouncers "wrap up" trouble makers and take them outside, SOLO. I am also aware that they are trained to work as a team, but sometimes they do what they have to do before their back up arrives or if there is no back up on certain occassions.


The kuen kuit about 'Strike second, arrive first' isn't a command, it's a conditional!
I suspect that this will depend on your school. I believe this approach to be of fundemental importance and it is more relevant if you have strong internal training. So lets put it this way, if this concept is not a command then it sure is a strong recommedation.;)


I've never been told to 'wait around', and I don't like playing a reactive game. The first serious street altercation I had taught me that when I waited for his move and got cracked on the head with a very fast moving chain.

That is you and you are a product of your training. Anyway, to play the reactive game you need to have sufficient skills to do so as you are not supposed to wait and second guess your assailant your are supposed to KNOW his move and react to it AS IT IS HAPPENING! This is not easy and no one should play that game unless they have mastered it.

During our training history we learn as we go along so it is fair to say that with a certain calibre of an opponent it is easier to pull it off but when unsure then go for it and hit the sucker. :)

However, the ultimate aim for me would be to be able to move second and hit first, because there is a lot of depth in that concept.


Are you saying you have 'finger grabs' as a set chin na move?
Finger grabs, hair grabs, head grabs,throat grabs,groin grabs and even ear and lip grabs as well as the various joint breaks/manipulations (including kneck breaks).This is all part and parcel of Wing Chun practice.


If you're trying to say that only by 'having a chin na mindset' will I be able to de-escalate situations and subdue people meek as a lamb before the **** kicks off, I'm afraid I'll have to laugh and say I have common sense, thank you.
NO I am not saying that....lol, that was just an example of a chi na mindset. What I am saying is that only with a chi na mindset can you USE chi na.


I completely agree.
Well, there is always a first time.:D



It's bollocks.
Well every man has an opinion just like he has I suppose, bollocks.

The probem with you seems to be that you have no knowledge of the scope of Chi na and the fundemental role it has in all kung fu practice.


Even if you try to tie up a scrub like that chances are you're so focused on the overcomplicated hand nonsense you'll get your legs tied up and he'll dump you on your arse.
That "over complicated nonesense" is a training tool. There is nothing over complicated about grabbing someones fingers or throat!

[HardWork8]

Where do you guys have a double punch? I can't think of one offhand ...

There is a double punch that is present in some versions of Siu Lim Tao. It is a cental line double punch (one fist on top of the other).

[Sihing73]

There is a double punch that is present in some versions of Siu Lim Tao. It is a cental line double punch (one fist on top of the other).

Hello,

To my knowledge, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, the only SNT with a double punch as you describe is in Augustine Fongs line. Although, there is a double punch off of a Kwan taught in one of Leung Tings Chi Sau sections but not in the form.

[KPM]

Hello,

To my knowledge, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, the only SNT with a double punch as you describe is in Augustine Fongs line. Although, there is a double punch off of a Kwan taught in one of Leung Tings Chi Sau sections but not in the form.

I agree with you. The only place I have seen this is in Master Fong's lineage.

[unkokusai]

As it is becoming more and more apparent from other posters on this thread, standing locks are not so "impossible" to apply. I do admit that they would more difficult to apply for kickboxers whose training is well, kickboxing.

By the way, I don't despise kickboxers and I believe it to be an enterntaining sport. My issue is that there are people here who are nothing more than kickboxers who make "knowledgable" and sometimes smart-ass critiques on kung fu training. However, let's not digress!


There it goes again!

[lkfmdc]

there are people here who are nothing more than kickboxers who make "knowledgable" and sometimes smart-ass critiques on kung fu training.


Please don't let the fact that pretty much ALL of those who've you've accused of this actually have between 5 and 10 times the experience you have :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

I think that most with practical standing grappling experience will agree that, those times it does work it usually has the element of surprise, a very noticeable skill difference between applier and "victim", there typically is a some "soften up" done prior to application and is usually applied when beating the living crap out of the person is for some reason, not applicable.


I think that's true, but it applies to most aspects of MA, not just standing joint locks or chin-na.

Boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and submission grappling techniques aloways work much better if you have the element of surprise (to the untrained just about anything you do is surprising), are much better than they person you are fighting, and if you have softened them up first.

I've pulled off crazy **** against beginners that I'd hardly ever be able to do against someone with experience. I say "hardly ever" because you very occasionally get lucky, but that's not something to rely on.

[anerlich]

No double punches in TWC forms/dummy. Quite a few double palm strikes, though.

As someone who likes the wrestling 2 on 1, I have to say the argument about two hands against one only goes a short distance. There's plenty of 2 on 1 action (you and your filthy mind :) ) in wrestling.

[HardWork8]

Hello,

To my knowledge, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, the only SNT with a double punch as you describe is in Augustine Fongs line. Although, there is a double punch off of a Kwan taught in one of Leung Tings Chi Sau sections but not in the form.

I have learnt two versions of Siu lim tao. The first version that we don't practice anymore has 2 double punches in the beginning section of the form.
I have always assumed that other lineages would have this technique as well. I'll search for a clip of Agustine Fong's SLT just to have a look.

Thanks for the info.:)

[HardWork8]

It doesn't matter what the individual technique is -- training to do standing joint locks is pointless, meaningless, silly, stupid, etc. since all standing joint locks are fundamentally unsound, and won't work against a genuinely resisting opponent. So training to do them is wasting your time, it is fantasy. People who talk about standing joint locks, breaking joints, etc. are living in a fantasy world. People who practice them are practicing fantasy. Putting them into chi sao is putting fantasy into chi sao.
Well, there seem to be people(some of them who have more in common with you than with me), here who don't agree with you there and they have provided examples.


You fantasy types always say there are people who can really do this nonsense -- in "real fighting", and that we just haven't seen/met these highly skilled traditional masters.
Well you haven't, but then you don't seem to be the type of person who would hang around the traditional kung fu circles (or be allowed to).


If these fantasy masters exist, let's see them.
I have seen them. It is you who hasn't!


Show me anyone -- ANYONE -- who can go to decent local MMA school and spar, and use this nonsense successfully.
Well why don't you show us by going to your local China Town and challenging a couple of kung fu masters to a fight (NOT SPARRING) and use your nonesense successfully?


You can't name anyone, you can't provide any proof for the simple reason that it doesn't exist.
Actually I know one sifu here in london who beat up(among others) a kickboxer (a real one not a "glorified" version). The kickboxer happened to be much younger and bigger than him. I won't name him on the internet without first asking his permission.

My Wing Chun sifu has also fought(among others) kickboxers. It is not something he is proud of as he did not look for these encounters. He (or his school, I can't remember) were challenged by these people. Credit to the kickboxers(and other ma-ists on other occasions) who went to that school and made the challenge instead of yapping their mouths off on the internet sitting behind their "functional" keyboards!



You can't do it,
Have you done what you preach? Have you beaten kung fu masters with your Modern and Functional MA?

I thought not!



your teacher (if you have one) can't do it, no one can. It is a fantasy. If your teacher is teaching this, he is teaching fantasy.
Boy, how I wish that you had been in his seminar that was held here in london some weeks ago.

I bet you would have gone up to him and talked like that and challenged him. No, no I take that back as you would have just gone home and sent him a rude email aferwards.:rolleyes:


Now you'll just keep repeating the same old fantasy mantra -- this stuff really exists, it is really good, etc. -- but you'll never provide any evidence that it works against a genuinely resisting opponent. And that's because with fantasy there is no evidence of it working.
The truth is out there or at least as near as your local ChinaTown. :D


But there is plenty of evidence of it not working.
Of course there is: in sports competitions and kung fu was never designed for that!

However, if adapted then kung fu can also be used in the ring and very successfully as well. Just look at the Chinese San da fighters owning people from various styles!


I tell you to go to any -- ANY -- decent MMA school (by decent I mean has produced a couple of MMA competition fighters), a place where they train proven fighters. And you'll see you won't be able to make this fantasy stuff work.
You have still missed the point of this thread. However, I will still say that there are standing joint locks and breaks that work and there are others that are less likely to work. It all depends on how much you train them and with whom!

Also others besides me have said that they can work.


YOu can search youtube for any taped fight (street or competition) and you'll see you won't be able to find standing joint locks (except maybe if you get some drunk who can't fight back).
I won't be able to find you fighting with a chinese kung fu master either, but that never stopped you from yapping!:rolleyes:

[unkokusai]

No double punches in TWC forms/dummy. Quite a few double palm strikes, though.

As someone who likes the wrestling 2 on 1, I have to say the argument about two hands against one only goes a short distance. There's plenty of 2 on 1 action (you and your filthy mind :) ) in wrestling.



Good point, but what's the key difference between a russian and what we saw in that vid?

[SoCo KungFu]

Good point, but what's the key difference between a russian and what we saw in that vid?

That its been used by wrestlers across the country against actually resisting opponents?

[monji112000]

Yes they do have that experience in perhaps nothing more than glorified kickboxing.

Now please don't digress from the subject matter of the thread as you have ruined enough threads with your stupid and ugly pranks, hate posts and trolling!

Thank you!

when people fight I don't care what style it is if they are good it "looks" like kickboxing. It doesn't matter if they do Wing Chun, CLF, MT ect.. yes they will all have unique aspects but it should "look" like kickboxing to the average person.
If it doesn't.. prob something is wrong. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick... its how to setup the punch, how to counter then attack or whatever..

just to be a smuck I will again make you realize I have repeatedly posted about the threads subject in the hopes of spurring conversation. I do understand that most of us including myself are not experts in grappling/wrestling but that doesn't mean we can discuss the topics in relation to chi sao.

so what will it be ? you really want to talk about Chi sao and setting up for throws/clinches/takedowns or do you want to BS, talk crap, avoid the subject, ignore me.. ect..
;)

Brian

[unkokusai]

That its been used by wrestlers across the country against actually resisting opponents?


Well, that's one difference!

[HardWork8]

when people fight I don't care what style it is if they are good it "looks" like kickboxing.
You are dead wrong there!


It doesn't matter if they do Wing Chun, CLF, MT ect.. yes they will all have unique aspects but it should "look" like kickboxing to the average person.
Ah, now you bring in the "average person". And by the way, if it looks like kickboxing then it probably, is!


If it doesn't.. prob something is wrong.
Or perhaps probably the exponent has got good kung fu rooting and fluidity. He doesn't hop around and go back as soon as he perceives danger or bop and weave like an orthodox boxer.


A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick... its how to setup the punch, how to counter then attack or whatever..
Yes, I have heard of the cliches too. I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about.


just to be a smuck I will again make you realize I have repeatedly posted about the threads subject in the hopes of spurring conversation. I do understand that most of us including myself are not experts in grappling/wrestling but that doesn't mean we can discuss the topics in relation to chi sao.
The subject matter concerns the use of chi sao as a tool for grappling/Chi-na(emphasis chi-na) training in relation to Wing Chun, i.e. within the context of Wing Chun and its principles.


so what will it be ? you really want to talk about Chi sao and setting up for throws/clinches/takedowns or do you want to BS, talk crap, avoid the subject, ignore me.. ect..
;)
Haven't you noticed that I am trying to keep this thread more or less on subject? Maybe you should worry about the couple of Sore-Butts who are trying to derail the topic. One of them doesn't even pretend to practice kung fu?:rolleyes:

Brian[/QUOTE]

[anerlich]

The subject matter concerns the use of chi sao as a tool for grappling/Chi-na(emphasis chi-na) training in relation to Wing Chun, i.e. within the context of Wing Chun and its principles.

Well, you haven't exactly contributed a great deal in that regard either.

You want to discuss grappling / chin-na in a Wing Chun, chi sao concept, but haven't said much other than being open to the grab when it's there and having it as an alternative to striking, that you can break as well as control (no mention of chokes or strangles for some reason), and that you can grab a pointing finger (whereas you can't grab the moon :rolleyes: ) none of which is exactly revelatory.

IMO you are limited as to what you can do in chi sao range wrt grappling. Most effective grappling techniques require you to get closer to your opponent and/or take him down to secure control (which is exactly the strategy shown in your second vid in the first post).

You could talk about your WC's chin-na techniques, but as you have posted before, you haven't got that far in your system so don't have much to talk about. And as further requests for info have previously resulted in you avoiding the questions and resorting to calling other forum members retards, morons idiots and glorified kickboxers at length instead, it seems pointless to pursue that.

Prove me wrong!

[Edmund]

As someone who likes the wrestling 2 on 1, I have to say the argument about two hands against one only goes a short distance.


Good point, but what's the key difference between a russian and what we saw in that vid?


That its been used by wrestlers across the country against actually resisting opponents?

A Russian 2 on 1 in a fight? I really don't think that's a good idea.
What stops the guy from rearranging your face with his other hand?

[anerlich]

If you have the arm secure, chest pressing on the elbow, cirecle step away, and can bend him forward, he can't really strike with any authority. If he pushes, gouges the face, you have counters.

Not foolproof, but better percentage than the lock shown in the vid.

IMO it's a transitional position, to arm drag, duckunder, back, or takedowns.

An outside russian is a goto move against a single neck tie. Then again, so is bumping it off with your forward shoulder and throwing a rear cross.

[Mr Punch]

WC Chin na attacks the joint to break it. "Sinking the bridge" can refer to a joint break. In fact, that is the more literal interpretation. "Bridge" is a metaphor referring to the opponent's arm. Extending the metaphor, "sinking the bridge" would require demolishing the "bridge" so it sinks under the water.

When I said, "you attack the arm" I mean you try break the arm but *without* committing two hands to hold one arm.Are you telling me you practise one-armed arm-breaking bridge-sinking moves on unsecured joints? If I get it right, my bridge sinking will break my opponent's grip, break their balance (by taking their centre) and hurt (maybe damage) them... it isn't going to break any joints. Maybe I haven't practised enough. I'll have to start advertising for people with extra elbows! :rolleyes: :D Of course, I'm messing about, but I don't understand what you're trying to get across here in relation to chin na.


In WC we have the common sense to realize that you can't commit two hands to mess with one arm from a standing position. There's all sorts of fancy locks in kung fu styles that plainly suck because they have that problem. The "main elements" of other chin na don't take that into account. Plus the fact that they are set up by trying to chase the arm. It reduces the chances of it working.

I think the main elements of WC chin na fit just fine with other WC principles.It's those fancy locks that I'm referring to as faulty wing chun (as in the original vid on this thread). Maybe I haven't met 'The Real' WC chin na yet.

[Mr Punch]

Perhaps then that is YOUR Wing Chun.Of course it is, Sherlock, which is why I said, 'in my wing chun'...


Logically speaking, if there is one such movement then why shouldn't there be more?WTF are you talking about? There's only one... that's why there's only one!


You are right, that was my misunderstanding.No prob, I get enough things wrong (in life as well as the board surprisingly!)


However, there is still the matter of double handed/arm blocks and the arm break that one sees in most Chun Kiu forms.I have no double handed arm blocks: the double lan is a principle, not a technique - the principle is being able to turn, and extend and control the bridge with either hand. The closest tech it comes being is a turning elbow control with a lateral elbow strike to the ribs.

I have no arm break. If you are referring to what many call a tok sao, have you ever tried that on anyone? It isn't going to break any grown man's elbow: dunno... maybe it'll work on a 90-year old... but it will get your face punched. It's for disrupting their balance when they're already overextended. That one is more like the Russian drag but faster and more explosive.


The way I have learnt Wing Chun one doesn't decide on anything. If an opportunity comes you take it. It happens.

There is no thinking nor deciding, even if the circumstances do "decide" how severe your action may or may not be.That was my point.


As far as I am concerned that clip was an example of how a joint lock can be applied prior to a takedown. Just an example. Which as I've said along with many others who have and do actually try this kind of stuff is really really crap.


The issue is the idea of Kun na chi sao and its potential for additional grappling techniques that some of you may consider "practical". The point being that what some consider impractical others see as useful depending on scenarios, hence kumna chi sao can be a very suitable vehicle for Wing Chunners to train those grappling techniques they would consider useful and do so within a Wing Chun context... As it is becoming more and more apparent from other posters on this thread, standing locks are not so "impossible" to apply.The first point is different to the one I bolded. The one I bolded supposes that there are occasions when the success rate of some of these techniques goes up. Your first point depends on their being some mythical occasion which only suits 'wing chun' crappling. Plus, it's also ignoring the fact that the first tech you posted and keep defending as a valid example is NOT wing chun: it's chasing hands (there's no way that **** would come off 'by accident' or as a reflex) and crap into the bargain.


I do admit that they would more difficult to apply for kickboxers whose training is well, kickboxing.Have you ever even trained against kickboxers you funny little man?


I have made this point here already and god knows how many times in other threads, but I will do it again... Yes, you do rather repeat yourself without taking into account new or changing arguments.

and that is, MOST KUNG FU SCHOOLS ARE MEDIOCRE! That means yes you are going to meet kung fu-ists who are going to chase hands;who lack power;who lack general fighting skills; who wouldn't know the internals if it fell on them;who do not have proper rooting;who crosstrain in Tae kwon do "because no good kicks in Wing Chun" and etc, etc, and unfortunately these lot are in the majority and I am talking 95% plus.You see, I wasn't even knocking anybody else. My point was different to this shrill squeal. My point was that some people, for example SPM people, who have good kung fu (good rooting, devastating bridges, scary jing etc) have different definitions of what constitutes 'chasing hands'. But you've decided your definition fits all, and every body else is ****... surprising for someone with supposedly so much experience in other styles of traditional kung fu.


So if you are going to make sweeping judgments about concepts and technique that have been present in kung fu for sometimes centuries then you better make sure that you kung fu schooling and those of the people you play or touch hands with falls outside that 95%+ barrierLOL, back at you! What makes you sure you're in that five percent? The fact that you make sweeping judgments about everybody's skills on a board based on how much they agree with you qualifies you for that top 5%? It's all in your head, pal. Get out more.



I suspect that this will depend on your school. I believe this approach to be of fundemental importance and it is more relevant if you have strong internal training. So lets put it this way, if this concept is not a command then it sure is a strong recommedation.;)Go on then: tell us what wing chun precepts you think give this notion of being reactive to an attacker as opposed to pro-active it's fundamental importance... HINT: let's make sure it fits in with what you were spouting about creating openings and opportunities earlier. Feel free to use mroe kuen kuits in the absence of any experiential references.


That is you and you are a product of your training. Anyway, to play the reactive game you need to have sufficient skills to do so as you are not supposed to wait and second guess your assailant your are supposed to KNOW his move and react to it AS IT IS HAPPENING! This is not easy and no one should play that game unless they have mastered it. Sure, at the time I was seven months into aikido; I was the product of youthful arrogance and overconfidence rather than training. I wish I'd have gone with my youthful aggression, but I learnt from it.

You say people shouldn't play that game unless they've mastered it? So you've mastered it presumably? And there's another 'game' they can play while they're training to master this waiting one? Aggression maybe? So you learn an aggressive proactive 'game' first, and then switch to the reactive game when you've mastered it? Or do you just not use your kung fu at all until you've mastered the reactive game? You see, I can't help but think you're talking theoretical bollocks again.


However, the ultimate aim for me would be to be able to move second and hit first, because there is a lot of depth in that concept.And how, Yoda, is there more depth in that concept than in the 'concept' of beating your assailant to a pulp from the get-go? I'm after something that works: you go and look for your depth, by all means.


The probem with you seems to be that you have no knowledge of the scope of Chi na and the fundemental role it has in all kung fu practice.The problem with you is that you criticise everything that doesn't fit in with your limited experience, and you have no knowledge of others' knowledge. Like I said: back at you! And like I said: get out more!

Big fat :D

[Mr Punch]

About the Russian 2 on 1...

is that the same as the Russian drag?

If so, I'll bite. If not, please disregard all of the following! :D

1) When I made my statement about 2 on 1s in general being against wing chun principles: they are. This doesn't mean they don't work or follow the principles of otehr systems. But if you train only wing chun, you shouldn't be going for them. If you cross train be my guest!

2) It differs from the vid because as Anerlich said, if you get it, you've got his body with it: you have the kuzushi. Thus you have the structure and position to control his body. In the first post's vid you have had no influence on the guy's centre before you start fine motor fiddling with his arm: no structure, no position - clock cleaned!

3) You're not going to get punched for the reasons Andrew said either. You have their body in a transition to another end, not fumbling for their arm in what's supposedly a finisher on its own.

[Edmund]

Are you telling me you practise one-armed arm-breaking bridge-sinking moves on unsecured joints? If I get it right, my bridge sinking will break my opponent's grip, break their balance (by taking their centre) and hurt (maybe damage) them... it isn't going to break any joints. Maybe I haven't practised enough. I'll have to start advertising for people with extra elbows! :rolleyes: :D Of course, I'm messing about, but I don't understand what you're trying to get across here in relation to chin na.


There's a few locks that don't require you to commit two hands to apply a lot of leverage against a joint like the shoulder, elbow or the wrist. This aspect makes them inherently a lot safer to go for.

Of course you must hold on to the limb to secure it and apply leverage but you are not leaving them with their OTHER hand free! The speed of a punch is a lot faster than applying pressure to a lock or even getting the hold in the first place. As soon as you reach for getting any 2 hands on one, there could be a problem!

Also they are not set up by trying to grab a hand out of the air and apply the lock. Instead, they work from an already bridged position.

These issues are the reasons standing locks often don't work.

For example, a lot of the aikido locks like ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo etc have simpler WC "equivalents" where:

1. You can also hold the other free hand to prevent them smacking you with it. You can just *strike* against the direction of the joint with stuff like your elbow rather push with your hand.

2. You don't require the opponent to be compliant and loosen up so you can get into position. It only takes a small amount of movement of their arm before the lock has pressure.

3. They start from an already established bridged or clinched position.



Eg. Aikido juji garami: You have both their hands and you try twist their arms like a pretzel to throw them down. IT'S NOT LIKELY TO WORK. Their arms have to be too twisted. They are going to react well before it applies any pressure that threatens them. The simpler WC chin na to that left-on-left and right-on-right situation is twist their wrist from a fingers upward to a palm down position. Then hit with the elbow on the back of their elbow.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that's true, but it applies to most aspects of MA, not just standing joint locks or chin-na.

Boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and submission grappling techniques aloways work much better if you have the element of surprise (to the untrained just about anything you do is surprising), are much better than they person you are fighting, and if you have softened them up first.

I've pulled off crazy **** against beginners that I'd hardly ever be able to do against someone with experience. I say "hardly ever" because you very occasionally get lucky, but that's not something to rely on.

This is true, but have you ever seen standing join lock work in a submission match or judo match ?
Very very rarely.
Yet, what is consistently drilled in Boxing, Kb and what not, is done on a regular basis in those very matches.
See my point?

[t_niehoff]

This is true, but have you ever seen standing join lock work in a submission match or judo match ?
Very very rarely.
Yet, what is consistently drilled in Boxing, Kb and what not, is done on a regular basis in those very matches.
See my point?

Yes, I do.

Junk undoubtably does occassionally work against scrubs. But junk, like standing joint locks, has serious problems, the least of which is that it won't work most of the time against real pressure. Junk is easily countered, it leaves you open, it creates opportunities for your opponent (when junk fails, you areleft in a really bad place). Not only that, but when you train junk, not knowng it is junk, it reinforces a false view and promotes a false understanding of what really does go on in fighting. Most of the "WCK applications" I see people show are like this standing joint lock from the video, it's junk or worse (fantasy). And that's why you don't see people able to pull off those things they demo regularly, consistently in sparring. But like this standing joint lock, the junk gets taught, passed down, revered by the fantasy guys as wisdom.

On this thread we have all kinds of theorizing going on, talking about what people think will work, what they think won't work, etc. None of that theorizing is meaningful. What is meaningful is seeing whatever it is performed successfully in fighting against competant, skilled people on a consistent, regular basis -- that's the ONLY way to tell if something is fundamentally sound or not. Solid fundamentals are solid fundamentals because they work consistently, regularly, etc. And they work at all levels.

So arguing about what will work or what is sound doesn't make it so, talking about masters that can pull it off doesn't make it so, etc. The only way to know and the only way to show that something is a sound fundamental is to show that it can be performed successfully in fighting on a regular, consistent basis and against solid fighters (not drunks, little girls, or your classmates).

I know that I am not gong to convince the people who are safely ensconced in their fantasy bubbles of anything. The only way to avoid the fantasy bubble is to have a questioning, critical, skeptical attitude toward everything you hear. Don't believe it (the stories, the claims, the theory, etc.) until you see it for yourself, in action (sparring/fighting), and against people with decent (solid) skills/attributes. You can do that with muay thai, boxing, BJJ, sambo, judo, etc. so you should expect the same in WCK. If you don't, then it probably is BS, fantasy, nonsense. If you are concerned about solid fundamentals, whether WCK or anything else, then you need to see it in action, see it in action against good people, see whether it works consistently, regularly, etc.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I remember asking a high ranked Aikidoka why it was so difficult to find people that pull off those moves in Aikido, pulling them off in the "real world", he replied that ist hard to do fine motor skills when you are getting punched in the face.
We all had a good laugh at that one.

[HardWork8]

Well, you haven't exactly contributed a great deal in that regard either.

I believe that I provided the scope for a good and rich discussion. Somehow a lot of people seem fixated on that one technique and have not appreciated the "bigger picture".

Some say it will never work and others say that it will work sometimes. Then some say standing locks never work and some say they work sometimes. I would just say that you would be suprised how many standing locks will work on you once you have been smashed in the face by a punch.:D

It is all dependent on the scenario and of course on who or when. So as far as I am concerned Chi sao grappling/chi-na (Note:Chi-na) is fundementally important in Wing Chun training because it enriches the practitioners' arsenal and scope in general combat.


You want to discuss grappling / chin-na in a Wing Chun, chi sao concept, but haven't said much other than being open to the grab when it's there and having it as an alternative to striking, that you can break as well as control
Well that was enough to start with. However, some people have focused on the "wrestling" element more than the Wing Chun element, which I suppose is understandable up to a point in a discussion thread that addresses to a point elements associated with wrestling.


(no mention of chokes or strangles for some reason), and that you can grab a pointing finger
I did mention hair grabs,lip grabs, throat grabs and head grabs. Finger grabs are also valid chi-na techniques and we are talking about what amounts to Chi-na chi-sao.

But you are correct, kum-na chi sao can be used as a platform for chokes and strangles. You can expand on that within a Wing Chun framework if you like and let us know your thoughts.



(whereas you can't grab the moon :rolleyes: )
:confused:



none of which is exactly revelatory.
It is revelatory, but then it depends on who is reading.



IMO you are limited as to what you can do in chi sao range wrt grappling. Most effective grappling techniques require you to get closer to your opponent and/or take him down to secure control (which is exactly the strategy shown in your second vid in the first post).
It is funny that you should mention that. In our school we also practice a third chi sao which is elbow strike-range. It is weird in the beginning as you are right in the face of the opponent where you are meant to primarily use and defend against elbows and are able to grab easier.

However it is also good to remember that some chi-na techniques can be used from a little further away, as well.


You could talk about your WC's chin-na techniques, but as you have posted before, you haven't got that far in your system
Yes, my level is mid level Chum Kiu even if according to my sifu when we last met, my power and rooting has improved significantly because of my other kung fu training here in London.

Inspite of not having "got that far"in my training it seems that what I know far exceeds the "kung fu" knowledge of those who have more a dozen years of MA training under their belt in as many different MA styles. That is why I stick to what I know. Thank you!


so don't have much to talk about.
But I do.


glorified kickboxers
Those who practice "kung fu" but have not spend the time required to build proper roots and have also ignored the internals as well as cross training in irrelevant arts are nothing but glorified kickboxers.

We have one "kung fu"poster in this thread that has said that something to the effect that all fighting (including kung fu). looks like kickboxing.

There are others that are fixated on the wrestling aspect of this thread and have not yet identified the ever suffering kung fu element.


at length instead, it seems pointless to pursue that.
It seems that despite my "limited" experience of kung fu I still see more in the scope of Chi-na then many here. The subject of Kum-na chi sao is CHI-NA CHI SAO and it seems that unlike most of you I have actually practiced this.


Prove me wrong!
As you can see, I already have!

[t_niehoff]

Movements ("applications") that use fine motor skills are junk. It doesn't take much experience fighting/sparring to realize that pressure robs you of the ability to use fine motor skills.

This is actually a good example of how theory and unrealistic exercises (like chi sao) don't match reality and why you need to BEGIN with the fight. You need to first realize what you -- your body -- can and can't do under extreme pressure (the pressure of fighting), and go from there. You can only realize and appreciate that by experiencing that -- by working under that pressure, not every once in a while, but regularly.

Watch 30 seconds or so into this video to see what contact fighting will be like -- that's where your "technique", your standing joint locks (LOL!), need to work.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2068450760833041053&q=aliveness&ei=gAl2SKGbGIyg4ALH0sT-Cg&hl=en

Once you realize that this is the sort of pressure you need to be able to deal with, you will begin to see that most of the "applications" taught in chi sao won't prepare you for reality.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Movements ("applications") that use fine motor skills are junk. It doesn't take much experience fighting/sparring to realize that pressure robs you of the ability to use fine motor skills.

This is actually a good example of how theory and unrealistic exercises (like chi sao) don't match reality and why you need to BEGIN with the fight. You need to first realize what you -- your body -- can and can't do under extreme pressure (the pressure of fighting), and go from there. You can only realize and appreciate that by experiencing that -- by working under that pressure, not every once in a while, but regularly.

Watch 30 seconds or so into this video to see what contact fighting will be like -- that's where your "technique", your standing joint locks (LOL!), need to work.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2068450760833041053&q=aliveness&ei=gAl2SKGbGIyg4ALH0sT-Cg&hl=en

Once you realize that this is the sort of pressure you need to be able to deal with, you will begin to see that most of the "applications" taught in chi sao won't prepare you for reality.

While I like Matt and his views I am not a huge fan of his, simply because he tends to make his points via the extreme cases.
Much like you with its all junk, not its junk when done like junk.
:)
That said, Matt is quite correct that one must pressure test constantly their techniques and principles.
It's an ever change world.

[sanjuro_ronin]

EX:
A friend of mine does Shaolin White Crane and has done it for 25 years.
I took him to a local MMA gym for a workout, while it was not his first time being exposed to MMA, it was his first exposure to that level of MMA.
It was an eye opening experience for him and his chin-na skills.
Is he doing MMA now?
No, of course not, but he does unnderstand better the need for cross testing ones skills, because his skills were mostly white Crane based, as in test VS other WC people, he need to "fine tune" them VS MMA and MT, the attack and counter pathways were too different from what he was used to.
I am sure the next time he will do much better.

[HardWork8]

Of course it is, Sherlock, which is why I said, 'in my wing chun'...
Then maybe you should call it 'my "wing chun"'?:D


WTF are you talking about? There's only one... that's why there's only one!
Are you forgetting the CONCEPTUAL approach of wing chun?


I have no arm break. If you are referring to what many call a tok sao, have you ever tried that on anyone? It isn't going to break any grown man's elbow: dunno... maybe it'll work on a 90-year old... but it will get your face punched.
To make that work you need to really be very relaxed and it is areas like this that one has to appreciate the internal side of kung fu. Otherwise you can change the technique slightly to make it work externally by applying more momentum.

If your training is of a more external nature to start with, then I suppose you need to save that for the 90 year old muggers of this world:D


That was my point.
Then try and see my point about not chasing hands when the opportunity "chases" you.:)


Which as I've said along with many others who have and do actually try this kind of stuff is really really crap.
Yet others here will disagree with you on that. Furthermore, I say that that technique is just an example and I would like comments on how you see kum la training and its potential with techniques that perhaps you would find more useful.


The first point is different to the one I bolded. The one I bolded supposes that there are occasions when the success rate of some of these techniques goes up. Your first point depends on their being some mythical occasion which only suits 'wing chun' crappling.
You are assuming too much. I am merely trying to solicite your opinions on the validity of Kum-la chi sao training and what techniques you would incorporate in such practice.


Plus, it's also ignoring the fact that the first tech you posted and keep defending as a valid example is NOT wing chun: it's chasing hands (there's no way that **** would come off 'by accident' or as a reflex) and crap into the bargain.
I did not know that techniques of "accident" were part of wing chun. What I said before stands and also chasing hands is relative. Example, if you have a live and fighting opponent coming at you and for some reason you try and SEARCH for a hand to grab, then yes you are chasing hands.

However,if punchs you and you trap his hand and hit him and while he is dazed -and his hands are not so "live" anymore - you can use a "lock", that is,if the situation does not warrant you beating the living daylight out of him.

Also remember this: you are not supposed to chase hands in any kung fu style and yet chi-na techniques have been an important part and parcel of all major kung fu styles.


Have you ever even trained against kickboxers
What has that got to do with kickboxers not being able to apply arm locks?:confused:


Yes, you do rather repeat yourself without taking into account new or changing arguments.
I repeat myself because some facts don't seem to sink in for certain people and believe me a change in the "argument" would rather be refreshing right now.:rolleyes:


You see, I wasn't even knocking anybody else. My point was different to this shrill squeal. My point was that some people, for example SPM people, who have good kung fu (good rooting, devastating bridges, scary jing etc) have different definitions of what constitutes 'chasing hands'. But you've decided your definition fits all, and every body else is ****... surprising for someone with supposedly so much experience in other styles of traditional kung fu.
Now that you mention it a SPM sifu that I know personally says that the main problem with chi sao is that practitioners tend to chase hands. When I asked what about just hitting the openings when they present themselves and then "going/stepping through the opponent", then he said that this would be the correct way to do it (PS. he has sifu level experience in WC as well).


LOL, back at you! What makes you sure you're in that five percent?
95% of you guys!


The fact that you make sweeping judgments about everybody's skills on a board based on how much they agree with you qualifies you for that top 5%?
My "judgments" are not generally directed as people's fighting skills because I wouldn't know that from where I am sitting. My "judgments" are usually directed at people's understanding of traditional kung fu training and the essence that it entails.

I am sure that there are many good fighters posting here in the forum what I am not sure about is wether they "fight kung fu" or just some type of MMA!



It's all in your head, pal. Get out more.
Get out where? To the local Tae Kwon Do club or the Muay thai gym?



Go on then: tell us what wing chun precepts you think give this notion of being reactive to an attacker as opposed to pro-active it's fundamental importance... HINT: let's make sure it fits in with what you were spouting about creating openings and opportunities earlier. Feel free to use mroe kuen kuits in the absence of any experiential references.
It is simple and here is a simple example that I hope you appreciate. You perceive an attack about to be launched and you side step 45 degrees towards your attacking opponent, as he launches his assault and hit him before his attack gets to you. Here, you have forseen the attack and created the opportunity!

There are many variations of this and depending on your level of kung fu which will also need to incorporate internal aspects.


You say people shouldn't play that game unless they've mastered it? So you've mastered it presumably?
Mastering this aspect of kung fu is an ongoing process. It would me more correct to "presume" that I am using this mindset in training.


And there's another 'game' they can play while they're training to master this waiting one? Aggression maybe?
Not really. You avoid aggression. Ultimately you are not meant to feel aggression during combat, just as you are not meant to feel fear or any other emotion. You just "are"!

That is a concept that you will not agree with but that is how we train. Yes and I know it is not easy to fight without feeling emotions but that is how many TCMA, specially the internal ones, train.


So you learn an aggressive proactive 'game' first, and then switch to the reactive game when you've mastered it? Or do you just not use your kung fu at all until you've mastered the reactive game? You see, I can't help but think you're talking theoretical bollocks again.
Lets put it this way, a state of calmness is "drilled" into you from day one. That is, relaxed breathing, relaxed attitude, calmness when hit, calmness when hitting, calmness when hurt or injured and so on..FROM DAY ONE! Meditation (time permitting) is also incorporated.

You would be surprised at the things you will notice during fighting training when you a achieve even a slightly above average calmness of the mind.


And how, Yoda, is there more depth in that concept than in the 'concept' of beating your assailant to a pulp from the get-go?
Yes there is and that is becasue your assailant is thinking the same way as you as well. He will try and hit you first!

But then, what if he has mastered the concept of letting you attack first but "hitting you first". That would make him a higher level fighter than you and you would know that immediately while lying there with half of your teeth scattered beside you.

That is what the DEPTH of kung fu is all about.


I'm after something that works: you go and look for your depth, by all means.
Kickboxing works just fine and you can make it street effective much quicker than kung fu, so why do you bother with "kung fu" training? I ask this because,
while you are looking for something that "works" you are at the same time picking and choosing the fundments that differenciates kung fu from the knucklehead martial arts. That is fine too, but you should just admit to be a MMA-ist and not a kung fu-ist!


The problem with you is that you criticise everything that doesn't fit in with your limited experience,
Just like you, I criticise what I deem to be worthy of criticism and my kung fu knowledge is not as limited as yours, believe me.


and you have no knowledge of others' knowledge.
I have knowledge of kung fu and that is what I practice. Others' knowledge here is based on a dozen or more mish mash of martial arts. Some of these people don't know wether they are coming or going as far as kung fu is concerned.

Yet some of them, and others too who know more, have made some good contributions on this thread. Hopefully we can can expand this to enrich and discuss the Kum-na chi sao's potential as a Wing Chun training tool.

[lkfmdc]

A few thoughts

I hope that when peole say "chin na/grappling within WC" they aren't expecting nor justifying a technique that can only be made workable if your opponent gives you your structure and follows your rules? In fact, in today's world it is HIGHLY unlikely someone is going to present you with anything resembling a chi sau structure

Related to this, it's all a theory until someone punches you in the face. I distinctly remember a gentleman from South American who was a "master" of internal kung fu who wanted to fight on one of our shows. He ended up being obliterated and KO'ed by a guy with 6 months training but who had spared and wrestled and actually trained live

I've similarly seen Aikido people stumble up when an "attack" is not like the "attack" they have in class and the person isn't "harmonizing" like they are supposed to in class

Generally speaking, fights do not look like the preconceived structures that most people tend to be raised up on

[HardWork8]

Anyway, going back to the theme of this thread. There are many possibilities one can create using the chi sao platform to apply grappling and chi-na applications. Keeping in mind that all of those who have more than a passing knowledge of kung fu will know that chi sao training is NOT a substitute for full on sparring and combat training and that it works on different levels eg. senstivity training;perception training;instant reaction training;technique/posture training;structure training.

It will be interesting to know your opinions on other grappling/chi-na variations that you may consider useful training.

How do you see these work out when striking and grappling chi-sao is COMBINED into an anything goes exercise, i.e. You may be hit while you are trying to apply a lock.

[Sihing73]

A few thoughts

I hope that when peole say "chin na/grappling within WC" they aren't expecting nor justifying a technique that can only be made workable if your opponent gives you your structure and follows your rules? In fact, in today's world it is HIGHLY unlikely someone is going to present you with anything resembling a chi sau structure

Generally speaking, fights do not look like the preconceived structures that most people tend to be raised up on

Hello,

Chi Sau is a training platform to develope certain principles related to energy, it is not fighting! Good WC, IMHO, should be adaptive and flow according to what the opponent gives you so while they may not fight according to WC "rules" you should be able to apply WC concepts and take their structure, in certain instances. Of course one of the biggest advanatages would be ones adaptablity, if a lock does not work then do something else, don't keep trying to apply a lock, or anything else, that's not working!

I would agree that most fights look different than what one sees in the kwoon\gym.

FWIW as a former Police Officer I have used locks to control a resisting opponent, most people I arrested really did not want to go to jail ;), and can attest to the need to be able to change tactics quickly and fluidly.

[lkfmdc]

Good WC, IMHO, should be adaptive and flow according to what the opponent gives you



Sadly, what should be obvious often is not so, ie that if a martial art doesn't work when an opponent is not cooperating it is not much of a martial art.... today, far too much martial art is dependent upon unrealistic expectations

I posted once before about a rules meeting for sparring at a certain national championship. There was great concern over non-CMA entering the event. I, never to be shy, raised my hand and offered "is your CMA better than their Japanese and Korean martial arts?"

Of course, they all answered "of course"

"So then why be worried about them entering your competition and not using CMA fighting techniques?"

Sadly, there was nothing but silence in the room for a few minutes :rolleyes:

[lkfmdc]

Chi Sau is a training platform to develope certain principles related to energy, it is not fighting!

Then let me restate or reword what I wrote

"In fact, in today's world it is HIGHLY unlikely someone is going to present you with anything resembling a wing chun stance, wing chun bridging, or wing chun style attacks"

[sanjuro_ronin]

Then let me restate or reword what I wrote

"In fact, in today's world it is HIGHLY unlikely someone is going to present you with anything resembling a wing chun stance, wing chun bridging, or wing chun style attacks"

Specificity is a biotch.

[SoCo KungFu]

"is your CMA better than their Japanese and Korean martial arts?"

Of course, they all answered "of course"

"So then why be worried about them entering your competition and not using CMA fighting techniques?"

Sadly, there was nothing but silence in the room for a few minutes :rolleyes:

Priceless:D

[Sihing73]

Then let me restate or reword what I wrote

"In fact, in today's world it is HIGHLY unlikely someone is going to present you with anything resembling a wing chun stance, wing chun bridging, or wing chun style attacks"

Hello,

If your application of Chi Sau concepts relies on the opponent presenting you with a certain stance, or type of attack then you do not understand Chi Sau.

Much like trapping involves more than the hands but incorporates the entire body. A bridge is a bridge, once established it should not matter if it is WC\TKD or whatever. What is important is the energy being given and received and how well one can read such.

Funny, there are several examples of WC people able to fight and do well, I guess all of their opponents fought their fight :rolleyes:

One must learn to think outside of the box, this does not always mean incorporating other arts, but an understanding is neve a bad thing. I and my Sifu do things differently and I do not myself like groundfighting, never did even when i did Judo. I do like the destructions found in FMA and do incorporate them into my Wing Chun. An example of using concepts rather than techniques.

Of course I have been known to CHEAT when I fight :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Funny, there are several examples of WC people able to fight and do well, I guess all of their opponents fought their fight

Such as?

I dislike ground work probably more than you do, hence I pursued BJJ and submisison grappling.
I don't like to fight on the ground at all, not a very good place to be, and for that reason I tend to not advocate standing grappling.

[HardWork8]

Hello,

Chi Sau is a training platform to develope certain principles related to energy, it is not fighting! Good WC, IMHO, should be adaptive and flow according to what the opponent gives you so while they may not fight according to WC "rules" you should be able to apply WC concepts and take their structure, in certain instances. Of course one of the biggest advanatages would be ones adaptablity, if a lock does not work then do something else, don't keep trying to apply a lock, or anything else, that's not working!
Exactly.

Furthermore those who understand Wing Chun know that it was not not designed for only fighting people who practiced Wing Chun. One of its premises was to defend against anyone using its particular concepts and principles.

However, if it is being taught in a way that is only applicable against other Wing Chun exponents, then blame the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenom and not the art itself.


FWIW as a former Police Officer I have used locks to control a resisting opponent, most people I arrested really did not want to go to jail ;)

I hope that the relevant people are reading this!:)


and can attest to the need to be able to change tactics quickly and fluidly.

Don't you love Wing Chun?:D

[lkfmdc]

If your application of Chi Sau concepts relies on the opponent presenting you with a certain stance, or type of attack then you do not understand Chi Sau.



Well, there sure are a lot of people who do not understand Chi Sau :rolleyes:

Years back, we would try and put people in the "chi sau" divisions in tournaments so they could work their close range/trapping/whateveryouwanttocall it.....

If your above statement is true, then "fighting" is just "fighting" and what works should be the determination no? We found the "chi sau" division so cluttered in rules, structure and silliness that it became meaningless..... Ie we could stick, control, redirect, tie up and HIT but since it wasn't the "wing chun way" :rolleyes: there was always some "problem" with it :rolleyes:




Funny, there are several examples of WC people able to fight and do well, I guess all of their opponents fought their fight :rolleyes:



Playing devil's advocate, WHERE are all these WC people fighting? Any doing really well in modern MMA? How about back in teh day when they were BARE FISTED and the rules were far looser?

Dojo challenges, seminars, etc mean something, no doubt, but are always tempered by questions of how good were the opponets? How hard were they trying? Etc etc.....

Or, in other words, we can see kicks and knees successfully used consistenly in San Da, Muay Thai, and MMA around the world yet seldom see anything resembling "classic" WC in such open conpetitions....




One must learn to think outside of the box, this does not always mean incorporating other arts,



How can a WC person expect to learn to grapple on the ground if they never seek out someone who knows how to do that?

Or, how can they learn a lock properly if they never study with someone who actually knows the lock?

[monji112000]

The subject matter concerns the use of chi sao as a tool for grappling/Chi-na(emphasis chi-na) training in relation to Wing Chun, i.e. within the context of Wing Chun and its principles.


Haven't you noticed that I am trying to keep this thread more or less on subject? Maybe you should worry about the couple of Sore-Butts who are trying to derail the topic. One of them doesn't even pretend to practice kung fu?:rolleyes:

Brian

OK so your ignoring my attempts to talk about "grappling" becouse .. its not "chin-na".. or chinese based grappling... wow

[Sihing73]

Such as?

I dislike ground work probably more than you do, hence I pursued BJJ and submisison grappling.
I don't like to fight on the ground at all, not a very good place to be, and for that reason I tend to not advocate standing grappling.

Hello,

You could do a google search but offhand several of the various lineages have had successful fighters:

William Cheungs people have competed and I am sure Phil and others can point out who and where.
Leung Ting has had several good fighters both in Europe and HK
Alan Orr perhaps on the leading edge at present
Rick Spain and fighters from his school

I am sure there are others but perhaps you get the idea.

Now before you go jumping on me, I am saying these people are "groundfighters" or "grapplers" just pointing out that some who do WC have shown it to be effective. Aside from in the ring there are those who have used WC in real street fights and lived to tell the tale, but if they don't cross train or pracitce bjj or something similar I guess their experience does'nt count.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hello,

You could do a google search but offhand several of the various lineages have had successful fighters:

William Cheungs people have competed and I am sure Phil and others can point out who and where.
Leung Ting has had several good fighters both in Europe and HK
Alan Orr perhaps on the leading edge at present
Rick Spain and fighters from his school

I am sure there are others but perhaps you get the idea.

Now before you go jumping on me, I am saying these people are "groundfighters" or "grapplers" just pointing out that some who do WC have shown it to be effective. Aside from in the ring there are those who have used WC in real street fights and lived to tell the tale, but if they don't cross train or pracitce bjj or something similar I guess their experience does'nt count.

I could a few names to that too.
Just one problem, none of them ( and most of yours listed) are NOT "pure" WC people.
They have "gasp" cross trained.

[lkfmdc]

but if they don't cross train or pracitce bjj or something similar I guess their experience does'nt count.

Please, no "straw men", they do nothing to move along a conversation

Has anyone who is PURE WC been able to enter a competition that allows ground grappling, fought a skilled grappler and been able to use just their pure WC?

What many people find "offensive" (perhaps a different or better word? but let's run with it for now) are those who cross train then DENY it

[sanjuro_ronin]

Please, no "straw men", they do nothing to move along a conversation

Has anyone who is PURE WC been able to enter a competition that allows ground grappling, fought a skilled grappler and been able to use just their pure WC?

What many people find "offensive" (perhaps a different or better word? but let's run with it for now) are those who cross train then DENY it

Has anyone denied it? Besides Emin I mean and I don't think he denies it anymore.
Alan's people don't.
Phil's people don't.

[HardWork8]

OK so your ignoring my attempts to talk about "grappling" becouse .. its not "chin-na".. or chinese based grappling... wow
Not really!

[monji112000]

Hello,

You could do a google search but offhand several of the various lineages have had successful fighters:

William Cheungs people have competed and I am sure Phil and others can point out who and where.
Leung Ting has had several good fighters both in Europe and HK
Alan Orr perhaps on the leading edge at present
Rick Spain and fighters from his school

I am sure there are others but perhaps you get the idea.


speaking as a "WC person", very few recent fighters have gone into main stream fights and done well. I'm talking about in the past 3-4 years doing MT,sanda, MMA events. I'm sure people do fight and I'm sure people win(and lose) but its not something you hear allot about.

Only one of the named schools have actually done what I just said...

[lkfmdc]

Has anyone denied it? Besides Emin I mean and I don't think he denies it anymore.
Alan's people don't.
Phil's people don't.

Well, for one, several people here in this very thread have either decried or flat out denied cross training

And I was actually directly responding to SiHing's post



this does not always mean incorporating other arts,


If you do WC, boxing, wrestling and BJJ,,,,, then fight, you aren't proving the effectiveness of WC... you are proving

1. YOUR own personal effectiveness as a person

2. the effectiveness of your training program

3. that elements of those methods are effective, WHICH to be yet determined

[Sihing73]

Well, there sure are a lot of people who do not understand Chi Sau :rolleyes:

How can a WC person expect to learn to grapple on the ground if they never seek out someone who knows how to do that?

Or, how can they learn a lock properly if they never study with someone who actually knows the lock?

Hello,

There are plenty of people who do not understand what they are doing, it is not limited to WC. FWIW I may very well be one of them :D

If one wants to grapple then they should study with someone knowledgable in that art, however ones desire does not mean it is needed nor does it mean that ones own art is lacking.

The more I learned in WC the more I realized the art had to offer. Locks and throws do exist in the art if one explores the concepts deeply. You can actually incorporate a throw from the Gum Sau although it may not look like the Gum you normally see, likewise with locks, they are not the goal but they do present themselves from time to time. Of course when using two hands on one some would argue that this violates WC principles, but does it?

I strongly believe in being exposed to other arts, I think that all of the great Masters of the past are examples of good cross training. However, what I am not a proponent of is the mish mash of arts strung together in an attempt to answer each and every situation one may face.

IMHO one needs to have a strong foundation and a thorough understanding of ones primary art before attempting to branch out into others. Then when one does try to incorporate other arts or methods they should be integrated with the core principles of their foundational art so that they extend and expand rather than change.

Any art can be deadly depending on the practicianer. Consider that one may take a .22 cal rifle and bring down just about any animal on earth, up to and including an elephant. However, even though in the right hands this will bring down a lion would you really want to depend on that light a bullet if you had the choice of a larger caliber. Depends on the situation, however the same basics you use to accurately shoot the .22 will be applied to a .44, with some adjustments due to recoil etc. You don't change the skills you simply enhance them.

[monji112000]

Well, for one, several people here in this very thread have either decried or flat out denied cross training

I flat out deny ever training BJJ or kickboxing. Any and all attempts to prove different are lies perpetrated by Nazi aliens trying to bring the jews back to Africa.



If you do WC, boxing, wrestling and BJJ,,,,, then fight, you aren't proving the effectiveness of WC... you are proving

1. YOUR own personal effectiveness as a person

2. the effectiveness of your training program


I 100% agree with you.

[Sihing73]

What is "pure" WC? Does anyone do it?

WC is a conceptual system, by its very nature it is adaptable and molded to the person training in it. Don't believe me, just look at Yip Mans students and tell me why there is such a variance between them and the way they, and their students do Wing Chun?

Wing Chun is not a cookie cutter wherein you get the same exact result each and every time. Shoot, one will not react the same way to a punch each and every time.

Look at my previous post and that should explain my approach to WC and crosstraining.

I trained in Judo for several years when I was younger and may, even subconciously bring some of those concepts to my WC. Therefor, by somes definition my WC is no longer pure.

Know the funny thing? I really don't care if it is pure or not. What I care about is whether it works when I need it. Thus far, it has served me just fine. But, perhaps my approach would not work as well for someone else and I will not argue that fact with anyone.

[lkfmdc]

however ones desire does not mean it is needed nor does it mean that ones own art is lacking.



If you want to be able to fight, you have to be able to grapple. If you want to just "study an art", fine, no problem. BUT if you want to learn to FIGHT, you need to grapple.....

If your art can't teach you to grapple, it IS lacking

Just like if your art can't teach you to strike, it IS lacking

I think most people have found that there is no ONE art that teaches everything... ergo they are all LACKING.... but I think that the "masters of old" already knew this as well




Locks and throws do exist in the art if one explores the concepts deeply.



The lock applied on the ground in the second clip at the very beginning of this thread, is that WC?

[lkfmdc]

I really don't care if it is pure or not.


That's you, others posting in or around this thread seem to disagree with you...

[sanjuro_ronin]

What is "pure" WC? Does anyone do it?

WC is a conceptual system, by its very nature it is adaptable and molded to the person training in it. Don't believe me, just look at Yip Mans students and tell me why there is such a variance between them and the way they, and their students do Wing Chun?

Wing Chun is not a cookie cutter wherein you get the same exact result each and every time. Shoot, one will not react the same way to a punch each and every time.

Look at my previous post and that should explain my approach to WC and crosstraining.

I trained in Judo for several years when I was younger and may, even subconciously bring some of those concepts to my WC. Therefor, by somes definition my WC is no longer pure.

Know the funny thing? I really don't care if it is pure or not. What I care about is whether it works when I need it. Thus far, it has served me just fine. But, perhaps my approach would not work as well for someone else and I will not argue that fact with anyone.

You should read a few posts here of a certain individual.

Fact is, if you wanna become proficient in a given facet of MA, you have to go to the system that specilaizes in it , just like you woudl do with any other physical endevour, or any endevour for that matter.

[Sihing73]

That's you, others posting in or around this thread seem to disagree with you...

Hello,

That is the beauty of it, adults can disagree there is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. Be pretty boring if everyone agreed with me, although they would be correct to do so :p JK

[sanjuro_ronin]

Everyone on this board has had different experiences. None of us have the ultimate answer, if we did everyone would be doing the same thing. It is just as wrong to blindly believe that one needs to incorporate something, usually that they like, in order to be a competent fighter as it is to believe that ones personal approach is the best and end all. Ring fighting is fine and has it's place as does hard sparring, etc. I can not answer for anyone else, all I know is that I have been in situations where my life was actually in danger and I am still hear, with several scars to show for the experiences, so I will state that based on my experience my approach to WC seems to work and be valid. No I have not fought in the ring nor do I wish to, I would also prefer to walk away or run away if the situation permits. I do have confidence that if I am forced to utilize my small knowledge of WC that it will work, given it is a situaiton wherein hand to hand is applicable. No it will not work against a gun, although I am working on that

Its not about having the ultimate answer, far from that, we are here discussing to help each other find the answer.
Certainly someone of us have the answer for OURSELVES and that answer is, typically, just for US.
Nevertheless, it is silly and lack common sense NOT to take into account the experience of those more experienced than us in matters than can effect our well being.
Everyone is entitlted to an opinion, but they are not entitled to be wrong about the facts and propagate that illusion unchallenged.

[lkfmdc]

I would not agree with you that you need to learn to "grapple" in order to be able to fight.



Sort of leaves a gapping hole in your armour if you can't stop someone from clinching and/or throwing you... or just clinching and striking you...




all I know is that I have been in situations where my life was actually in danger and I am still hear



While we're happy you are alive and HERE ;) you seem to miss the point. It is all relative... bouncers use standing joint locks all the time, usually on untrained drunks. I have a student who honestly is one of the bottom boys in the club who tripped and disarmed a guy who came after him with a knife. We're happy he is alive and well, but his experience doesn't mean he is "ultimate fighter"

I personally prefer to train as best I can and be prepared for EVERYONE possibility. I am NOT content knowing I can beat an untrained drunk....




As I told you before I have not watched the video.....



you'll have to forgive me, but

:rolleyes:

[lkfmdc]

That is the beauty of it, adults can disagree there is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. Be pretty boring if everyone agreed with me, although they would be correct to do so :p JK

I am glad to see you are so comfortable with just being a glorified kickboxer

PS: you will be getting your newsletter, decoder ring and lapel pin in the mail any day now

[Sihing73]

Fact is, if you wanna become proficient in a given facet of MA, you have to go to the system that specilaizes in it , just like you woudl do with any other physical endevour, or any endevour for that matter.

Hello,

If I wanted to become proficient then I would agree with you. Never said otherwise, the question is whether it is necessary to become proficient given your actual needs.

Consider a simple thing like the environment you live in, this will dictate much of your needs. For example the needs of someone living in Alaska would be different than those of someone living on a tropical island. Clothing will have an effect on fighting methods and tactics. For example if I wear a leather jacket or if I am in a bathing suit, will dictate some choices not only in striking but if my opponent has a blade.

I am reminded of Joe Lewis being asked once why he did not train both sides but stressed his strong side. People pointed out that by training both sides he would be a more well rounded fighter. His reply was that he was already better than most with his strong side so why not spend the extra time and make that even better? In this way his strong side would be unstoppable and he would not need his weaker side to bail him out of trouble. Since he was a multi times champion this seems like a good approach, for him. (This is a paraphrase not an exact quote)

If I have only 3 hours to devote to training each week and my core art is Wing Chun. Then should'nt I spend those three hours doing Wing Chun rather than try and do everything for every possible encounter? Of course if time permits and I have an interest then I should do more and even explore other arts. But given the constraints of life and the likely situations I will face it is, IMHO, better to train one art fully than several partially.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If I wanted to become proficient then I would agree with you. Never said otherwise, the question is whether it is necessary to become proficient given your actual needs.

As per this thread, we are talking about grappling.


I am reminded of Joe Lewis being asked once why he did not train both sides but stressed his strong side. People pointed out that by training both sides he would be a more well rounded fighter. His reply was that he was already better than most with his strong side so why not spend the extra time and make that even better? In this way his strong side would be unstoppable and he would not need his weaker side to bail him out of trouble. Since he was a multi times champion this seems like a good approach, for him. (This is a paraphrase not an exact quote)

Joe was great, still hits like a mule too, hands the size of hams !
He was also defeated a few times.
What does that mean?
Nothing, unless you are Joe Lewis or the guys that beat him.


If I have only 3 hours to devote to training each week and my core art is Wing Chun. Then should'nt I spend those three hours doing Wing Chun rather than try and do everything for every possible encounter? Of course if time permits and I have an interest then I should do more and even explore other arts. But given the constraints of life and the likely situations I will face it is, IMHO, better to train one art fully than several partially.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree. though I wonder what makes you think you have to give up A to do B?
I never did.
Is that the issues that those that don't cross train have? the mistaken belief that if you take up BJJ (for example) you give up training WC ??

[lkfmdc]

OK, I must need to get a cup of coffee or something, but did SiHIng just delete one of his OWN posts????? :confused::eek::confused::eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

OK, I must need to get a cup of coffee or something, but did SiHIng just delete one of his OWN posts????? :confused::eek::confused::eek:

LMAO !!
Yes.
:D

[Sihing73]

As per this thread, we are talking about grappling.

Joe was great, still hits like a mule too, hands the size of hams !
He was also defeated a few times.
What does that mean?
Nothing, unless you are Joe Lewis or the guys that beat him.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree. though I wonder what makes you think you have to give up A to do B?
I never did.
Is that the issues that those that don't cross train have? the mistaken belief that if you take up BJJ (for example) you give up training WC ??

Hello,

I never stated that I don't cross train, I also practice Pekiti Tirsia and incorporate Silat into my WC, so I guess that means I cross train.

I just don't like going to the ground, other than in the gym or on a nice mat I tend to think it is dangerous to do so. The skills one learns are definitely valuable, not disputing that, I just think the ground is a bad place to be in a real fight.

[lkfmdc]

I just don't like going to the ground, other than in the gym or on a nice mat I tend to think it is dangerous to do so. The skills one learns are definitely valuable, not disputing that, I just think the ground is a bad place to be in a real fight.

An author once wrote "just because you are not interested in war doesn't mean tht war is not interested in you"

Just because you do not WANT to go to the ground does NOT mean you aren't going to end up there..... to believe otherwise invites sure folly

The ground is a bad place to be in a real fight. Getting punched in the face is bad in a real fight, yet I don't see anyone suggesting we don't practice blocking our face!

[monji112000]

I just don't like going to the ground, other than in the gym or on a nice mat I tend to think it is dangerous to do so. The skills one learns are definitely valuable, not disputing that, I just think the ground is a bad place to be in a real fight.

I think allot of people think that way even in the grappling world.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hello,

I never stated that I don't cross train, I also practice Pekiti Tirsia and incorporate Silat into my WC, so I guess that means I cross train.

I just don't like going to the ground, other than in the gym or on a nice mat I tend to think it is dangerous to do so. The skills one learns are definitely valuable, not disputing that, I just think the ground is a bad place to be in a real fight.

As I have agreed with you before AND stated that I probably like it even less than you.
You do PT too eh?
Sweet match up with WC isn't it?
So it seems you are just another glorified kickboxer, *tsk,tsk*

[Sihing73]

An author once wrote "just because you are not interested in war doesn't mean tht war is not interested in you"

Just because you do not WANT to go to the ground does NOT mean you aren't going to end up there..... to believe otherwise invites sure folly

The ground is a bad place to be in a real fight. Getting punched in the face is bad in a real fight, yet I don't see anyone suggesting we don't practice blocking our face!

Hello,

Believe me I am not naive enough to think I can not be taken to the ground. I just feel that I would prefer to train to stay on my feet. Of course this may not always be possible. So, one considers how much time to devote to each situation.

While I do not choose to practice BJJ or a similar art, and I do not put down those who do, I have found quite a few answers to ground situations within Silat. Not saying this would be 100% effective, but it meets my needs for now. If I were to plan on fighting a grappler then believe me I would be in the gym training grappling. But, in my experience on the street I have not run into too many fighters who tried to shoot or take me down. Sure it can happen but chances are that I am more likely to be hit or cut than to be intentionally taken to the ground so I opt to train for what I am more likely to face.

[Sihing73]

As I have agreed with you before AND stated that I probably like it even less than you.
You do PT too eh?
Sweet match up with WC isn't it?
So it seems you are just another glorified kickboxer, *tsk,tsk*

Hello,

I have been called alot worse in my time :D

Also, PT blends very well with WC and makes for a very, imo, effective combination.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Also, PT blends very well with WC and makes for a very, imo, effective combination.

AGreed, and by the way, running doesn't lways work...]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctWwfo7WgeQ

[anerlich]

Hardwork8 - As you can see, I already have!

Actually, I think your answers proved my points.

I still haven't seen you add any technical substance to the discussion. Just a lot of "because you disagree with me, you must be clueless and a glorified kickboxer."

[unkokusai]

You are of course correct, but your post will soon be removed, while those posts declaraing you a "clueless, glorified kickboxer" will remain. It seems to be current policy.

[HardWork8]

Actually, I think your answers proved my points.
Well, that is what you "think".:rolleyes:


I still haven't seen you add any technical substance to the discussion.
I have already showen you what chi-na techniques can entail...things that you obviously did not know. I have also told you about closer range ("in your face") Chi-na.

I have also gave you a lot of fuel for thought. So don't try to blame me for something that almost everyone else in this thread is guilty of.


Just a lot of "because you disagree with me, you must be clueless and a glorified kickboxer."
Maybe I should refraze that to,"because you practice pseudo-kung fu, then you are a glorified kickboxer.

I wrote a lot of relevant things in that last post to you. I even asked you for your input. About the thread and you keep on carrying on this empty war!:rolleyes:

[HardWork8]

By the way, and this is to everyone else, this is not a thread about the benefits of ground fighting and god knows that we have seen enough of those.

We all know that ground fighting is a relevant area of study and can complete missing aspects of ones art and as I have mentioned before, there is ground fighting training within the traditional curriculum of Siu Lam Wing Chun and other kung fu styles as well.

However, my concern was not so much the groundfighting concept rather the idea of Grappling or Kun na/Chi-na chi sao and its relevance and possible benefits to Wing Chun training.

By the way, before I am accused of Satanism and war crimes,etc, :rolleyes: let me make it clear that I am not saying that the conversation has not had its moments and in some parts have been interesting. However, it has rather missed the point of this thread.

Another important point that I would like to add is that no matter how realistic, sport fighting is supposed to be it still has its rounds,rules, and referees,as well as guarantees (of a sort) that you are not going be murdered in the arena.

There is also the crowd and noise elements. I know many good kung fu fighters who would fight anyone if challenged in the street but would never enter the ring to fight the same people. It is another ball game. This is not to say that ring fighters cannot fight just and again, that it is another ball game.

So enough of "kung fu" has not won gold medals in this or that!

[Edmund]

About the Russian 2 on 1...

is that the same as the Russian drag?


I'm not sure what a Russian drag refers to!



3) You're not going to get punched for the reasons Andrew said either. You have their body in a transition to another end, not fumbling for their arm in what's supposedly a finisher on its own.

Well I think I have to see how someone would actually acquire the hold in the first place. The hold can be very strong and effective once it's in place but getting it without exposing yourself to being punched is my concern.

[anerlich]

Well, that is what you "think".

Take a poll if you like. See how many agree with you.


I have already showen you what chi-na techniques can entail...things that you obviously did not know. I have also told you about closer range ("in your face") Chi-na.


Crap. You've given no specifics, just generalities. What are these chin-na techniques that work high percentage at longer range, then?

As for the close range stuff, us GK's have that too. It's called pummelling and handfighting.


I have also gave you a lot of fuel for thought.

Dude, you didn't give me enough fuel to light a cigarette.


So don't try to blame me for something that almost everyone else in this thread is guilty of.


I wrote a lot of relevant things in that last post to you. I even asked you for your input.

You wrote a lot of nebulous generalities. I've given my opinions on the vid and a number of other subjects, including your knowledge or lack thereof on your chosen subject.


then you are a glorified kickboxer

I'm cut to the quick (***yawn ***)

Wouldn't "glorified wrestler" be more appropriate? Since we are discussing grappling and all... keep to subject, please.


Maybe I should refraze that

Maybe you should learn to spell, too.


you keep on carrying on this empty war

You seem to be the one with his panties in a wad, calling other forum members who disagree with you GK's. You seem to get involved in a few wars here ... maybe it's you, not the rest of the forum?


There is also the crowd and noise elements.

Oh sure, there's never crowds at bars, football matches, taxi stands, parties or other places where fights kick off. And those places are always deathly quiet :rolleyes:

Now, some more specifics for people who know something about the subject of the thread:


I'm not sure what a Russian drag refers to!


Me neither. I assume it's the 2 on 1 though.


Well I think I have to see how someone would actually acquire the hold in the first place. The hold can be very strong and effective once it's in place but getting it without exposing yourself to being punched is my concern.

I share that concern, and I don't think you can feasibly pluck it out of the air against a jab, cross, or even HW8's double punch. It's more something you get as a counter to some sort of grab, the single neck tie being the most obvious.

[cjurakpt]

I'm not sure what a Russian drag refers to!

some guy named Vassily in a one-piece and day-old stubble on his legs?


ok, back on topic - if you are talking about standing locking skill, the question is not so much whether you train it within the context of WC or kung-fu "principles", but how it will function against someone who doesn't give a crap about either; meaning that if you try to do a kam na technique against a resisting classmate, chances are he's not fully resisting you - because that would mean he would be trying to exploit any little weakness you might expose that would disrupt the lock, including spasing out on you, trying to bite you, running away - i mean the kind of crazy siit you see "out there";

also, what people fail to remember is that the greater the degree of specificity required to work a technique, the greater the chances are of you being off and the less leeway you have in that regard; this is pretty much the definition of a low-percentage technique, BTW;

another problem is that as time goes on, something like the lock shown in the video works less often because more people know it, train it, and train to counter it;

---

the other bit about using so-called "internal" principles: here is a vid of some taiji acquaintances of mine (who I occasionally go and push with when time permits) doing push-hands (which is in the same general realm as grappling, more-so at least than it is to striking, so it's a valid comparison):
http://www.taichili.com/training_for_tournament_competit.htm
(FYI, the teacher is the guy in the red tee, and yes, a lot of times he is letting the less experienced / way smaller students "get" him)
what is key to this vid is that it's done with full resistance and no compliance (within the bounds of the rule set, off course); the first thing some may say is that what they are doing isn't "internal" because it looks forced, muscular, sloppy, unrefined, coarse, etc.; I can tell you very directly that what you are seeing is what happens when you have mid- to advanced level skilled and conditioned people fully resisting each other's efforts to uproot and throw the opponent off balance: what happens is that you have to use all that "inferior" muscular stuff - but you use it in context of "internal" theory, meaning that you use muscle force, but in an integrated and efficient manner - contract when needed, relax when needed, etc.; on top of that muscle power, you have the yielding, the softness - but it's not the only aspect; and as far as "internal", they do train it - the softness, the liveness, etc. - it's all there - and they apply it when the push - it just doesn't "look like" internal - why not? because it's "internal" - it's "inside"! you can't see what's happening inside - but if you touch hands w/them, you feel it - if you practice just that aspect of it, then it's going to look more like "typical" pushing, and then you can more visually "see" the "internal aspect"; but when you ramp it up to full resistance, then it becomes a less directly discernable part of the equation - it's the nuance that lets you take someone's strong and specific force and turn it around on them before they can react to it

anyway, there are no secrets...

so as far as grappling out of chi sao (or push hands), if it "works" in that context, that's fine, but when you are done getting the idea of the skill, then the only way to practice it with any sort of predictive capacity, is to take it and work it on someone who doesn't "respect" what you do, and has their own ideas about how to do it;

[SoCo KungFu]

Russian Drag (http://www.themat.com/CoachesCorner/technique/Russiandrag/default.php)

Not sure how you would go about pulling it off a strike, though there are a number of things that can be done with it once its in.

This is outta my experience range. But I think it can be used as a way to also take the back from guard position. I THINK...kinda hard to remember sometimes when you're nose first in a mat and having your neck cranked on. I know that doesn't really help though as we are talking standing locks.....

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I took a look at the video and while I can respect the approach it is not how I would apply a lock. When I do something similar I usually try to set it up using a Lan Sau and then go to the outside so that only one of the opponents arms can be brought into play, without their moving. Of course it may not always be possible to apply a lock so one should be ready to strike or go into something else. I am not criticizing the video, just making an observation that I would do it a little differently. However, consider that the video is a demo from a Chi Sau platform and is done within those confines.

Also something else that somes to mind when applying a lock\control I was always taught to either bring the opponent up onto their toes or take them down to the ground. Never try to apply a standing lock on an opponent who still has their base. I was taught that one can disrupt balance in eight directions and that when attempting a control the object should be to disrupt at least two if not more of those directions.

For example when applying a hip throw one will drive the him into the opponent and also lift with one arm while pulling downwards with the other. The hip becomes the fulcrum but the arms breaking the two directions makes the fulcrum work. I know this may not be coming across exactly in this medium but perhaps some will understand what I am trying to say and maybe even be able to explain it better.

[anerlich]

OK, so that's a Russian Drag. Thanks.

The basic 2 on 1 control and possible followups appear on this vid. Lots more on the related vids as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLB_0jRj5tk&mode=related&search=

[SoCo KungFu]

the other bit about using so-called "internal" principles: here is a vid of some taiji acquaintances of mine (who I occasionally go and push with when time permits) doing push-hands (which is in the same general realm as grappling, more-so at least than it is to striking, so it's a valid comparison):
http://www.taichili.com/training_for_tournament_competit.htm


Is there some kinda player or download i need to see that vid? I get the website but the vids just bring up a blank page for me

[anerlich]

Also something else that somes to mind when applying a lock\control I was always taught to either bring the opponent up onto their toes or take them down to the ground. Never try to apply a standing lock on an opponent who still has their base.

Good advice, I think.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

It played for me using WMP. Interesting music............

[anerlich]

Is there some kinda player or download i need to see that vid? I get the website but the vids just bring up a blank page for me

They are WMV's and for me open in Windows Media Player, if that helps.

[SoCo KungFu]

Hello,

It played for me using WMP. Interesting music............

OK I got it up now...I didn't realize my WMP was fugged up and needed to be re-setup from a windows download...

[SoCo KungFu]

OK, so that's a Russian Drag. Thanks.

The basic 2 on 1 control and possible followups appear on this vid. Lots more on the related vids as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLB_0jRj5tk&mode=related&search=

Interesting vid. thanks for that! Though I know its a low blow, and that dude would probably wipe the floor with me but I gotta say it....that dude is every wrestling coach stereotype wrapped up into one package hahaha! Nice to see some things cross borders :D

Just joking, nice vid

[SoCo KungFu]

http://www.taichili.com/training_for...t_competit.htm

Sweet...on hard wood floor no less...that's some skinned knees right there

I hate pushing against big guys...I mean its good training but yeah...

The vid though is another example of why I think this whole "internal" vs "external" thing is a faulty argument though...extensions of the same thing in my eyes, just Chinese have a weird cryptic way of explaining things like that....but that's a whole different debate...

Only time I really threw a guy that much larger than me was with all things...my butt....

And you all think I'm just joking when I talk about the powers of chi in my anus:D

[cjurakpt]

Interesting vid. thanks for that! Though I know its a low blow, and that dude would probably wipe the floor with me but I gotta say it....that dude is every wrestling coach stereotype wrapped up into one package hahaha! Nice to see some things cross borders :D

Just joking, nice vid

actually Mike is a PE teacher here on LI (he's also a licensed hypnotist, so maybe that explains how he wins national PH titles...)

BTW, my point in posting this was not to derail the thread - I know the "point" is to discuss grappling w/in context of chi sao; since I see teuih sao as a very similar variant, it was just an example of grappling in that context, and looking at how it "works" when the opponent is resisting as opposed to complying (one could also argue the "internal" similarities, but that's as may be...)

seems kinda funny that you can find examples of this sort of thing from wimpy ol' taiji, and not in big bad WC (or many other TCMA as well...oh, and Mike is also a WC practitioner, BTW, under Sifu John Crescione, who was posting here for a while)

[Edmund]

I share that concern, and I don't think you can feasibly pluck it out of the air against a jab, cross, or even HW8's double punch. It's more something you get as a counter to some sort of grab, the single neck tie being the most obvious.

Yeah. agreed.

Any standing grappling from a non-contact position would probably have to be something simple such as a leg sweep, a single or a double leg shot. You see in judo kata some throws as responses to a strike to the head, but they would have to seriously hang their arm out for someone to pull it off for real.

[SoCo KungFu]

actually Mike is a PE teacher here on LI (he's also a licensed hypnotist, so maybe that explains how he wins national PH titles...)

BTW, my point in posting this was not to derail the thread - I know the "point" is to discuss grappling w/in context of chi sao; since I see teuih sao as a very similar variant, it was just an example of grappling in that context, and looking at how it "works" when the opponent is resisting as opposed to complying (one could also argue the "internal" similarities, but that's as may be...)

seems kinda funny that you can find examples of this sort of thing from wimpy ol' taiji, and not in big bad WC...(and Mike is also a WC practitioner, BTW, under Sifu John Crescione, who was posting here for a while)

Nah mane I'm referring to the old Russian dude in anerlichs vid haha

Good point bout the pushing though. Things are a lot different when you look at an art or even just a principle or technique through the glasses of the result as opposed the the theory. In that light, isn't it nice how so many "different" things are really very similar?

Like the Combat Shiou Choai or however the heck you spell it vid ronin posted. So many techniques as have been said are similar to judo, and even the aiki I was studying in Japan. Then Taiji and wrestling...I mean its not that surprising, we all are subject to the same laws of anatomy and physics, its just funny how often that seems to get lost in translation.

On another note, I wonder how many mirrors they've been through....literally

[Edmund]

seems kinda funny that you can find examples of this sort of thing from wimpy ol' taiji, and not in big bad WC (or many other TCMA as well...oh, and Mike is also a WC practitioner, BTW, under Sifu John Crescione, who was posting here for a while)

Taiji isn't that wimpy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw

You can be more gentle as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUf1llA3HXg

However WC is still inherently rougher because you have strikes involved as well as the standing grappling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ

[HardWork8]

Taiji isn't that wimpy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw

You can be more gentle as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUf1llA3HXg

However WC is still inherently rougher because you have strikes involved as well as the standing grappling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ

Thanks for the videos. I really enjoyed them! This should definitely demonstrate a dimension to tai chi that is not often seen nowadays and emphasis that this art is MARTIAL!:)

[cjurakpt]

Taiji isn't that wimpy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw
of course not - in CHINA! (and hopefully that is changing in the States since a bit of a shake up last year where some of the tree-hugger judges running the circuit "retired" :rolleyes:); anyway, that vid's always a good one to watch - a personal favorite (looks kinda like how we do things, in fact)


You can be more gentle as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUf1llA3HXg
more compliant, to allow the guy to demo - but some sound ideas (just wouldn't look as clean if resisted fully)


However WC is still inherently rougher because you have strikes involved as well as the standing grappling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ
well, this is how things looked back when I trained w/Ross (LKFMDC) & Chan Tai Shan, except the outside set-up stuff looked more CLF / Lama than WC - but it usually ended up the same way (except the floor work was far more rudimentary, 20 yrs. ago)
FWIW, taiji has lots of striking - for whatever reason, its practice is not "programmed" into the formal practice of most here in the US...

[HardWork8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUf1llA3HXg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw

Taking the above videos as examples how would the Wing Chun practitioners adapt this to their grappling Chi-sao? Can you see its relevance in relation to WC chi sao grappling?

The softness and fluidity would sure be handy and so will the rooting, that is for sure.Of course, there are other constants such as giving way; the forcing of reactions that are later taken advantage of; and so on.

Well we have seen that it works for tai chi and it also does in other kung fu styles that use chi sao, and some Wing Chun schools practice it.

What is your opinion of grappling chi sao in relation to a holistic approach to Wing Chun training? Do you think that it is as relevant as what you saw in those Tai Chi videos?

[Edmund]

Thanks for the videos. I really enjoyed them! This should definitely demonstrate a dimension to tai chi that is not often seen nowadays and emphasis that this art is MARTIAL!:)

Well the thing is, that is how it is done in China. You look in the correct place and you'll see it often.


of course not - in CHINA! (and hopefully that is changing in the States since a bit of a shake up last year where some of the tree-hugger judges running the circuit "retired" :rolleyes:); anyway, that vid's always a good one to watch - a personal favorite (looks kinda like how we do things, in fact)


I think you can't use some tree-hugger's distorted idea of what it's meant to look like take precedence over the experts in China. The art is from China! Their version of the comp is the more legit one.

Of course if some hippy learns from a seriously old dude, he can't lift and slam them to demo the art. Doesn't mean that it's not done like that.

When you are taught a lot of the applications, you learn basically that you have to be pretty powerful: Picking the opponent up like variations of a te guruma or suki nage.

People aren't usually going to hit the ground from a push even if it's really strong.
The obsession with pushing just because it's called "push hands" is just not how it's done. They rotate push a few times for a laugh and then try to take each other down.



FWIW, taiji has lots of striking - for whatever reason, its practice is not "programmed" into the formal practice of most here in the US...

Or China AFAIK. They don't do a lot of striking in a sparring format in Taiji. It's just not something they are that good at, even if the art itself contains a lot of striking techniques.

Which is why WC is rougher: It's got grappling *and* striking during sparring.

[unkokusai]

Well the thing is, that is how it is done in China. You look in the correct place and you'll see it often.



That is true. Of course, there are loads of old folks just out for some exercise too. Somehow their example became the norm!

[Ali. R]

I was waiting for someone else to discuss this link - no one did, so I will ask a question: when he does the inside top deflection w/his left, he spears the attacker in the throat (no matter that the attackers left arm hangs limp at his side, but we'll just ignore that for the sake of argument...); anyway, he's got the guys midline, he's poked him in the throat for cryin' out loud, he's inside w/forward momentum and nothing stopping him - why not just continue in the absence of a response from the attacker ?

so, maybe it's just me, but I can't seem to find a rationale for not only backing off, but actually switching to the guys outside by going under the arm, stopping his attack for two beats to do it, so that he can pull the guy forwards at the wrist, and then reversing that momentum to strike to the throat; again, this was done with no impetus - it's not like the attacker created a situation requiring this, he just goes; now, I'm not saying that you might need to do that sometime, but it would have to be in response to a defense by the attacker necessitating a lengthy and relatively complex switch like that (meaning that you loose two beats that could be strikes and also run the risk of tying your own hands up that way...I can tell you that the bagua version of this is when you get there, you just drive forwards and take the guy down hard, no follin' around by backing off and switiching lines for no reason)

any thoughts?



taiji, but have studied CLF, lama, hung kyuhn, bagua, arnis, jujitsu, aikido and TKD

I don’t like to teach techniques or say you could do this or that, because technique number 7 doesn’t always work all the time because no one knows what is going to happen next...

Of course you don’t understand it, it’s wing chun and none of the above… You can’t discredit what I do especially if you haven’t trained in it…

Everything I did had forward momentum and he did not know what was coming and he was told to hit me for real out of that drill as well, and I myself didn’t know what I was going to do also, I just did it…

Every time I show a free style drill its not valid unless I kill someone, and no one else gets this but me… It’s not that the drill was executed well, but I have to make sure the guy is put out and down also…

I changed the line (not stepping to the outside) with a gong sao because of his free hand after hitting his throat, this way he couldn’t reach me with the free hand…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o

I hit and pulled his Adams apple for real because getting hit by him hurts like hell and like I said, “I didn’t know what he was going to do”… So I took it to him the nastiest way that I knew how because of that fact…

He told me that he was out when I hit his throat, and he just wanted to walk away, but he didn’t move quickly enough, and I also had to grab him to keep him from falling after the chin na move… The longer you stand in front of me after an attack, the more I will break you off; I’m not a looker after I give one a good strike to the throat, I will always follow through…

So I would highly recommend hitting the floor or just running away, because this buzz saw doesn’t stop until the last piece of wood is gone… In wing chun you must have and keep the butchers mentality… I just did what I had to do…



Ali Rahim.

[Toby]

I think what cjurakpt is saying, is why didn't you just continue to attack the guy straight on? You get that first shot to the throat, which disrupts the guy's flow, then why not keep pressuring him down the line? Of course, sometimes you just want to drill something funky which I can understand ...

[Ali. R]

I think what cjurakpt is saying, is why didn't you just continue to attack the guy straight on? ...

Because of his free hand... And as soon as I hit him his momentum was lost…


then why not keep pressuring him down the line?...

Didn't need it, he had nothing left after the first strike.


Ali Rahim.

[Toby]

Yeah, but once you get one or two good shots in, it's hard for the other guy to come back even if he's got a free arm. He might make a couple of weak swings, but if you destroy his "centre" he's got nothing, especially if you don't let up. I guess cjurakpt (and Edmund?) and I are saying why not K.I.S.S.?

<edit>OK, you edited while I was replying. If he had nothing left, why bother going to the outside?</edit>

[Ali. R]

Yeah, but once you get one or two good shots in, it's hard for the other guy to come back even if he's got a free arm. He might make a couple of weak swings,

Like you said he might have thrown a hope and prayer shot...


He might make a couple of weak swings...

You're right, and I just didn’t want to take that chance, and not only that when I saw him go limp I didn’t want him to fall on my punches and taking a chance on him seriously getting hurt, remember he's my student and not just someone off the streets…


Ali Rahim.

[CFT]

K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid

[Ali. R]

I knew what it meant...:rolleyes:

I never think about what I do, and I dont know how and why it comes out the way it does, it just happens, more then half of the time I can't remember or repeat what I do under pressure...

And what I did to him was quick enough that he couldn’t tell what happen, he only felt it and didn't see a thing, so he tells it…

To him and me that was really simple and highly effective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o


Ali Rahim.

[Mr Punch]

To make that work you need to really be very relaxed and it is areas like this that one has to appreciate the internal side of kung fu.OK, would you like to explain the mechanics of how you would do that move in chum kiu as an arm break, especially in relation to how your body mechanics could be described as internal, or how it would differ from what you would explain as external? Of course, you can illustrate your description with examples from when you've used this technique against resisting opponents if you don't think I could understand your explanation of your internal dynamics. Thanks.


Yet others here will disagree with you on that. Furthermore, I say that that technique is just an example and I would like comments on how you see kum la training and its potential with techniques that perhaps you would find more useful.Since you obviously know more than us kickboxers about grappling and chin na, perhaps you could help us with some more examples of what you think are valid chin na training from a chi sao base?

And you know, you never actually analysed/commented on your first vid, you just ripped into other people's analyses of it. Maybe you could tell us how you think that tech is useful, and about its potential for application from a chi sao base?


Also remember this: you are not supposed to chase hands in any kung fu style and yet chi-na techniques have been an important part and parcel of all major kung fu styles. And like I said, remember too that other styles' practitioners have different definitions to chunners about what is chasing arms.


What has that got to do with kickboxers not being able to apply arm locks?:confused:I was just wondering. You talk a lot about kickboxers like you have some knowledge of what they do too, just like you do about SPM etc, and I was wondering if that was based on any experience? You do know presumably that apart from modern kickboxing schools a lot of kickboxing comes from different styles of karate, most of which have locking and rudimentary throwing techs? I'd rather not sit through your analysis of karate's grappling techniques; I fear my irony meter would need its bull**** cleaning out - just a quick answer as to how much experience you have of training with/against kickboxers of any hue. Thanks again.


I repeat myself because some facts don't seem to sink in for certain people and believe me a change in the "argument" would rather be refreshing right now.:rolleyes:I tried to change the argument to get you to give us some practical examples, but you don't seem to understand the difference between practical and theoretical... maybe it's a language thing.


95% of you guys!LOL, good to see you have a sense of humour! Still, you'd need one to write your posts.


My "judgments" are not generally directed as people's fighting skills because I wouldn't know that from where I am sitting. My "judgments" are usually directed at people's understanding of traditional kung fu training and the essence that it entails.Again, let me ask you; you are aware that there are many different opinions within the 'wing chun' community...? Even among supposedly skilled practitioners from different lines? I would cordially suggest that quite often on a board where you have to write a response and misunderstandings are common that you wouldn't know much about people's understanding of the essence of kung fu either. That's generously assuming you're even qualified to recognise it.

And aren't I sweet? I posted that response without going over your old posts and picking out all the times when you've accused others of not being able to fight.


Get out where? To the local Tae Kwon Do club or the Muay thai gym?Yep, if that's what it takes to get you trying your stuff on people outside your system.


It is simple and here is a simple example that I hope you appreciate. You perceive an attack about to be launched and you side step 45 degrees towards your attacking opponent, as he launches his assault and hit him before his attack gets to you. Here, you have forseen the attack and created the opportunity!
I know what the kuen kuit refers to. It's still not a recommendation; it's still a conditional. But we can agree to differ on that. I also know this kind of timing and technique/principle, and have practised it a lot, sometimes pulling it off on boxers, thai boxers and pro and semi pro MMA fighters... and often getting nailed on the way.

But you see, what you've got here is a theoretical description, with no basis in experience. How do I know? Because if you'd done it in sparring you'd of course realise that there's no such thing as 'perceiving an attack about to be launched' and you would maybe instead have given an example about how watching the weight go in some direction would clue you in to which attack was coming... or even something nebulous about watching his elbows or something. If you're talking from experience about one/two step sparring common in chun (which I think has a lot of merit btw) you would of course know an attack was coming, so there's none of that perception involved: it's dead to some extent. And if you'd pulled it off in the street, well, I'm sure we'd have heard about it...

I'm not saying anything about how much experience you have, just trying to get you to understand how to explain things from an experiential PoV as opposed to a theoretical one.


Not really. You avoid aggression. Ultimately you are not meant to feel aggression during combat, just as you are not meant to feel fear or any other emotion. You just "are"!

That is a concept that you will not agree with but that is how we train. Yes and I know it is not easy to fight without feeling emotions but that is how many TCMA, specially the internal ones, train.See, now there's another judgment, another presumption. I started in aikido and for the first five years until I got my shodan I was all about zen and negating aggression. And yes, I carried it over when I started kung fu. And yes, I know all about the 108 moves of SLT stripping away your desires, just as I'd practised the 108 cuts cutting away at my ego for many years before. It's nice.

Having had my head kicked in with pure aggression on the end of a para boot, having had someone try to run me down in a car while I was semi conscious, having seen countless acts of bloody violence... I can assure you that the emotion-free way is useful, but getting rid of the fear makes your reflexes dull and it is not as useful as learning to switch the fear into aggression when you need it.


Lets put it this way, a state of calmness is "drilled" into you from day one. That is, relaxed breathing, relaxed attitude, calmness when hit, calmness when hitting, calmness when hurt or injured and so on..FROM DAY ONE! Meditation (time permitting) is also incorporated.Been there, done that, eschewed the t-shirt in favour of a horse hair tunic...! :rolleyes: :D


You would be surprised at the things you will notice during fighting training when you a achieve even a slightly above average calmness of the mind.Again with the theory. It is good for fighting training. You often don't have time to put it into practice when the **** hits the fan.

It's a nice ideal to aim for. I wonder how many encounters you would need before you know you've reached that state of mind... and how many you could survive!


Kickboxing works just fine and you can make it street effective much quicker than kung fu, so why do you bother with "kung fu" training? I ask this because,
while you are looking for something that "works" you are at the same time picking and choosing the fundments that differenciates kung fu from the knucklehead martial arts. That is fine too, but you should just admit to be a MMA-ist and not a kung fu-ist!I'm not sure whether this is more ignorant or arrogant. You do present me with difficult choices!

I've been training kung fu for ten years. I've always tested against people outside my lineage, outside my style, outside my mindset. Sometimes it fails (and of course sometimes it's me that fails). The sooner you get out there, the better.


Just like you, I criticise what I deem to be worthy of criticism and my kung fu knowledge is not as limited as yours, believe me.:rolleyes:


Anyway, going back to the theme of this thread. There are many possibilities one can create using the chi sao platform to apply grappling and chi-na applications. Keeping in mind that all of those who have more than a passing knowledge of kung fu will know that chi sao training is NOT a substitute for full on sparring and combat training and that it works on different levels eg. senstivity training;perception training;instant reaction training;technique/posture training;structure training.

It will be interesting to know your opinions on other grappling/chi-na variations that you may consider useful training.

How do you see these work out when striking and grappling chi-sao is COMBINED into an anything goes exercise, i.e. You may be hit while you are trying to apply a lock.Still not sharing your great insight and knowledge are you? It will be interesting to know your opinions on other grappling/chi-na variations that you may consider useful training.

[Mr Punch]

Jack of all trades, master of none

Hi Ali, has the Fury fought yet?

No bait, no switch... though I'm sure you'll see it that way - but maybe your foil hat has prevented you from reading the thread addressed to you and your PM? :D

[cjurakpt]

I don’t like to teach techniques or say you could do this or that, because technique number 7 doesn’t always work all the time because no one knows what is going to happen next...
that's true


Of course you don’t understand it, it’s wing chun and none of the above… You can’t discredit what I do especially if you haven’t trained in it…
that's not true, it's a tired argument that holds not merit, and if you don't understand why, then there's really no point in trying to explain it to you (hint: WC is not the only art that works in trapping range and using centerline etc. theory; and I've touched hands with more than a few WC guys, so it's not like I am clueless about the approach)


Everything I did had forward momentum and he did not know what was coming and he was told to hit me for real out of that drill as well, and I myself didn’t know what I was going to do also, I just did it…
ok, so it was a spontaneous response as opposed to calculated; it doesn't change what you did though;


Every time I show a free style drill its not valid unless I kill someone, and no one else gets this but me… It’s not that the drill was executed well, but I have to make sure the guy is put out and down also…
no, again, nothing about the finish, it was about the changing of the line of attack seemingly without reason


I changed the line (not stepping to the outside) with a gong sao because of his free hand after hitting his throat, this way he couldn’t reach me with the free hand…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o
but he didn't; if he had intercepted your right hand strike and redirected it to his outside, then I wouldn't have made the comment that a made


I hit and pulled his Adams apple for real because getting hit by him hurts like hell and like I said, “I didn’t know what he was going to do”… So I took it to him the nastiest way that I knew how because of that fact…
ok...


He told me that he was out when I hit his throat, and he just wanted to walk away, but he didn’t move quickly enough, and I also had to grab him to keep him from falling after the chin na move… The longer you stand in front of me after an attack, the more I will break you off; I’m not a looker after I give one a good strike to the throat, I will always follow through…
again, my point is, without a specific cause to do so, why go from being all over his center, basically owning his throat, back out to the periphery to do a wrist technique?


So I would highly recommend hitting the floor or just running away, because this buzz saw doesn’t stop until the last piece of wood is gone… In wing chun you must have and keep the butchers mentality… I just did what I had to do…
WC doesn't have the exclusive contract on that mentality...

anway, all that said, I am curious about why you feel the need to criticise me personally, vis a vis your "jack of all trades" comment? are you suggesting that I don't have an understanding of TCMA techniques / tactics because I have studied 9 different arts over the course of ~24 years? do you know how long I studied each of them? in what order? for what reason I moved from one to another? no, you don't; so I will put it in context for you: the first 8 were all within the first 10 years of my martial arts "career"; the progression of arts was decidedly non-TCMA to TCMA, and from so-called "external" to so-called "internal": TKD-4 years; aikido / jujitsu: ~1.5 yrs.; arnis: 3 yrs.; CLF / Lama / hung kyuhn: 4 yrs; bagua: 1 yr. (and yes, there was overlap within that); the reason I moved from one to another was because each subsequent one had more depth than the previous, in my estimation; but ultimately, none was quite the right match; so I moved on (of course, if I had been a slave to so-called tradition, I would have bit the bullet and stayed w/the first one I came across, even when it was not the right art for me - is that a sign of intelligence or stupidity, I ask?); art #9, taiji, is the one that I was looking for all that time, in terms of both curriculum as well as teacher, and I have been involved in solely that for the last 14 years without ever feeling the need to go elsewhere (BTW, are you familiar with the Chinese saying "it is better to spend 10 years looking for the right teacher than to stay 3 yeas with the wrong one."?)
so, does that all seem capricious on my part, or lacking in a structured agenda? sorry to say, you have no basis for the "jack of all trades" comment - that's your own personal bias looking for some reason to discredit me personally, as opposed to arguing my comments on their merits, which is unfortunate but I guess that your "buzz saw" approach...
anyway, I am so tired of all this flaming silliness and pre-suppositions - if you want to continue this along these lines, feel free to do so by yourself;

[monji112000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUf1llA3HXg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw

Taking the above videos as examples how would the Wing Chun practitioners adapt this to their grappling Chi-sao? Can you see its relevance in relation to WC chi sao grappling?

The softness and fluidity would sure be handy and so will the rooting, that is for sure.Of course, there are other constants such as giving way; the forcing of reactions that are later taken advantage of; and so on.

Well we have seen that it works for tai chi and it also does in other kung fu styles that use chi sao, and some Wing Chun schools practice it.

What is your opinion of grappling chi sao in relation to a holistic approach to Wing Chun training? Do you think that it is as relevant as what you saw in those Tai Chi videos?
I like the idea that the first clip shows an attempt to do something new. I'm not sold on all the ideas or the "free push hands" but its a nice start.

If your going to do something like that pummeling in my opinion would be smarter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq6uwEiFr9w

some other ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ23GRes_S0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJrjRg2bIRw

[HardWork8]

so I moved on (of course, if I had been a slave to so-called tradition, I would have bit the bullet and stayed w/the first one I came across, even when it was not the right art for me - is that a sign of intelligence or stupidity, I ask?); art #9, taiji, is the one that I was looking for all that time, in terms of both curriculum as well as teacher, and I have been involved in solely that for the last 14 years without ever feeling the need to go elsewhere (BTW, are you familiar with the Chinese saying "it is better to spend 10 years looking for the right teacher than to stay 3 yeas with the wrong one."?)

There is another Chinese saying"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear";)

[HardWork8]

update: and so with that, barring some sort of change in tack, I bid this thread adieu...

Christ, I thought he would never leave!

[couch]

update: having now gotten some background info from other forum peeps, it appears that reasoned discourse in this situation is akin to an exercise in futility, and so with that, barring some sort of change in tack, I bid this thread adieu...

This is a common tactic employed by him. He can't even answer about how well his boxer did in a fight. He just avoids the conversation to save face. He did the same thing with me. I commented on something he said and he told me to not overreact. Told me that he used to think the way I did when he lacked the knowledge he has now, etc...

Not worth it. I've tried and everyone else has. He has even got angry at the fact that someone would argue with him on HIS thread. That's news to me. I thought AOL owned the internet. :p

[Mr Punch]

Since I couldn't possibly understand explosive dantien breathing (maybe it's connected to verbal diarrhoea?) or whatever the **** else you're going on about, I'd better leave you to your moronologue.

This is going to be a very quiet forum until you've gone.

And don't worry about Ali, Chris. He likes to talk to himself too. He posts the same vids over again as answers to his own tedious rhetoric, and his muppet comes and compliments him on them (there were two of them but one got banned or left), but if anyone has even the slightest question about something he's doing it's all, 'well you couldn't understand my way, the real kung fu...'. He's been banned twice before, but I guess nobody cares any more.

This place is gonna get mighty quiet.

[Mr Punch]

He can't even answer about how well his boxer did in a fight.I checked out his website and myspace page a wee while back and I don't think he's fought yet. Must have been postponed. Be nice if he wins though, despite his amateur coaching. I'm not going to bother asking Ali about it anyway, cos by the time I've filtered out the BS there won't be a straight answer anyway: just go straight to the Fury's pages. In fact, I'm not going to bother responding to anything Ali says any more: the amusement value has worn off.

BTW, who took off the the two tags on this thread: WC players nuzzle geese, and the vaguely German one? That was the funniest **** around here since Duty of Care and Blooming Lotus.

[HardWork8]

Well the thing is, that is how it is done in China. You look in the correct place and you'll see it often.
EXACTLY! I hope a lot of our modern "modern is better" colleagues are taking notes.;)



I think you can't use some tree-hugger's distorted idea of what it's meant to look like take precedence over the experts in China. The art is from China! Their version of the comp is the more legit one.
That is right and is also true for many other kung fu styles that have been "improved":rolleyes: and made more "Street Effective":rolleyes: here in the West.


People aren't usually going to hit the ground from a push even if it's really strong.
The obsession with pushing just because it's called "push hands" is just not how it's done. They rotate push a few times for a laugh and then try to take each other down.
I am told that in the old days the push hands practice was also a way of developing internal linking of the body.


Or China AFAIK. They don't do a lot of striking in a sparring format in Taiji. It's just not something they are that good at, even if the art itself contains a lot of striking techniques.
That is a pity, but then I wonder how tai chi would look with boxing gloves on, even if I am sure that it has been done before.


Which is why WC is rougher: It's got grappling *and* striking during sparring.
And that grappling comes from China (including the ground fighting which is not the theme of this thread) as well, and so does the grappling chi sao that is part and parcel of Siu Lam Wing Chun.

[HardWork8]

This is going to be a very quiet forum until you've gone.
Well it hasn't done too badly so far even with my presence. Even if the real point of the thread was missed by many, but then how many were real wing chun practitioners? And how many were cross trainers?


This place is gonna get mighty quiet.
I hope it does unless that is, we have more contributions - from people with more than a passing knowledge of Wing Chun-that are relevant to this thread which was more about a training approach that utilizises CHI NA/KUM NA CHI SAO AS A TRAINING TOOL TO FAMILIARISE THE PRACTITIONERS WITH STAND UP GRAPPLING SITUATIONS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TAKEDOWNS, rather than individual grappling techniques and MMA ground fighting:rolleyes:!

[Edmund]

EXACTLY! I hope a lot of our modern "modern is better" colleagues are taking notes.;)


Well hang on. I don't think the clips were absolutely brilliant grappling. I was just illustrating that taiji push hands wasn't just a compliant waste-of-time drill.

What you are calling "modern" is actually fairly old. Wrestling in different forms has existed in many cultures around the world for a long time. As the clips show, taiji push hands is a type of wrestling as well.

Judo and jujitsu are types of wrestling. Sumo etc.

In striking, kickboxing has old roots. Muay Thai descends from styles around that region of Asia. Other styles of kickboxing descended from karate. Western boxing comes from around the 18th Century England.


That is right and is also true for many other kung fu styles that have been "improved":rolleyes: and made more "Street Effective":rolleyes: here in the West.


Perhaps I should :rolleyes: at your :rolleyes: because everything can be "improved" in the context that all styles came from a style before it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't apply our brains to develop and improve things. This happens in the East as well as the West.



And that grappling comes from China (including the ground fighting which is not the theme of this thread) as well, and so does the grappling chi sao that is part and parcel of Siu Lam Wing Chun.

Umm. It should be pointed out that a lot of grappling looks similar regardless of where it comes from. The human body is the same and hence different MA share a lot of the same things.

There's famous Chinese quote that it doesn't matter what colour the cat is as long as it can catch the mouse.

[Vajramusti]

"The human body is the same and hence different MA share a lot of the same things."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chimps and humans largely share some key biological components but the results of the differences are huge. Old statement- Archimides? Approximately-"Give me the right lever and I can move the world". But- there are differences in levers-in length and reliability and other characteristics.

joy chaudhuri

[sanjuro_ronin]

"The human body is the same and hence different MA share a lot of the same things."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chimps and humans largely share some key biological components but the results of the differences are huge. Old statement- Archimides? Approximately-"Give me the right lever and I can move the world". But- there are differences in levers-in length and reliability and other characteristics.

joy chaudhuri

Uh...chimps and human are vastly different physiologically speaking.
We all WISH we had their strength-to-weight ratio and the innate ability to use close to 100% or their strength.

[HardWork8]

Well hang on. I don't think the clips were absolutely brilliant grappling. I was just illustrating that taiji push hands wasn't just a compliant waste-of-time drill.
I didn't think so either, however a lot of people seem to go around and put down the internal arts. There was enough in those clips to show that internal arts are combat effective and there is more to them than meets the "modern eye".


What you are calling "modern" is actually fairly old.
Many things that are modern are fairly old, a actually they are the regurgitated versions of fairly old.

However, when I say "modern" I say it in reference to the usual "modern is better" approach, used to sell substandard kung fu to the masses. For substandard kung fu please see the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenom and other combat effective "kung fu" schools that teach nothing but Glorified Kickboxing!


Wrestling in different forms has existed in many cultures around the world for a long time. As the clips show, taiji push hands is a type of wrestling as well.
Wrestling has existec in China even before kung fu and somehow we are led to believe that kung fu never addresses wrestling type scenarios...that is the point that I usually try to make to some of our less "illuminated" forum colleagues.


In striking, kickboxing has old roots. Muay Thai descends from styles around that region of Asia.
Many people believe that Chinese Boxing (kung fu) played a major part in Muay Thai's development.


Other styles of kickboxing descended from karate. Western boxing comes from around the 18th Century England.
And????


Perhaps I should :rolleyes: at your :rolleyes: because everything can be "improved" in the context that all styles came from a style before it.
When I say "improved" I am referring to "kung fu-ists" who say that they have improved a kung fu style by adding irrelevant techniques and concepts to an art they have not they have not mastered and nor understood properly. Filling the gaps, shall we say.

It is a term that is used nowadays to SELL martial arts, especially the traditional ones. Other such terms are "street effective", "functional" and "practical", all of which were applicable to kung fu practice for thousands of years.

So when I use the term "improved", I do so in irony.



We wouldn't be human if we didn't apply our brains to develop and improve things.
The humans that I am referring to are ones who "apply" their brains for the sole purpose of making money from kung fu!


This happens in the East as well as the West.
More in the West than in the East, I believe.


Umm. It should be pointed out that a lot of grappling looks similar regardless of where it comes from. The human body is the same and hence different MA share a lot of the same things.
I believe that we all knew that.


There's famous Chinese quote that it doesn't matter what colour the cat is as long as it can catch the mouse.

There is a famous American saying and that says, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and that has been one of my main points throughout this forum.

[HardWork8]

the innate ability to use close to 100&#37; or their strength.

For those who weren't aware of this fact the internals of kung fu aim to "release" or "unlock" human body's full strengh potential.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;872872]Uh...chimps and human are vastly different physiologically speaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Precisely but 96% shared genetic characteristics. The 4% approx genetic differences have very different physiological consequences. Interestingly in classic Indian symbolism- Hanuman the monkey god is the patron of martial arts. joy chaudhuri)

[sanjuro_ronin]

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;872872]Uh...chimps and human are vastly different physiologically speaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Precisely but 96% shared genetic characteristics. The 4% approx genetic differences have very different physiological consequences. Interestingly in classic Indian symbolism- Hanuman the monkey god is the patron of martial arts. joy chaudhuri)

Indeed, very cool in regards to Hanuman, did not know that.

[anerlich]

For those who weren't aware of this fact the internals of kung fu aim to "release" or "unlock" human body's full strengh potential.

The same is true of just about every other strength or athletic training program on the planet.

[Edmund]

I didn't think so either, however a lot of people seem to go around and put down the internal arts. There was enough in those clips to show that internal arts are combat effective and there is more to them than meets the "modern eye".


Many things that are modern are fairly old, a actually they are the regurgitated versions of fairly old.

However, when I say "modern" I say it in reference to the usual "modern is better" approach, used to sell substandard kung fu to the masses. For substandard kung fu please see the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenom and other combat effective "kung fu" schools that teach nothing but Glorified Kickboxing!


Hmmm. It's marketing to say "modern is better" but it's also marketing to say "internal is better" or "traditional is better". The truth is that being distinctively "modern" or "traditional" doesn't make it better at all.




And????


And in a sense everything modern is somewhat traditional. It all came from something before.





When I say "improved" I am referring to "kung fu-ists" who say that they have improved a kung fu style by adding irrelevant techniques and concepts to an art they have not they have not mastered and nor understood properly. Filling the gaps, shall we say.


You just stated above you agreed with me that the clips weren't absolutely brilliant. If people want to improve on that, they must change something. Who are you to the judge of what changes are "proper"?

You actually were the one pointing to taiji clips and asking how that might influence someone's WC. Why is it OK to be influenced and improved by a taiji clip but not another form of wrestling from another culture?




There is a famous American saying and that says, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and that has been one of my main points throughout this forum.

I think you miss the point of my saying. Possibly because you are too stuck onto your preferred styles. You are happy to do taiji or some other kung fu with WC but not a non Chinese MA with WC - You call it glorified kickboxing instead.

[HardWork8]

The same is true of just about every other strength or athletic training program on the planet.
And you have missed the point of the internals as from the internal point of view almost every other strength or athletic training program will "lock in" your body oneness.

If you follow these programs you will get stronger and that is VERY different from the concept of unlocking through internal unity.

[HardWork8]

Hmmm. It's marketing to say "modern is better" but it's also marketing to say "internal is better" or "traditional is better". The truth is that being distinctively "modern" or "traditional" doesn't make it better at all.
Internal is better depending on what you are looking for. Internal concepts are part of all major kung fu styles and there is a good REASON for that, as the two aspects create a balance within the arts based partially on the Ying Yang principles.

Traditional is "better" because the traditional is the original design that has functioned for a long time. Of course, this doesn't mean that traditional cannot be improved (and it has during the centuries), but what it means is if one wants to improve a kung fu style significantly, the least he can do is master and UNDERSTAND it first.




And in a sense everything modern is somewhat traditional. It all came from something before.
It all came from something before but whatever it is it has to contain the essence of what it came from.


You just stated above you agreed with me that the clips weren't absolutely brilliant.
They weren't absolutely brilliant, but they were very good. Of course the martial aspect of Tai ji covers a lot more than those clips demonstrated so in that aspect they weren't "absolutely" brilliant.


If people want to improve on that, they must change something.
I have said this before and I will say it again, they can change whatever they want but if these changes result in the art losing its essence, such as the exponents hopping around like a Tdk-ist or boxer, without roots, then "they" cannot refer to what they do as KUNG FU!


Who are you to the judge of what changes are "proper"?
It is not just me but anyone else who practices authentic kung fu is qualified to "judge" and recognize the pretence kung fu for what it is.


You actually were the one pointing to taiji clips and asking how that might influence someone's WC. Why is it OK to be influenced and improved by a taiji clip but not another form of wrestling from another culture?
The answer is simple, all these styles have common sources and general concepts and thus their methods/approaches/concepts can be assimilated better.


I think you miss the point of my saying. Possibly because you are too stuck onto your preferred styles. You are happy to do taiji or some other kung fu with WC but not a non Chinese MA with WC - You call it glorified kickboxing instead.

I call it Glorified kickboxing because that is what kung fu becomes when one practices styles that have contradicting concepts and principles. The maintanance of roots are of prime importance in kung fu. In the old days (in some schools)you werent't taught much else unless you mastered your roots. If you mix your kung fu with an art such as boxing then you may not use your kung fu roots anymore. The resultant "art" may be to your liking, but you CANNOT call it kung fu anymore and it would be more accurate to call it KICKBOXING as it will resemble the latter a lot more than the former.

[Edmund]

Internal is better depending on what you are looking for. Internal concepts are part of all major kung fu styles and there is a good REASON for that, as the two aspects create a balance within the arts based partially on the Ying Yang principles.

Traditional is "better" because the traditional is the original design that has functioned for a long time. Of course, this doesn't mean that traditional cannot be improved (and it has during the centuries), but what it means is if one wants to improve a kung fu style significantly, the least he can do is master and UNDERSTAND it first.

It all came from something before but whatever it is it has to contain the essence of what it came from.

They weren't absolutely brilliant, but they were very good. Of course the martial aspect of Tai ji covers a lot more than those clips demonstrated so in that aspect they weren't "absolutely" brilliant.

I have said this before and I will say it again, they can change whatever they want but if these changes result in the art losing its essence, such as the exponents hopping around like a Tdk-ist or boxer, without roots, then "they" cannot refer to what they do as KUNG FU!

It is not just me but anyone else who practices authentic kung fu is qualified to "judge" and recognize the pretence kung fu for what it is.


Hmm. From what I recall you haven't actually learnt the complete system of WC which you practice, yet you seem pretty quick to judge who's WC retains its essence.

I think you mentioned you were studying another form of kung fu now. Yet you haven't mastered WC.

Also your authentic WC is from a lineage which doesn't seem to be one of the major lineages of WC. Your history of your lineage was fairly vague. And you mentioned things like: Iron shirt qigongs, double punches in SLT (which is not usually seen aside from Augustine Fong lineages), groundfighting etc. I think you have the least grounds to complain about other people's authenticity.




The answer is simple, all these styles have common sources and general concepts and thus their methods/approaches/concepts can be assimilated better.

I call it Glorified kickboxing because that is what kung fu becomes when one practices styles that have contradicting concepts and principles. The maintanance of roots are of prime importance in kung fu. In the old days (in some schools)you werent't taught much else unless you mastered your roots. If you mix your kung fu with an art such as boxing then you may not use your kung fu roots anymore. The resultant "art" may be to your liking, but you CANNOT call it kung fu anymore and it would be more accurate to call it KICKBOXING as it will resemble the latter a lot more than the former.

You should be aware of the different principles and concepts of WC and taiji then. They don't all agree with each other. As much as there are similarities there are also differences.

Boxing has similarities and differences to WC like taiji does.

I think you started a thread about grappling and chi sao but you weren't willing to take on board the experiences of people who have studied WC and other grappling arts for many years more than yourself (in some cases, decades more). Regardless of whether you agree with them, they exceed your experience level by a few magnitudes hence their opinions are still valid.

[anerlich]

And you have missed the point of the internals as from the internal point of view almost every other strength or athletic training program will "lock in" your body oneness.

If you follow these programs you will get stronger and that is VERY different from the concept of unlocking through internal unity.


Disregarding the poor use of The English language in the above, I haven't missed the point. The point was unlocking the body's full potential. The fastest and strongest humans on the planet are going to be in Beijing next month. They will have done everything humanly possible to accomplish what you suggested.

How many do internal training?

And is it REALLY effective? To parphrase Rene Ritchie's Sifu, "if all that stuff were true, China would win every medal in every Olympics."

It won't happen this time either, even with the home ground advantage. Care to bet against me?


Traditional is "better" because the traditional is the original design that has functioned for a long time.

Like stone wheels, Flintlock rifles, horsedrawn transport?

Every apect of human endeavour, especially the sciences, progresses through sharing of ideas, introducing new concepts and discarding those outdated, experimenting, etc. The exceptions are astrology, religous fundamentalism ... and TCMA.


two aspects create a balance within the arts based partially on the Ying Yang principles

That would be Yin Yang. unless you practice Wing Chung :p

Since you're so found of "educating" others :eek::

of the the three neijia arts, only taiji is heavily based on Yin and Yang. Xingyi is based more on five element theory, Ba Gua is based on, well, the Ba Gua.

I studied these arts for five years with one of the first Gwailos to qualify as an acupuncturist in Taiwan and Hong Kong. That's two years longer than you've studied WC, which most neijia practitioners sneer at as a pretender to being "internal".

I know LOTS more about this than you do (as I suggest, do most other posters on this thread).


You should be aware of the different principles and concepts of WC and taiji then. They don't all agree with each other. As much as there are similarities there are also differences.

Boxing has similarities and differences to WC like taiji does.

Yes indeed. The principles of WC and CLF (another TCMA) are wildly at odds. And yet, also complementary.


I think you started a thread about grappling and chi sao but you weren't willing to take on board the experiences of people who have studied WC and other grappling arts for many years more than yourself (in some cases, decades more). Regardless of whether you agree with them, they exceed your experience level by a few magnitudes hence their opinions are still valid.

He claims his WC has grappling and groundfighting within it, yet admits he hasn't got far enough in the system to study those aspects. But he still claims to know more about both than other forum members who have been studing those disciplines several times as long as he's been studying his "internal" Wing Chun.

And what's really scary is that he seems to actually believe his own propaganda.

[HardWork8]

Hmm. From what I recall you haven't actually learnt the complete system of WC which you practice, yet you seem pretty quick to judge who's WC retains its essence.
Yet what I have studied has that ESSENCE! I am not judging anyone's WC except if they hop around like a boxer or TKD-ist. Try to understand the point. If kung fu exponents cross train with arts( and in ways) that do not contradict their core arts, then I don't have problems with that.


I think you mentioned you were studying another form of kung fu now. Yet you haven't mastered WC.
Yes you are correct.


Also your authentic WC is from a lineage which doesn't seem to be one of the major lineages of WC.
And by "major lineages" you mean the most popular, I suppose?

If so, then no it is not one of the "major lineages". However, it is a lineage that seems to have maintained a lot more of its Shaolin essence, both in technique and in conditioning exercises.


Your history of your lineage was fairly vague.

Ok, here is a quick lineage history to confuse you even more: FUNG SIU SHING - LO GAI DONG - LO SIU WAN - LEUNG KIT CHOW(LIANG ZIE ZHOU in mandarin), who is the present grand master of this line and is currently living in mainland China.


And you mentioned things like: Iron shirt qigongs, double punches in SLT (which is not usually seen aside from Augustine Fong lineages), groundfighting etc. I think you have the least grounds to complain about other people's authenticity.
All the above are part and parcel of Siu Lam Wing Chun. If you didn't know about this then that is a reflection of your own lack of knowledge while living in times of Mcdojo/kwoon.

By the way, please direct me to any link where you think I have criticised other lineages of Wing Chun, because I haven't and that is in turn because there are many other lineages and sublineages of authentic Wing Chun in the world.
So do not imply falsehoods!

My problem is not with other lineages of WC. My problem is with people who somehow think that by cross training WC with TKD they will have better kung fu (kicks).


You should be aware of the different principles and concepts of WC and taiji then. They don't all agree with each other.
No one said that they all agreed!



As much as there are similarities there are also differences.

That is obvious, otherwise they would not be different styles....LOL!

However, they are similiar in fundemental ways such as softness,"embracing" force,rootedness and so on.


Boxing has similarities and differences to WC like taiji does.
It does but not in profound ways.


I think you started a thread about grappling and chi sao
The point of this thread, which seems to have been missed by you and most of your "kung fu experts" was not about grappling and chi sao.

The point of this thread and I have repeated this various times, was your opinion of grappling/chi-na(kum la) chi sao as a training tool and what techniques would you incorporate in this training.

That was more or less the line of this thread and it seems that despite my various repetitions some of you have not realized that this thread was not about that particular technique in the video nor was it about the Gracies!:rolleyes:


but you weren't willing to take on board the experiences of people
All I wanted from these "people" was for them to understand the subject matter of the thread and discuss it the way it was intended to be discussed. It was about discussing WING CHUN AND NOT WRESTLING!

Ali was the only person to have posted something relevant and most of the people here did not see the bigger picture and started to pick on the technical details of his video clip.:rolleyes: And unlike most people here Ali practices Wing Chun and is NOT a jack of all trades!



who have studied WC
And sometimes a dozen MAs at the same time.


and other grappling arts for many years
The other grappling arts would have been relevant if they were put into a WC framework and discussed within the context of the grappling chi sao!


more than yourself (in some cases, decades more).
It is not the quantity it is the quality! I have kung fu brothers with a couple of years of experience who have a better grasp of what kung fu practice entails than most of these jack of all trades put together.


Regardless of whether you agree with them, they exceed your experience level by a few magnitudes
They sure do, but in what?


hence their opinions are still valid.
Their opinions are always valid if they stick to the subject matter of the thread and not come out and try to discredit me or prove their approach to be the best. That is for another thread and not a thread that is about Grappling/Chi-na chisao!!!

[Toby]

OK, I'll bite.



Also your authentic WC is from a lineage which doesn't seem to be one of the major lineages of WC. Your history of your lineage was fairly vague. And you mentioned things like: Iron shirt qigongs, double punches in SLT (which is not usually seen aside from Augustine Fong lineages), groundfighting etc. I think you have the least grounds to complain about other people's authenticity.All the above are part and parcel of Siu Lam Wing Chun. If you didn't know about this then that is a reflection of your own lack of knowledge while living in times of Mcdojo/kwoon.

By the way, please direct me to any link where you think I have criticised other lineages of Wing Chun, because I haven't and that is in turn because there are many other lineages and sublineages of authentic Wing Chun in the world.The second paragraph directly contradicts the first. My system doesn't have any of the points Edmund mentioned. Yet I learn from a verifiable and reputable lineage. Your implication is I (and everyone else who doesn't learn your system) have a lack of knowledge and learn in a Mcdojo/kwoon.


However, they are similiar in fundemental ways such as softness,"embracing" force,rootedness and so on.Also concepts that we don't follow. In fact, there's a strong argument that WC has more similarities to boxing than taiji, which directly contradicts your thesis.


Ali was the only person to have posted something relevant and most of the people here did not see the bigger picture and started to pick on the technical details of his video clip.Ali's clip demonstrated one way to do something. Some people argued there were better ways to do it. More simple, direct ways. Sure you could apply some kind of lock. But why do it if it doesn't make sense? Hardly a compelling argument for the veracity of "WC grappling".


And unlike most people here Ali practices Wing Chun and is NOT a jack of all trades!A lot of people in the thread cross-train and it works great for them. Some don't. That's irrelevant since most of those in the thread who cross-train have trained for much, much longer than you. E.g. if someone's trained WC for 20-30 years and also trains something else, you're discounting them as having polluted WC? Doesn't make sense and is pretty rude IMHO. I don't agree with a lot of what's posted on this forum, but there are some authorities of various systems for sure. So I bite my tongue and refrain from attacking personalities and focus on technical aspects. Respect my elders and all that. You're not an authority, that's for sure, so maybe you should learn some respect too. Dunno, don't care, that's for you to decide.

[lkfmdc]

It's unfortunate (and funny) and yet all too common, those who have only limited experience with a Chinese martial art and NO OTHER EXPERIENCE (say someone who studied an art for less than 3 years and then "self trained" for a few more) often start developing bizarre and incorrect ideas that they have learned something special

It has already been said, but let's say it again

A lot of people, people have have actually studied WC for DECADES, think WC has a lot in common with WESTERN BOXING. It certainly has more in common with western boxing than with Tai Chi

Interestingly enough, a lot of Hsing Yi people find boxing to be "internal". Of course, those Hsing Yi people frequently don't define "internal" as being able to blow up chickens from 30 yards with Chi balls :rolleyes:

But, as a point of fact, a lot of Hsing Yi people in Taiwan also cross trained in JAPANESE JUDO.... but they must have been just glorified kickboxers :rolleyes:

[lkfmdc]

I'm glad to see that over time the entire forum has come to see HardWork for what he is. Now maybe he'll pack his bags for yet another forum

[sanjuro_ronin]

Standing grappling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuP6cApKAD8

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brYgHlH6h0s

Sure he's just some kick boxer (LOL), but...

[cjurakpt]

Standing grappling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuP6cApKAD8

the existence and success of Cartmell completely demolishes the argument that someone who is fully adept at a traditional and "real" (and internal to boot) kung fu system does not need to go to a non-TCMA system to fill in the gaps; it also demonstrates that you can combine a style who's "principles" are not explained in context of yin/yang/ five element / ba gua / whatever (meaning that they would be "in conflict" w/those systems) and that it can mesh pretty much seamlessly with the TCMA stuff; case closed;

[cjurakpt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brYgHlH6h0s

Sure he's just some kick boxer (LOL), but...

aren't we all, in a way?:rolleyes:

[lkfmdc]

I would pay good money to see HardWork8 try and demonstrate his "superior kung fu" on the Diamond.....

:rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

the existence and success of Cartmell completely demolishes the argument that someone who is fully adept at a traditional and "real" (and internal to boot) kung fu system does not need to go to a non-TCMA system to fill in the gaps; it also demonstrates that you can combine a style who's "principles" are not explained in context of yin/yang/ five element / ba gua / whatever (meaning that they would be "in conflict" w/those systems) and that it can mesh pretty much seamlessly with the TCMA stuff; case closed;

Correct, period.

[monji112000]

I suppose that the lot of people are from the same school of thought as the people here who thought that this was a wrestling thread? :rolleyes:


well maybe thats becouse the thread's name has the words GRAPPLING AND TAKEDOWN in them.

its just a guess but thats probably why people thought the thread was about wrestling.. Honestly I couldn't tell from the name it was about BS, talking trash, ignoring real discussions, and being a total loser.

So go ahead delete my post, I know you want to. What a loser.

[monji112000]

It also had the word Chi-sao and it was located in the WING CHUN Forum!!!
Furthermore, I did explain the kind of discussion I was looking for which was more or less and here we go again, the relevance and usefullness of this type of chi sao in the study of grappling/chi-na techniques WITHIN A WING CHUN CONTEXT!


again I know you said it allot, and despite other peoples attempts you seem to not want to talk about it.

grappling is wrestling, . "takedowns" are wrestling. In a "wing chun context" means nothing becouse wing chun classically has no context for it. Maybe your made up style of Wing Chun does, but classically it is a striking art. So within the context would mean to any rational person "melting" them together so they fit seamlessly. Hence the words within and context.



Well don't blame cjurakpt, Sanjuro,Ikfmdc, Anerlich,Mr Punch, etc....they are a nice bunch of people, they just find the art of kung fu a little complicated.


Wrong again! I don't delete posts. Only the moderator has the power for that. Sorry.:)
well I only blame the fool who keeps posting as Hardwork for taking the thread off topics 1,000 times.

since your so great a " grappling" or whatever you want to call it.. why not come and grapple me. No hard feelings, no cheating, and nothing negative to say afterwards. You beat me , fine I don't care. I win fine I still don't care. were do you live? Anyone else want to get in on this? a friendly match. No ego.

??
??????

since talking seems to go no were fast.

[cjurakpt]

I have HW8 on ignore so I can only see the bits people cut and paste from his posts - (which is painful enough, and it would be nice if people stopped doing that! :mad:), so I don't know the context regarding the bit from the post above where he mentions me and several others (all excellent fellows, I am flattered to be in their company), but apparently he still is obsessed with me despite the fact that I haven't directed any posts towards him for some time now; talk about a stalker...

anyway, I don't know what he's on about my finding the art of kung fu "a little complicated"; probably because I don't have a slavish devotion to the ideas that:

1) a "real" kung fu system has all the answers to every possible combat situation; (it doesn't)

2) that so-called "internal" TCMA practice is so completely unique and unfathomable that one could never possibly even hope to describe it in its entirety from another paradigm's perspective (e.g. - contemporary anatomical / physiological / biomechanical / tensegrity / complex systems theory); well, to date, I have been able to do that for pretty much all the internal I have done, and I believe that what I can't yet explain is due not to the indescribable aspect of the internal, but rather that my own knowledge of anat/phys etc. is lacking (because in the past when this was the case, when I increased my understanding thereof, it explained what I was trying to figure out); of course, this perspective is not popular with the TCMA zealotry contingent, since it disenfranchises their exclusive hold on "the truth"...

3) that the notion of combining an "authentic" TCMA system with something like TKD or MT somehow violates some abstract principle and ultimately degrades the TCMA system, and that the only type of MA-ist who would do that would either
a) be someone who doesn't study "authentic" TCMA
b) studies an "authentic" style would do that but hadn't grasped the "true essence" of that system
c) studies an "authentic" style but had had information purposefully withheld or been mislead by their sifu about it
(BTW, this last part could easily be shortened to "anyone who isn't or doesn't agree with HW8)

the sad part is, TBH, I truly believe that HW8 is sincere in his practice and pursuit of knowledge / skills; unfortunately, I think he's got a classic case of "blue belt-itis" - meaning that he has reached an intermediate level of skill, and is still staring at the trees up close; unfortunately, his smug and condescending attitude permeates his posts, and when he can't answer a point directly he defaults to mockery and derision; he complains about being the "victim" of an "immoral" prank (please - like that whole thing wasn't so ridiculously obvious for what it was) never stopping to consider why it occurred in the fist place; similarly, he couches himself in the notion that the reason he is on the opposite side of the line from pretty much everyone else he interacts with (with crazy Ali and wacko Steeeeeve being notable exceptions of late - and he prides himself on their company?!?!? good lord...) is because he is the standard bearer of truth, everyone else is deluded;

the one consolation is that at least we don't have to put up w/him as a KF classmate - if he's this irritating on line, can you imagine what he is like in person (his wife and many ladyfriends notwithstanding :rolleyes:)?!?

I strongly suggest a dose of group "ignore"...

addendum: evidently the post which I was referring to has been deleted; that's why the first paragraph of this one may appear to lack context;

[lkfmdc]

(Ali is) about the only person who seems to be buying your crap, so I guess it makes sense to suck up.



CLASSIC :D

Hardwork has won over more and more friends as this has developed, hasn't he :rolleyes: I guess he's destined to abandon yet another board... oh, that's right, he was RUN OFF the other boards :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

I don't know what he's on about my finding the art of kung fu "a little complicated"

It's just his standard MO, if you don't agree with him, or he can't argue on a specific point, or you point out one of his many self-contradictions, he resorts to, at best, changing the subject, or much more commonly, insults.


I truly believe that HW8 is sincere in his practice and pursuit of knowledge / skills

I think you are being way too charitable here.


his wife and many ladyfriends notwithstanding

I suspect they are about as real as his secret Brazilian Sifu.

To all: Do you think Wing Chun is more or less complicated than specific grappling styles? Why? Is this good or bad (or something else)?

[anerlich]

In the 1950's, Chang Tung Sheng, grandmaster of the Pao Ting Chinese wrestling system, national free sparring champion of China and undefeated in all challenges (and would remain so the rest of his life!) gave an interview in a Chinese news paper. He said that for years, he had heard people say that wrestling was not effective because to get that close, you could be subject to the fabled death touch of dim mak!

Chang found the comment amusing because he said that in all his years of fighting, it had never happened. It had never happened even when fighting so called experts at Dim Mak. In a nut shell, Chang said two more things. First, that if he could get close to you, he could hurt you! (It was the truth, pure and simple and if you've ever seen tapes of the 70 year old Chang tossing people you'd understand completely). Second, he said the whole Dim Mak thing was created by NON FIGHTERS to avoid fighting, keep their students and take money from other non fighters.

Chang then issued a very public challenge with money involved for anyone to Dim mak him. For another 30 plus years (the rest of his life) it never happened.

[cjurakpt]

In the 1950's, Chang Tung Sheng, grandmaster of the Pao Ting Chinese wrestling system, national free sparring champion of China and undefeated in all challenges (and would remain so the rest of his life!) gave an interview in a Chinese news paper. He said that for years, he had heard people say that wrestling was not effective because to get that close, you could be subject to the fabled death touch of dim mak!

Chang found the comment amusing because he said that in all his years of fighting, it had never happened. It had never happened even when fighting so called experts at Dim Mak. In a nut shell, Chang said two more things. First, that if he could get close to you, he could hurt you! (It was the truth, pure and simple and if you've ever seen tapes of the 70 year old Chang tossing people you'd understand completely). Second, he said the whole Dim Mak thing was created by NON FIGHTERS to avoid fighting, keep their students and take money from other non fighters.

Chang then issued a very public challenge with money involved for anyone to Dim mak him. For another 30 plus years (the rest of his life) it never happened.

and I think that if you analyze his approach it contained all the elements of a "real" so-called "internal" system, just without all the hokum or pretensions of exclusivity...

[Edmund]

Yet what I have studied has that ESSENCE! I am not judging anyone's WC except if they hop around like a boxer or TKD-ist. Try to understand the point. If kung fu exponents cross train with arts( and in ways) that do not contradict their core arts, then I don't have problems with that.

And by "major lineages" you mean the most popular, I suppose?

If so, then no it is not one of the "major lineages". However, it is a lineage that seems to have maintained a lot more of its Shaolin essence, both in technique and in conditioning exercises.

Ok, here is a quick lineage history to confuse you even more: FUNG SIU SHING - LO GAI DONG - LO SIU WAN - LEUNG KIT CHOW(LIANG ZIE ZHOU in mandarin), who is the present grand master of this line and is currently living in mainland China.


Well I study a lineage of Fung Siu Ching also - YKS WC. I also know of other Fung Siu Ching lineages who don't do Iron Shirt qigongs and groundfighting etc.

Nevertheless I don't seek to make light of your WC. Merely point out that you are not an expert on authenticity when you haven't studied any of the more well known lineages and you haven't even completed your own system.

Yes other lineages are more popular! They are also legitimate lineages whether you *think* they retain "Shaolin" essence or not. It's arguable that the "Shaolin" roots of WC are tenuous despite all the unsubstantiated claims from many different lineages that WC descended from the Shaolin temple.


All the above are part and parcel of Siu Lam Wing Chun. If you didn't know about this then that is a reflection of your own lack of knowledge while living in times of Mcdojo/kwoon.

OR you have been swallowing every fanciful claim about WC from your sifu like a gullible newbie without:
A: looking into where the art came from
B: cross referencing with other lineages of WC
C: discovering what elements have historically been part of WC.



By the way, please direct me to any link where you think I have criticised other lineages of Wing Chun, because I haven't and that is in turn because there are many other lineages and sublineages of authentic Wing Chun in the world.
So do not imply falsehoods!

You claimed that "legitimate" WC lineages have all this groundfighting and iron shirt and other guff. Implying that lineages that don't are McDojos. This is just incorrect. Learn some WC other than your own lineage! See how much it correlates before you make a stupid claim like that.

When your stuff exclusively differs that doesn't usually mean every other lineage has somehow forgotten it! What sort of F**KED up self centred newbie logic is that?



My problem is not with other lineages of WC. My problem is with people who somehow think that by cross training WC with TKD they will have better kung fu (kicks).


They probably will...
Though I'm not a big fan of TKD, they have good kicks.



The point of this thread and I have repeated this various times, was your opinion of grappling/chi-na(kum la) chi sao as a training tool and what techniques would you incorporate in this training.

That was more or less the line of this thread and it seems that despite my various repetitions some of you have not realized that this thread was not about that particular technique in the video nor was it about the Gracies!:rolleyes:

All I wanted from these "people" was for them to understand the subject matter of the thread and discuss it the way it was intended to be discussed. It was about discussing WING CHUN AND NOT WRESTLING!


You spoke about *grappling/takedowns* and WC. Some people are experts at both. They gave opinions. You have less expertise in both. Maybe you should listen to what they're saying.


Ali was the only person to have posted something relevant and most of the people here did not see the bigger picture and started to pick on the technical details of his video clip.:rolleyes: And unlike most people here Ali practices Wing Chun and is NOT a jack of all trades!

He does boxing as well.




Their opinions are always valid if they stick to the subject matter of the thread and not come out and try to discredit me or prove their approach to be the best. That is for another thread and not a thread that is about Grappling/Chi-na chisao!!!

I agree about sticking to the subject matter however you've been saying your approach is best also and bring a lot of it onto yourself. It's good that you acknowledge their opinions are valid.

[anerlich]

and I think that if you analyze his approach it contained all the elements of a "real" so-called "internal" system, just without all the hokum or pretensions of exclusivity...


Indeed, Google has plenty of biographical links on him. It seems it is possible to aspire to being both a complete internal MAist, and an extremely competent wrestler. As is Tim Cartmell.


I think he [heywait's Sifu] may also have a perspective on HW8 that he may not be sharing with him

If he does exist, you would have to hope so. HW8 may be his idea of an elaborate practical joke, or some twisted revenge fantasy. Nothing else makes sense.


You don't have me on ignore. You have even referred to my statements that no one had quoted.

The ignore doesn't kick in until after you sign in. Before he signs in, he will have the extremely dubious privilege of being able to see your posts in all their, er, unadulterated glory.

[Mr Punch]

Well don't blame cjurakpt, Sanjuro,Ikfmdc, Anerlich,Mr Punch, etc....they are a nice bunch of people, they just find the art of kung fu a little complicated.You're a cheeky little snot. Three years plus some solo bullsh!t and you've just sweepingly condemned in excess of 100 years of training in one sentence right there.

And I know some the others are the same, and I know this is just going to give you more fuel for cheeky snotty trash talk, but here goes:

I did 7 years of aikido, including diligent training at home, including at least three years of going to the dojo over six times a week, including testing my aikido against other people (from different arts) in free full contact sparring. Did I mix my aikido? No, but I took the wing chun adage of 'accept what works, discard what doesn't' and modified it. But it's still aikido. During that time I also took some karate, some tai chi, some mixed kung fu classes (but with a very traditional outlook), and guess what? I was still doing aikido.

Then I've done 10 years of wing chun, including diligent training at home, including at least three years of private lessons to supplement my kwoon ones, including doing MMA classes to test my kung fu. Unlike some, when I had a time without a good sifu (I quit a couple of places because they weren't good enough) I didn't then practise on my own in a vacuum and insult everyone 'around' me: I found people from other arts and sparred against them - testing my wing chun.

Did I mix my WC? No, but I took the wing chun adage of 'accept what works, discard what doesn't' and modified it. But it's still WC. During that time I also took some MMA and koryu and guess what? I was still doing WC.

And then I take the time to answer your question with direct reference to your wanting it to be about the subject (like anyone can insist that a subject doesn't evolve... like I suppose they want to about fu in general... :rolleyes: ) and direct relevance, and because I disagree with you you attack me personally.

And yes, attack me, you're attacking my lineage.
And yes, attack 95% of main WC schools, the popular ones, and you're attacking lineage.

You're a little ****, who talks crap. I'll be in London before I go back to Japan on Sep 2nd if you want to meet. I'll teach you some kung fu, and providing you don't show such disgusting behaviour as you have on this board, I'll maybe not beat you into the pool of snot that you are.

Until then, I look forward to Sihing waking the hell up and banning your ass.

[cjurakpt]

You're a cheeky little snot. Three years plus some solo bullsh!t and you've just sweepingly condemned in excess of 100 years of training in one sentence right there.

And I know some the others are the same, and I know this is just going to give you more fuel for cheeky snotty trash talk, but here goes:

I did 7 years of aikido, including diligent training at home, including at least three years of going to the dojo over six times a week, including testing my aikido against other people (from different arts) in free full contact sparring. Did I mix my aikido? No, but I took the wing chun adage of 'accept what works, discard what doesn't' and modified it. But it's still aikido. During that time I also took some karate, some tai chi, some mixed kung fu classes (but with a very traditional outlook), and guess what? I was still doing aikido.

Then I've done 10 years of wing chun, including diligent training at home, including at least three years of private lessons to supplement my kwoon ones, including doing MMA classes to test my kung fu. Unlike some, when I had a time without a good sifu (I quit a couple of places because they weren't good enough) I didn't then practise on my own in a vacuum and insult everyone 'around' me: I found people from other arts and sparred against them - testing my wing chun.

Did I mix my WC? No, but I took the wing chun adage of 'accept what works, discard what doesn't' and modified it. But it's still WC. During that time I also took some MMA and koryu and guess what? I was still doing WC.

And then I take the time to answer your question with direct reference to your wanting it to be about the subject (like anyone can insist that a subject doesn't evolve... like I suppose they want to about fu in general... :rolleyes: ) and direct relevance, and because I disagree with you you attack me personally.

And yes, attack me, you're attacking my lineage.
And yes, attack 95% of main WC schools, the popular ones, and you're attacking lineage.

You're a little ****, who talks crap. I'll be in London before I go back to Japan on Sep 2nd if you want to meet. I'll teach you some kung fu, and providing you don't show such disgusting behaviour as you have on this board, I'll maybe not beat you into the pool of snot that you are.

Until then, I look forward to Sihing waking the hell up and banning your ass.
nominate for post of the year

first off, just for putting your perspective into context (which is appreciated - always nice to know what someone has been doing) he's going to accuse you of di(k waving (typical - he questions one's "right" to post on a topic, when you provide qualification, you are accused of grandstanding; what a tool...);

second, he will never, ever meet you, because that would mean he'd have to come out from behind his keyboard (where he evidently spends a LOT of time - his posts literally pepper the boards between the time I go to work and come home) and adjust his eyes to daylight; also, he'd have to then come to terms with the reality that his Orwellian speak ("my WC is double plus good, your style is double plus ungood") is more loaded w/crap then his brain (as if that were possible);

but on the odd event that you do meet, vid is a must...

[cjurakpt]

You've perhaps got your login details in a cookie, and I haven't. Just a guess, though.
yes, it's on "remember me"; although for some strange reason, when I am logged in, I can't see avatars or read sigs (this forum is weird...)

[anerlich]

cjurakpt, Sanjuro,Ikfmdc, Anerlich,Mr Punch, etc

Hey, Punchy, you could do worse than be on that list. Sensible company IMO.

[Mr Punch]

LOL yeah, thanks... except for that shonky Ozzie geezer... he's just an unglorified wrestling kickboxer!

[lkfmdc]

you've just condemned in excess of 100 years of training



Oh, come now, I am not THAT old ;)

But, truth be told, I spent 16 years with Chan Tai San, 2 years before that doing Shuai Jiao and 7 Star Mantis, and 6 years doing Hung Ga... so just a mere 24 years with some of the most respected Sifu :rolleyes:

[lkfmdc]

I look forward to Sihing waking the hell up and banning your ass.

ah, to dream.....

[HardWork8]

Posts keep getting deleted, but as long as HW8 is allowed to continue his "I will decide who is da realz kungfu!" nonsense with all of his three years of training the discord will continue.

Don't worry unkokusai, I have had my posts deleted too and some of them were long ones, so you are really and truly in good company.:D

[HardWork8]

Actually going back and having looked at some of Mr Punch's posts he seems to have done a better job of sticking to the subject of this thread than most of the other posters.

If you are reading this then please tell us how you would adapt and use some of your grappling techniques(from other styles) in a Wing Chun, kum na chi sao scenario and within a Wing Chun context. That is, techniques that you consider useful or favorites.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X158KAt_t4s

Done by Weng Chun Master (And BJJ BB) Andreas Hoffman

[LSWCTN1]

Well I study a lineage of Fung Siu Ching also - YKS WC. I also know of other Fung Siu Ching lineages who don't do Iron Shirt qigongs and groundfighting etc.

in all fairness i dont really like to get involved in these arguments, but i think the above statement is absolutely true

when i went to his masters seminar, his SiFu explained that this lineage descends from Fung Sui Ching, and that the next master along in this lineage learnt direct from him in the Yuen family home along with the Yuen brothers - surely as the Yuen family where the ones paying for this instruction, they would also have been taught this and passed it along no?

it doesnt seem to be in Yui Choi's wc, Vietnamese wc, Sum Nung's wc, or Mai Gai Wongs wc.

please dont shoot me down in flames HardWork8 - but is there a potential that it could have come from your SiGung's (seperate) Shaolin Temple training, mentioned in the seminar, or is a product of your SiFu's - but still sticking to the wing chun 'framework' and principles?

If so, it is still wing chun - but not an 'ancesteral' part of it

Also 'iron shirt' training is of course employed in some kung fu - but as the famous saying goes 'boxing teaches you to take a punch, kung fu teaches you to avoid one'. especially in wing chun - do you not try to stop all incoming?

Im really not having a dig at you - just trying to find a mutually beneficial 'common ground' to stop all this silly arguing! :D

even Tom Wong, a student of Sum Nung who is considered as THE best in America by a few Bruce Lee students (never seen him in person or video - so not necessarily my thoughts), has supplemented his wc with ground fighting (in his case Desui) as it is evidently something he has not learnt in his wc from Sum Nung. Arguably the best representative of YKS wing chun, and YKS was arguably the best representative of Fung Sui Chings wc.

I thing i noticed in your masters ground fighting also, was a lot of seemingly BJJ techniques like arm bars and kimura's- im no expert on BJJ, or Sui Lam wing chun (or wing chun for that matter!:p) but that is what it seemed to me. it may have been shaolin chi-na but again i feel not strictly wing chun

all that being said ou master was above average on the ground and was more than willing to go to ground with a former sombo? student if my memory serves me correctly

to have unquestionable faith and belief in your master is admirable, but to analize and think for yourself is never a bad thing either

[sanjuro_ronin]

I thing i noticed in your masters ground fighting also, was a lot of seemingly BJJ techniques like arm bars and kimura's- im no expert on BJJ, or Sui Lam wing chun (or wing chun for that matter!) but that is what it seemed to me. it may have been shaolin chi-na but again i feel not strictly wing chun

In all fairness, those moves, and many others, are basics in every grappling system, including of course, shaolin Chin-na.
Of course if we go by "age", chin-na is arguably the oldest and as such, one can argue:
Chin-na -> Jujutsu -> Judo -> BJJ

[HardWork8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X158KAt_t4s

Done by Weng Chun Master (And BJJ BB) Andreas Hoffman
Actually this clip is very relevant to this thread. Chi sao followed by a lock and strike. The opportunity arises and the lock is applied. The more locks you know and can apply within a Wing Chun concept the better your Wing Chun, the same goes for more specific chi-na techniques.

Any other grappling/chi-na techniques that you guys believe can be applied within this Wing Chun context. Techniques perhaps from other grappling styles (but in a Wing Chun context).

I believe that there is value in emphasising this type of chi sao and practicing it separately to the striking chi sao to develop the stand up grappling/chi-na abilities.

After one gains sufficient skills then one should combine the striking chi-sao with the grappling/chi-na chi sao.

In time this chi sao should evolve into contact San Sao - free hands. At least this is how it is practiced in Siu Lam Wing Chun.

Any thoughts on this?

Does anyone here use a similar approach?