I think Chi Sao sucks!

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Personally, I hate the method of Chi Sao, where two hands are touching to start.

I find it incredibly unrealistic.

Yes, I understand that people say it is a training 'tool'.

I do not like the idea of teaching/training where you say "oh, you don't actually fight like this, but this will help you to do (BLANK)."

Do things like you'd actually use them. Other arts and sports do. Kung-Fu people should as well.

'Trapping' is a range, a means to an end, so to speak. (in between Punching Range, right before Clinching/Grappling, etc.) It's not a fighting style. Some people use this solely as a barometer to measure actual fighting ability. One of the things that ruins Kung-Fu in my opinion.

[CFT]

I think you're a bit late to the party. They've been arguing over this point in the Wing Chun forum since the beginning of time!

[TenTigers]

at "trapping range," you are not standing side body to your opponent, but facing, where your hands are equal distant. The same happens in boxing, where as you get toe to toe, you square yourself to your opponent, to allow both hands to work.
As far as doing drills that are not exactly how you'd use them? What about,rope skipping, speed bag training, maize bag and rope ducking and weaving, hitting a truck tire, or any other sport-specific supplementary training?
It is all about developing attributes.
But, yes, I do agree that there is such an emphasis placed upon chi-sao that one would think that that is the entire training. For some misguided people, I suppose it is. But chi-sao is to develop a skillset that occurs for one split-second in time during a fight-if at all. But that one split-second can sometimes make the difference between winning and losing, and in a close in fighting method, sensitivity, touch-reflexes is crucial.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am of 2 minds about Chi Sao.
On one hand it is a vital tool to develop that "touch/strike" feeling that allows a person to apply that " if I can touch you I can hurt you" concept, on the other hand it can be a very impractical traning tool and can/does make many people fall into that " the training is the system" mentality and give CS more importance than it deserves.

[TenTigers]

because it is something that is peculiar to WCK, (as well as most southern short hand systems, but WCK is very popular) and it is the one thing that people like to demonstrate,(especially since Bruce Lee) I believe it gets blown up out of proportion.
Many quality WCK schools spend more time on intercepting attacks,reaction drills, and combative training than Chi-Sao. But Chi-Sao is so "wing chunny," * that people like to always demonstrate it.


*credit for that term goes to Sifu John Cresscione. He used that term once to describe why everyone likes to show bong-sao in pictures and articles on WCK.
(funny, the things that stick in your mind...)

[taai gihk yahn]

*credit for that term goes to Sifu John Cresscione. He used that term once to describe why everyone likes to show bong-sao in pictures and articles on WCK.
(funny, the things that stick in your mind...)
John is a hoot - met him first time about 12 years ago or so at a Visceral Manipulation course in NY; I actually was at his last space on O.C.R. a few times playing with Mike Pekor's taiji class (Mike is a student of his as well; we had a lot of fun trapping...:D)

thing about chi sao (and push hands, rolling hands, etc.) - while it is an artifact, in terms of the set up, it trains a specific and valuable, skill set; however, that skill set needs to be integrated into the big picture, and not over emphasized to the detriment of other things; I think part of the "allure" is that when one develops the ability to listen, stick, etc., it's a very cool feeling to be in that particular zone, to the point where it almost becomes addictive - you are functioning out of a pretty integrated place when you "get it", and you can become overly enamored of that experience; which is fine, if you understand that - personally, I always feel awesome after pushing with my sifu, because of what it requires, and getting to that space with solo work is not quite the same; but it's just one piece of the puzzle (which I think a lot of people agree with here);

[TenTigers]

I agree. True with toi-sao as well. Witness many people who play push hands in the parks. They are great within that realm, but once it goes beyond mere sticking,pushing, and uprooting, they are at a loss. Tui-sao, like chi-sao, is but one element within the training and not the entire system.

[TenTigers]

I believe that LPS is actually saying that,
there is an over emphasis on chi-sao, which has created people who do nothing but chi-sao,(or talk about it) and believe that that is the whole and essence to WCK and fighting. That kind of thinking sucks.
I think most people can align with that.

[Vajramusti]

Greysham's law is alive and well- the bad driving out the good. Ditto for chi sao. So don't do chi sao! Simple.

joy chaudhuri

[David Jamieson]

it's a good tool for developing the ability to apply standing locks.

[TenTigers]

it's the best way to defeat the shoot, whether it's a single leg or double leg takedown.













(kidding)

[TenTigers]

if they had practiced more chi-sao, Tiananmen Square would have turned out completely different.

[TenTigers]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have a whole new outcome.

[TenTigers]

Mt. St. Helens would have never have erupted.

[TenTigers]

we could put a stop to global warming, fis the ozone layer and everyone would drive SUV's and Muscle cars.

[diego]

we could put a stop to global warming, fis the ozone layer and everyone would drive SUV's and Muscle cars.

George Bush is the master at CS...two elections and a world under his hands, **** red sand palm!!!.

[TenTigers]

the holocaust would have been avoided.

[TenTigers]

Jesus would be alive today.

So would Elvis.

[TenTigers]

So would the Beatles,




(Yoko doesn't do chi-sao.)

[TenTigers]

Arakis would be saved and the spice production would continue.

[lkfmdc]

at "trapping range," you are not standing side body to your opponent, but facing, where your hands are equal distant.



Over time, bear with me a minute, some people have begun to believe that there is no "trapping range", there is "clinching" and the LAST THING you want to do in clinching is stand square and facing with your arms extended like that

Chi Sao is to develop a certain attribute. The sturcture that developing this attribute has taken is, like most TMA stuff, based upon certain assumptions. Assumptions about how and why things happen. IE a good idea to re-check your assumptions from time to time




The same happens in boxing, where as you get toe to toe, you square yourself to your opponent, to allow both hands to work.


Boxing also has a pile of basic assumptions, ie no leg kicking, no knees, no wrestling, no single legs, no double legs, etc

We've found boxing to be the most removed from a real fight of all the contact combat sports




As far as doing drills that are not exactly how you'd use them? What about,rope skipping, speed bag training, maize bag and rope ducking and weaving, hitting a truck tire, or any other sport-specific supplementary training?


A number of hard core old school trainers think that the speed bag is garbage

The maize bag is specific to a certain style of boxing, and as we said, boxing is differnt than "fighting"

or are we assuming that wing chin is NOT for fighting? :cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Over time, bear with me a minute, some people have begun to believe that there is no "trapping range", there is "clinching" and the LAST THING you want to do in clinching is stand square and facing with your arms extended like that

Chi Sao is to develop a certain attribute. The sturcture that developing this attribute has taken is, like most TMA stuff, based upon certain assumptions. Assumptions about how and why things happen. IE a good idea to re-check your assumptions from time to time

The issue is one of 2 people trying to strike each other in a "clinch" VS 1 person trying to strike and the other trying to grapple in the "clinch".


Chi Sao is to develop a certain attribute. The sturcture that developing this attribute has taken is, like most TMA stuff, based upon certain assumptions. Assumptions about how and why things happen. IE a good idea to re-check your assumptions from time to time

The assumption that its two people trying to strike, or two trying to clinch and not, what is the reality, of 1 trying to strike and one trying to clinch.


Boxing also has a pile of basic assumptions, ie no leg kicking, no knees, no wrestling, no single legs, no double legs, etc

We've found boxing to be the most removed from a real fight of all the contact combat sports


While boxing develops great attributes for fighting, it is very hampered by a very limited ruelset.


A number of hard core old school trainers think that the speed bag is garbage

The maize bag is specific to a certain style of boxing, and as we said, boxing is differnt than "fighting"

or are we assuming that wing chin is NOT for fighting?

Speed bags suck ass and not in a good way.

[TenTigers]

good points. Upon re-thinking-you are ight. WCK does not always stand toe-to toe and often moves to angles, as do other Southern styles like SPM. Chi-sao still comes into play, however, as we still control the bridge. Learning ambidexterity, shifting, constantly changing is one of the skills developed through chi-so

[sanjuro_ronin]

good points. Upon re-thinking-you are ight. WCK does not always stand toe-to toe and often moves to angles, as do other Southern styles like SPM. Chi-sao still comes into play, however, as we still control the bridge. Learning ambidexterity, shifting, constantly changing is one of the skills developed through chi-so

Just don't chase those bridges, that is a big no-no !
:p

[lkfmdc]

The issue is one of 2 people trying to strike each other in a "clinch" VS 1 person trying to strike and the other trying to grapple in the "clinch".



I can clinch you with the sole intention of grappling you

I can clinch you with the sole intention of striking you

I can clinch you and "flow with the go"

Over the years, playing with so many things in the clinch (heck even with MANY different kinds of clinches) I can say two things without reservation

1. Certain Wing Chun skills can indeed be transferred to live fighting

but

2. Live fighting never takes anything resembling the structure of "chi sao"




While boxing develops great attributes for fighting, it is very hampered by a very limited ruelset.



echo in here ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can clinch you with the sole intention of grappling you

I can clinch you with the sole intention of striking you

I can clinch you and "flow with the go"

Over the years, playing with so many things in the clinch (heck even with MANY different kinds of clinches) I can say two things without reservation

1. Certain Wing Chun skills can indeed be transferred to live fighting

but

2. Live fighting never takes anything resembling the structure of "chi sao"

The problem is when you focus on only ONE part of the clinch work and Chi Sao tends to do that, the goal being to, typically, strike someone and avoid their strikes.
Now, some do Chi Sao in a free style format where striking, locking, grappling and takedowns are all valid and that makes it all the better, BUT the issue is still how one arrives at "chi sao" and the A-Typical start position that doesn't exist in the "real world".
Of course, no one is saying that you HAVE TO start or even pass by the "typical start" position, just that the huge majority do that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

echo in here

Well, not really, but kind, you see, this part:


We've found boxing to be the most removed from a real fight of all the contact combat sports

I disagree with.

[lkfmdc]

The problem is when you focus on only ONE part of the clinch work



Greco Roman only focusses on the takedown with the holds above the waits

Muay Thai only focusses on the knee strike and unbalance to knee strike

Free Style today does not stress the throw

San Shou stresses only the quick throw, no knees

This is what I like about MMA, you must learn it all

[sanjuro_ronin]

Muay Thai only focusses on the knee strike and unbalance to knee strike

Free Style today does not stress the throw

Uh...I recall learning to do and doing a lot more than just kneeing in the clinch in MT, elbows, hooks, uppercuts, trips even and certainly "throws".

As for freestyle wrestling, not sure what you mean by not stressing the throw...

[punchdrunk]

you are right chi sao is limited by rules and presumptions, its also overemphasized in most wing chun schools but it still has value. Most people just don't know when to stop clinging to the drills and move on to other ideas.

[TenTigers]

no, live fighting will not be that same as a structured exercise. But, without the structure, there is no method to teach the neccesary skills. Once they are learned, the structured format is abandoned.

The "typical start position" is only a beginning. You should be working up to a freestyle attack, where, once contact is made, it should then flow into your trapping/striking.

Very Important-this whole idea of trapping is misconstrued. NOBODY goes in to trap.
You go in to HIT. period.
If something comes in the way, then you deal with it.
You either trap it, jam it, go around it, etc.
THIS is where your chi-sao comes into play.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I am of 2 minds about Chi Sao.
On one hand it is a vital tool to develop that "touch/strike" feeling that allows a person to apply that " if I can touch you I can hurt you" concept, on the other hand it can be a very impractical traning tool and can/does make many people fall into that " the training is the system" mentality and give CS more importance than it deserves.

I'm not sure if you subscribe to that concept or not, but that is just another thing wrong with TCMA IMHO.

Touching does not = hurting. Period. Hurting = Hurting. You need certain elements in place in order to hurt someone.

People who think this, need to fight more.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

at "trapping range," you are not standing side body to your opponent, but facing, where your hands are equal distant. The same happens in boxing, where as you get toe to toe, you square yourself to your opponent, to allow both hands to work.
As far as doing drills that are not exactly how you'd use them? What about,rope skipping, speed bag training, maize bag and rope ducking and weaving, hitting a truck tire, or any other sport-specific supplementary training?
It is all about developing attributes.
But, yes, I do agree that there is such an emphasis placed upon chi-sao that one would think that that is the entire training. For some misguided people, I suppose it is. But chi-sao is to develop a skillset that occurs for one split-second in time during a fight-if at all. But that one split-second can sometimes make the difference between winning and losing, and in a close in fighting method, sensitivity, touch-reflexes is crucial.

Jumping rope promises to build your cardio strength. It does not promise to make you a better fighter.

Chi Sao is used by most people under the guise that it will make you a better fighter.

Hitting a truck tire with a sledgehammer builds strength. It does not promise to make you a better fighter.

I fail to recognize your comparisions. I think you have missed my point.

***And you don't need to square yourself to your opponent to get both hands to work.

[Violent Designs]

Interesting topic.

[TenTigers]

I understand what you are saying. I think the misconception is too many people think chi-sao is fighting.
Basically, it comes from the fact that there are far too many people talking on this subject that have far too little experience and understanding.
Don't take the words of internet jockeys, posting on a MA forum about WCK.
Instead, speak to people who are in fact, authorities on the subject.
People like ChuSauLi, Phil Redmond and others, who are accomplished Sifus, with decades of experience, can give you a more informed view of WCK, rather than the teens and youtube masters who frequent the forums.

[David Jamieson]

"teen youtube master" sounds dirty. I like it. Will make a great screen name one day!

[AdrianK]

Chi Sao is a close-range standup fighting exercise. The point is to learn how to read your opponents movements when you've already bridged with them, and ultimately to become more proficient in the trapping range.

Just as many BJJ guys will practice grappling without strikes or takedowns, learning boxing requires first understanding boxing without kicks or such.



I do not like the idea of teaching/training where you say "oh, you don't actually fight like this, but this will help you to do (BLANK)."

I'm sure you don't actually mean that in the broadest sense. (as in, weight training or running, you don't fight like that, but it helps you)
The problem with people saying that is, in general, they use it as an excuse to why they practice certain ridiculousness.

Chi Sao isn't one of these things. Its very useful. It won't make you a superhero with trapping or close-range fighting, but it develops it. Its not all-powerful, but if you understand chi sao and apply it the correct way, it has its value and place.



Do things like you'd actually use them. Other arts and sports do. Kung-Fu people should as well.

Absolutely. You should apply chi sao as you would apply your hands in a real fight. The difference is, in chi sao there is a focus on bridging, so in that time, bridging is your focus.



'Trapping' is a range, a means to an end, so to speak. (in between Punching Range, right before Clinching/Grappling, etc.) It's not a fighting style. Some people use this solely as a barometer to measure actual fighting ability. One of the things that ruins Kung-Fu in my opinion.

I agree.




Chi Sao is used by most people under the guise that it will make you a better fighter.

This is because its designed to get you more comfortable in the trapping range.
Just as simply knowing how to slip and weave won't make you a better fighter, on its own. Learning how to jab won't make you a better fighter. Its the entire thing as a whole. Learning how to move, jab, slip, weave, strategize, outfight, infight, trap, etc.



Hitting a truck tire with a sledgehammer builds strength. It does not promise to make you a better fighter.

Just for arguments sake, more strength would give you an advantage in fighting, no matter how small.

[AdrianK]

Chi Sao is a close-range standup fighting exercise. The point is to learn how to read your opponents movements when you've already bridged with them.

Just as many BJJ guys will practice grappling without strikes or takedowns, learning boxing requires first understanding boxing without kicks or such.



I do not like the idea of teaching/training where you say "oh, you don't actually fight like this, but this will help you to do (BLANK)."

The problem with people saying that is, in general, they use it as an excuse to why they practice certain ridiculousness.

Chi Sao isn't one of these things. Its very useful. It won't make you a superhero with trapping or close-range fighting, but it develops it. Its not all-powerful, but if you understand chi sao and apply it the correct way, it has its value and place.



Do things like you'd actually use them. Other arts and sports do. Kung-Fu people should as well.

Absolutely. You should apply chi sao as you would apply your hands in a real fight. The difference is, in chi sao there is a focus on bridging, so in that time, bridging is your focus.



'Trapping' is a range, a means to an end, so to speak. (in between Punching Range, right before Clinching/Grappling, etc.) It's not a fighting style. Some people use this solely as a barometer to measure actual fighting ability. One of the things that ruins Kung-Fu in my opinion.

I agree.




Chi Sao is used by most people under the guise that it will make you a better fighter.

This is because its designed to get you more comfortable in the trapping range.
Just as simply knowing how to slip and weave won't make you a better fighter, on its own. Learning how to jab won't make you a better fighter. Its the entire thing as a whole. Learning how to move, jab, slip, weave, strategize, outfight, infight, trap, etc.



Hitting a truck tire with a sledgehammer builds strength. It does not promise to make you a better fighter.

Just for arguments sake, more strength would give you an advantage in fighting, no matter how small.

[sihing]

I understand what you are saying. I think the misconception is too many people think chi-sao is fighting.
Basically, it comes from the fact that there are far too many people talking on this subject that have far too little experience and understanding.
Don't take the words of internet jockeys, posting on a MA forum about WCK.
Instead, speak to people who are in fact, authorities on the subject.
People like ChuSauLi, Phil Redmond and others, who are accomplished Sifus, with decades of experience, can give you a more informed view of WCK, rather than the teens and youtube masters who frequent the forums.

I think TenTigers has hit the nail on the head. There are a ton of misconceptions and differences of opinions regarding what chi sau is, and how it is trained. As one that has spent the last two decades dedicated to Wing Chun and it's methods, I've tried my best to be open minded in the sense when I was training in one specific method, I would be open to researching (books, articles, videos, and eventually personal one on one training) how others did things. Suffice it too say there are too many interpretations of what chi sau is. Some look at it as a sensitivity excersise, some as a trapping drill, while others look at is as a Wing Chun form of fighting or testing hands. For me it is all those things, but primarily a excersise that brings alive what the forms and intention of the system is teaching us. Wing Chun IMO is all about training a particular ability for a particular moment in a fight, the moment contact is made with another's bridge. Chi sau teaches us what to do in the moment, but isolates it and allows that moment to be played over and over again. It's like freezing a moment in time. Chi sau also brings the shapes of Wing Chun into a more alive environment as compared to the forms. Dan Chi (single arm chi sau), allows one that has learned and absorb the benifits of the Siu Nim Tau form, to bring the form alive by practicing and perfecting the shapes from that form. It also introduces the idea of centerline awareness, aim of ones energy, relaxation and firmness in the arms, facing, etc etc...Dan chi is also done with stepping motions with different variations happining from there. I didn't see this portion of the training until I started learning the Wong Shun Leung method. From there we can move onto the more common drills of Poon sau and Dbl arm rolling and the drills that are included there. Lat sau jik Chung training starts here as well, with the ability to spring forward with or without footwork when contact is lost, two arm coordination, some basics trapping drills, and structure/body mechanics development. One would never begin a fight from any of the chi sau starting positions, but what one learns from these excersises, can translate directly to what can happen in a fight. It is much better to intercept an attack coming towards you with some sort of bridge, rather than with your face, it is at this moment that chi sau attributes come into play.

In the method I train in now, we chi sau pretty close to one another, allowing each of us to effect the others COM, rather than chi sau'g further away and playing wrist games. Development of the elbow position and how to utilize it as the initiator of all upper body movements, is an important idea developed here. Soon the whole body plays a part within each movement done, and since the excersise adhere's to the idea of constant contact with the other's bridge arms, one can learn to sense when their own COM is under attack, and when his partner's COM is open for attack. It's an isolated, exaggerated excersise, so that when the sh!T hits the fan, some basic ideas and reflexes will be able to be executed to help one succeed in a fight.

Chi sau guarantee's nothing, as is the case when training in any MA method, but it does allow one to learn what WC is teaching us. Application of what is learned is not WC, but is what the individual that has trained in it's method decides to do with it at that moment.

Just my loonies worth...not a complete picture but just some further info:)

James

[lkfmdc]

no, live fighting will not be that same as a structured exercise. But, without the structure, there is no method to teach the neccesary skills. Once they are learned, the structured format is abandoned.



Why is the structure so radically removed from the reality?

When I teach a neck tie up/double neck tie up/"Thai clinch" the structure we learn the techniques in and drill in is the SAME as the fight

Same for "over/under" clinching, etc

[lkfmdc]

Just as many BJJ guys will practice grappling without strikes or takedowns,


The positions you get in "rolling" are the same in a "real fight". The submissions are the same.




Absolutely. You should apply chi sao as you would apply your hands in a real fight. The difference is, in chi sao there is a focus on bridging, so in that time, bridging is your focus.



bridging is set up upon many assumptions, not the least of which is that the other person presents you a bridge. Back in China it wasn't an absurd assumption at all, just like today to assume an opponent might use a form of boxing.... but hwo many today are going to present you with a bridge

[Vajramusti]

Why is the structure so radically removed from the reality?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really removed. Prepares one in that POV for key elements of that reality in self defense.
Not the only POV around. But dealing with real fighting reality includes understanding of distance, timing, positioning, balance, angles, lines, circles, focus, adjustment to different hands, weights, forces, understanding of openings, closings, moving, turning, and many many other things.
It's not fighting but a very very good preparation for it short of seriously hurting someone.
Not everyone's cup of tea ...and few people make good tea. Most should be doing something else.

joy chaudhuri

[AdrianK]

The positions you get in "rolling" are the same in a "real fight". The submissions are the same.

Likewise, the positions you get in, in chi sao should be the same as in a real fight.. therein lies the problem with how chi sao is generally practiced, not in how it properly practiced.



bridging is set up upon many assumptions, not the least of which is that the other person presents you a bridge. Back in China it wasn't an absurd assumption at all, just like today to assume an opponent might use a form of boxing.... but hwo many today are going to present you with a bridge

You need to expand your definition of bridging. Outside of the way Wing Chun looks at things - Bridging is any time when two arms connect.

Now, how often do people bridge? About as often as people infight. Many people don't or are too afraid to fight on the inside of someone. If you fight on the outside you are presented with very few bridges against a decent opponent, because the range is suited more to quick, long-range strikes. If you fight on the inside, rather, close-range would be a better way to put it, you are presented with more opprotunities to use your bridges.

BUT! And this is a huge one that is often overlooked. The chi sao range is uncommon. I don't disagree with that. However, if you train martial arts you should be aware that MOST of the time, what you train in regards to "Advanced" curriculum, isn't applicable. Why do we spend 20, 30, 40+ years training our bodies and minds to the highest levels? The actual meat of fighting, what you need to get you by in most street fights, can be learned and applied in a couple of months. And not only that, its general curriculum stuff thats present in most all fighting styles.

So while your assumption that bridging is uncommon is correct, it doesn't mean there isn't a need to train it. Besides that, this is where strategy comes in as well - A Good fighter will make his opponent fight HIS game.
But thats higher level stuff as it is. Most opponents you'll find on the street, aren't even skilled enough for you to give a crap about any of that. You want to know what you need to succeed on the street in most situations? Punching, kicking, wrestling. Thats all ya need.

But then some of us want to delve into the more complicated and less common situations... and the problem of course, always lies in centering your entire strategy around only trapping range, for instance. Every good fighter needs a well-rounded knowledge of fighting. Focusing everything around chi sao is as ridiculous as focusing everything around striking, and not incorporating any kind of grappling.


Finally, that being said, why not post this on the Wing Chun boards? Posting your thoughts on chi sao to a majority of posters who don't even practice wing chun(or any kind of chi sao), doesn't foster any kind of creative thinking or debate. It just becomes a circle-jerk.

[bakxierboxer]

"teen youtube master" sounds dirty. I like it. Will make a great screen name one day!


Teens who 'sext' - racy photos charged with porn
Child self-porn?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090204/D964VRQG0.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm not sure if you subscribe to that concept or not, but that is just another thing wrong with TCMA IMHO.

Touching does not = hurting. Period. Hurting = Hurting. You need certain elements in place in order to hurt someone.

People who think this, need to fight more.

Not sure how YOU were taught that "concept", but I was taught that, When I make contact ( touch) I know where you are and as such I can hurt you, be it with a strike, or a cut or a take down or whatever I feel is appropriate at the time.
By touch I mean contact, if we are in contact there is a way to hurt you.

[LSWCTN1]

i find it slightly unnerving that nobody has touched on one of the core reasons for chi sao

the way we are taught is similar in many ways to everybody else, but like the seung-ma toi-ma drill associated with it, chi sao (as i know it) it about being able to do a few things

receive force in the correct manner and respond accordingly

train you to stay put if you are in combat and someone comes close to you.

as was previously pointed out, wing chun is primarily a 'short hand' system which means it is at its best when in its favourite range. up close and personal. if you are new to combat, or learning it for self defence etc etc... then often people shy away from an attack which mean s they are effectively always on their back foot. chi sao gets you used to being in that range whilst practising a specific attribute.

also for wc players, it can be a way to gauge someones skill level. the more time they spend learning wing chun, the more time they spend on chi sao. also the more time spent learning wing chun, the higher your overall skill level should be

therefore:
if someone has a skill in chi sau they probably have a high level of skill in wing chun

i know too little about Lama Pai to second guess how you can tell if someone else in your system knows what they are doing or not. of course you could spar with them, but if you went to China (or is it Tibet?) to further your knowledge in Lama Pai would you challenge each instructor until you find one good enough to defeat you?

of course chi sau is a drill that you actually correspond with your partner in, but like many things in TCMA it is also a concept, to teach you more than what looks like is being taught on the outset

sorry for any typo's - im rushing this in my dinner break!

all the best

[lkfmdc]

Likewise, the positions you get in, in chi sao should be the same as in a real fight.. therein lies the problem with how chi sao is generally practiced, not in how it properly practiced.



I spent almost two decades in the TCMA world (mo lum) and every time I've seen Chi Sao I"ve seen it done in structures that you would NEVER be in a real fight... I know, I know, THOSE guys didn't do it right :rolleyes:





You need to expand your definition of bridging. Outside of the way Wing Chun looks at things - Bridging is any time when two arms connect.

Now, how often do people bridge? About as often as people infight. Many people don't or are too afraid to fight on the inside of someone. If you fight on the outside you are presented with very few bridges against a decent opponent, because the range is suited more to quick, long-range strikes. If you fight on the inside, rather, close-range would be a better way to put it, you are presented with more opprotunities to use your bridges.



Bear with me, I'm just a guy who has put students in San Shou, San Da, Thai Boxing, submission grappling and MMA matches for the past 14 years or so, we don't see a lot of "infighting" :rolleyes:

I can tell you, what you find in the clinch is NOT the structure you see Chi Sao being done in




Finally, that being said, why not post this on the Wing Chun boards?



I didn't start the thread, but seeing it is one of the few that has actual discussion as opposed to the usual crap, why not continue it

[Yum Cha]

Chi Sau is fun. Chi Sau can train sensitivity. Fair enough. I don't believe the sum total of TCMA is about fighting, and it adds an interesting dimension.

That being said,

I don't like it because it trains you to fight hands, not the man. It trains you not to go right through to the target, rather to move the arms around to create an opening.

I prefer to create openings in other ways.

I also find it gives a false sense of ability, because the footwork is limited, and footwork (mobility) is critical to winning a fight.

IMHO.

[AdrianK]

I spent almost two decades in the TCMA world (mo lum) and every time I've seen Chi Sao I"ve seen it done in structures that you would NEVER be in a real fight... I know, I know, THOSE guys didn't do it right

The funny thing about this is: How many of these guys ACTUALLY FIGHT...?
Look at their sparring, their sparring doesn't even look anywhere close to their wing chun, so how can their chi sao postures bear any resemblance?

Those guys aren't doing it right because the simple fact is, those guys aren't fighters.

The bottom line is, its pretty simple to know what would work and what wouldn't work in a real fight - in trapping range. Regardless of what style you do, the ideas behind chi sao will function properly and develop your contact reflexes and abilities in trapping range. You don't need to use wing chun techniques to do this. You don't even need to "roll" to do this. Its a really simple concept, your brain will adapt to situations better the more often you put yourself in them - If you practice outfighting, you will get better at outfighting, if you practice infighting, you will get better at infighting, if you practice grappling, you will get better at grappling, and if you practice in the trapping range - Chi sao-specifically or not, you will get better in the trapping range. Its common sense.



I can tell you, what you find in the clinch is NOT the structure you see Chi Sao being done in

The structure chi sao being done is the equivalent of a neutral position - What you do and where you go from there is a variable that should be free, unfortunately wing chun guys who don't understand clinching or throwing or such, will never go to these places in their chi sao. This is the issue.

I'm not saying that chi sao how it is generally practiced is the wrong way - Thats the normal way of doing it because the vast majority of people who practice it, do it in an incredibly unrealistic way. I'm trying to explain that there are benefits to it, if you apply realistic ideas to it.

[diego]

What's the history of Chi Sao? SPM does it to no?.

[lkfmdc]

The funny thing about this is: How many of these guys ACTUALLY FIGHT...?
Look at their sparring, their sparring doesn't even look anywhere close to their wing chun, so how can their chi sao postures bear any resemblance?

Those guys aren't doing it right because the simple fact is, those guys aren't fighters.



We're back to the same old same old.... everyone out there isn't doing it right, so where are those who do it right?

Where are the fighters who do Chi Sao and fight so it "looks like Wing Chun"

When a Muay Thai fighter fights, it looks like what he practices. When a Jiu Jitsu guy fights, it looks like his practice. Why don't we see fighters who look like their Chi Sao?




The structure chi sao being done is the equivalent of a neutral position -



Why doesn't this so called "neutral positon" appear in any other fighting art?

[Vajramusti]

I dont know what Adrian K means by a neutral position. Each person is looking for among other things balance on their part and imbalance on the part of the other at the start.

When people get good experience wing chun chi sao is done with footwork and can flow into lat sao where the connections are broken and sought out again.There is much more to it..

Wing chun has spread too fast for it's own good- so, there is a lot of junk wing chun. On the net wing chun folks are unlikely to say what they really think about some of the other wing chun besides their own. Unfortunately, people make up their minds on whatever they happen to see.
Often east coasters don't know what is out else where and vice versa. Often U tube gives you the lowest common denominators of many styles.

When a good Chen stylist (Ren Guyi in NYC?) goes into action it wont look like tui shao. When a boxer goes into action it wont look like speed bag work. btw,Despite this thread Angelo Dundee, Emmanuel Seward and top flight trainers still use the speed bag among other practices. I have been to an Ali training camp., Sugar Ray leonard and Mike Tyson they all used speed bags among many other things. So do the Klitchko brothers. So did Robinson, Louis,Patterson, etc.

Aspects of training regimens develop certain functions , therefore some training motions do not always look like the real thing.

If anyone doesn't like wing chun I always encourage them to do something else. No problem.

joy chaudhuri

[AdrianK]

We're back to the same old same old.... everyone out there isn't doing it right, so where are those who do it right?

Alan Orr's guys, for instance.



Where are the fighters who do Chi Sao and fight so it "looks like Wing Chun"

No one yet has been successful in MMA using solely wing chun. But this is also because in a real fight, the most basic techniques are what is effective a great majority of the time. No matter what martial art you do, your bread and butter against an strong opponent, will be your ability to strike, clinch, throw, and grapple. Theres very little opportunity for anything else. You won't ever see a straight-up wing chun fighter who looks like wing chun because that simply isn't practical. You'll see a technique every now and then that represents the concepts within wing chun and other southern systems, but you won't see pak sao lop sao punch followed by bong sao tan sao and whatever else.

I should say that it isn't that they're doing it wrong because other wing chun guys are doing it right. My point is that the system is, in itself, flawed... but that it also can be fixed.



When a Muay Thai fighter fights, it looks like what he practices. When a Jiu Jitsu guy fights, it looks like his practice. Why don't we see fighters who look like their Chi Sao?

Because Muay Thai and BJJ capitalize on how human beings fight instinctively. Utilize our strengths and all weapons available to us in the most basic ways. Because, that is indeed what works. IMHO, The trapping and wing chun technique concepts arent nearly as useful... but you can take the idea of chi sao and apply it to other curriculum and it suddenly becomes a lot more relevant to close range fighting.



Why doesn't this so called "neutral positon" appear in any other fighting art?

Its in quite a few southern kung fu systems. SPM for instance. As for the bong sao/fook sao, and tan sao positioning, thats just their way of evening out the field. Its simply making sure that everything is even, in that range, before fighting. Like for instance, in some systems when you begin grappling on your knees with your hands on your opponents arm and upper body or head. Chi sao is far from perfect, but it has its uses.



I dont know what Adrian K means by a neutral position. Each person is looking for among other things balance on their part and imbalance on the part of the other at the start.

Its a neutral position meaning no one has an advantage or disadvantage simply based on how their starting position is.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wing chun has spread too fast for it's own good- so, there is a lot of junk wing chun. On the net wing chun folks are unlikely to say what they really think about some of the other wing chun besides their own. Unfortunately, people make up their minds on whatever they happen to see.
Often east coasters don't know what is out else where and vice versa. Often U tube gives you the lowest common denominators of many styles.

True.


When a good Chen stylist (Ren Guyi in NYC?) goes into action it wont look like tui shao. When a boxer goes into action it wont look like speed bag work. btw,Despite this thread Angelo Dundee, Emmanuel Seward and top flight trainers still use the speed bag among other practices. I have been to an Ali training camp., Sugar Ray leonard and Mike Tyson they all used speed bags among many other things. So do the Klitchko brothers. So did Robinson, Louis,Patterson, etc.

Aspects of training regimens develop certain functions , therefore some training motions do not always look like the real thing.

I used the speed bag, I trained in boxing in Portugal and here in Canada, in some of the best gyms in the country and no coach ever said the speed bag would work anything other than my shoulder and some hand-eye coordination.
It was a warm-up or cool down tool mostly, no direct transference to fighting other than "shoulder/arm stamina".
And yes, many facets of our training ( attributes) look nothing like fighting, but then again, in that facet of training you are not training "to fight", but building some "things" that will help you fight:
Strenght, speed, exposive power, sensitivity, etc.

[lkfmdc]

No one yet has been successful in MMA using solely wing chun. But this is also because in a real fight, the most basic techniques are what is effective a great majority of the time.



Wing Chun has "basic techniques" doesn't it? :confused:

Yet the structure that Wing Chun suggests a fight will take never manifests itself..




You won't ever see a straight-up wing chun fighter who looks like wing chun because that simply isn't practical.



Uh, ok? Are you really defending wing chun then :confused:




My point is that the system is, in itself, flawed... but that it also can be fixed.



My long time contention is that to "fix" something, or make it work, you have to drill it realistically and train it live. But if you do, certain things will rise to the top and other things will be cast aside. My point is that Chi Sao is one of those things that would be cast aside




Because Muay Thai and BJJ capitalize on how human beings fight instinctively. Utilize our strengths and all weapons available to us in the most basic ways. Because, that is indeed what works. IMHO, The trapping and wing chun technique concepts arent nearly as useful...



Again, not exactly a ringing endorsement of Wing Chun. But to make matters worse, NO, Muay Thai and BJJ is not how human beings fight "instinctively". The seven things you'd insticintively do in the guard will all get you killed!

What Muay Thai and BJJ do is teach techniques which can be drilled realistically and applied live





Its in quite a few southern kung fu systems. SPM for instance.



Yeah, we can agree that Chi Sao exists in a lot of TCMA systems, I said FIGHTING SYSTEMS though, where do you see this structure in any method that tests its techniques live? The answer is, you don't

[Vajramusti]

Yes- But the techniques automatically adjust in application and with contact with the opponent(s).
In development for instance the char kuen is straight. In application the elbow will adjust.

joy chaudhuri

[lkfmdc]

Yes- But the techniques automatically adjust in application and with contact with the opponent(s).
In development for instance the char kuen is straight. In application the elbow will adjust.

joy chaudhuri

of course techniques adjust depending upon ths situation, but we are stuck with a certain problem with what was said before

Either all straight punches thrown in actual fights are actually "Wing Chun" (unlikely)

OR

When flesh meets bone, and real fights happen, there is no difference between one system's punch and another, ie there is nothing unique or special about Wing Chun

Of course, none of this directly relates to why chi sao is done the way it is!

[Pork Chop]

Because Muay Thai and BJJ capitalize on how human beings fight instinctively. Utilize our strengths and all weapons available to us in the most basic ways. Because, that is indeed what works. IMHO, The trapping and wing chun technique concepts arent nearly as useful... but you can take the idea of chi sao and apply it to other curriculum and it suddenly becomes a lot more relevant to close range fighting.


If that were true, I don't think I'd be still refining my roundkick technique 6 years into the training and I wouldn't constantly stumble on revelations (or little tricks) in the Thai clinch.

I think the key word is body mechanics. BJJ and Muay Thai push good body mechanics above all else; Wing Chun, at least in Chi Sao - not so much.

Goes back to what lkfmdc said - a good straight punch is a good straight punch and good body mechanics are universal. Chain punching or punching from a chi sao bridge are hardly the most mechanically effective ways to cause damage via a strike. I would argue that chi sao as a defensive tool is not as effective as training head movement or simple parries the way fight sports do. It also doesn't seem to train how to control the opponents balance or effectively use leverage in the way that the Thai clinch, Greco Roman, Judo, and BJJ do.

Not to throw the baby out with the bath water, I think some of the principles are workable. Had a muay thai training partner with over a decade of wing chun experience. His push kick was nice- always able to find the center line & stop forward momentum. In the clinch, he had a lot more sensitivity than most. Some of the straight line theory already exists in boxing - best counters to looping overhand punches are straight shots. Heck last week one of the thai guys showed me a trick in the thai clinch for getting out of a bad spot that's scarily similar to bong sau.

There are definite limitations with the art and the way it's currently practiced. The hard part then becomes the question of whether or not to re-invent the wheel or to take the strong points and move on to something with a more proven track record of effectiveness. Some folks have an easier time of the first option. I think lkfmdc's got a decent blue print to modify your stuff to be more usable. I'm sure there are others out there as well.

[chusauli]

Lama refers to the bridges as poison - they don't do the sticking like in WCK. Better to do Chuen, Pao, Kup, with Chuen, Chon, Jeet, Sim, Tuen. It works, and you don't have to stick. It is on the other end of the paradigm.

Admittedly, many overdo Chi Sao. But Chi Sao doesn't fit long hand systems like Lama or CLF, hence, pershaps a bit of prejudice. :) Perhaps Bak Mei, Lung Ying, Southern Mantis, WCK and other short hand Fukien arts work in that same distance WCK does.

But I will also say - the reason why WCK uses Chi Sao a lot is because it has so few forms and has disposed with complex two man sets - it is meant as an exercise for the WCK person to learn Bien Faat. Compare WCK to Lung Ying (18 sets), Bak Mei (3-12 sets), Fukien White Crane (4- 28 sets), Ng Jo Kuen (50+ sets) :eek:, and you have an idea why Chi Sao is necessary for WCK. This is in the classical Chinese Southern Fist sense why WCK needs Chi Sao so much.

Just my $0.02.

[taai gihk yahn]

Lama refers to the bridges as poison - they don't do the sticking like in WCK. Better to do Chuen, Pao, Kup, with Chuen, Chon, Jeet, Sim, Tuen. It works, and you don't have to stick. It is on the other end of the paradigm.
which, IMPE, makes perfect sense - Lama is the "Gordian knot" solution to the "problem" of bridging - TCMA was becoming so highly specialized (at least southern stuff) at one point, with so much "inbreeding" between styles, that even the slightest minutiae became sought after in terms of one style trumping the other; Lama was like, "freak that noise" - it generated a paradigm shift from "how do I defeat this bridge?" to "why should I even bother with bridging at all?"; in other words, it no longer "agreed" to stay in that zone; the implications are, I believe, significant, in the sense that, if we can substantiate that this approach fundamentally is superior, it kinda obviates the whole concept of bridging as being worthwhile, per se...

[lkfmdc]

which, IMPE, makes perfect sense - Lama is the "Gordian knot" solution to the "problem" of bridging - TCMA was becoming so highly specialized (at least southern stuff) at one point, with so much "inbreeding" between styles, that even the slightest minutiae became sought after in terms of one style trumping the other; Lama was like, "freak that noise" - it generated a paradigm shift from "how do I defeat this bridge?" to "why should I even bother with bridging at all?"; in other words, it no longer "agreed" to stay in that zone; the implications are, I believe, significant, in the sense that, if we can substantiate that this approach fundamentally is superior, it kinda obviates the whole concept of bridging as being worthwhile, per se...

IF we believe the story of Wong Yan Lam (and I've heard versions of it from many sources, even non-Tibetan, YC Wong being one example) then indeed Lama "shook things up" - I can tell you without any doubt that the fighting stuff I teach is different because my original base is Lama

That however doesn't make me biased against Chi Sao anymore than I am biased against any other TMA structure

[SavvySavage]

That could be one of the reasons why people hate it so much. People like to do what they're naturally good at. If you're naturally good at hopping around like a boxer throwing punches, darting in out, etc then you might not be comfortable being close up and taking hits from newbs especially.


Say what you want but I find it to be invaluable. 8x out of 10 you could say that a person punched in the face would tilt their head back in pain opening up the rest of his body to attack. Not everyone has that reaction to a punch in every situation. People like that kind of stuff because it happens a good percent of the time and it's easy to make happen . When doing chi sao/push hands it is so hard to find angles to trap, sweep, throw, up root, hit, control the opponent. Sometimes it's impossible especially if the person is taller, has a longer reach, and is ferocious which would force you to be softer. I think it takes a lot of skill to do a lot of the things that are done in chi sao and I don't think people like to take the time(years, lifetime) to learn it properly.

[lkfmdc]

backwards thinking!

Imagein telling a Muay Thai fighter, this clinch isn't going to work for a decade

Or going into a wrestling room and teaching a takedown that won't work unless you drill it for 8 years

Frankly, more often than not, that is just an excuse for something that just flat out doesn't work

[taai gihk yahn]

backwards thinking!

Imagein telling a Muay Thai fighter, this clinch isn't going to work for a decade

Or going into a wrestling room and teaching a takedown that won't work unless you drill it for 8 years

Frankly, more often than not, that is just an excuse for something that just flat out doesn't work

this is the problem with kung fu in general - it uses this bizarre reverse logic: "x" will take you 20 years to perfect to the point of using it effectively, BUT, when you do finally get it, it will trump everything else that anyone will ever throw at you; of course, there's no guarantee that you will eventually "get it", but if you don't it's because you didn't train hard enough or your teacher must have held something back :rolleyes:; of course, this basically makes it impossible to prove that "x" really doesn't work! at the same time, this construct derides "quick results", accusing anyone who wants that of being impatient, not willing to invest time in something; and so it invents the idea that anything that you are able to learn quickly must ultimately be bad for you, and will cause you harm later in life; unfortunately, I think that this is just a lot of CHinese cultural baggage being carried along as opposed to anything technical

for generations, TCMA suffered from cultural myopia but now that the light of universal exposure has been thrown onto it, it has been shown to be just as fallible as any other fighting style - meaning that there are a lot of good ideas, but also a lot of BS that you only really notice when you match against people who have no cultural investment in it being t3h d3adl3y...

[Vajramusti]

In wing chun chi sao, IMO---while you learn much about bridges---you develop the skill of not bridging at all- you just hit.
Nice chatting with you guys. For civility unlike the title of this thread I wouldn't say that any key method that Lama Pai or CLF uses "sucks". Not really necessary when making cross style comparisons.
Cheers,

joy chaudhuri

[lkfmdc]

In wing chun chi sao, IMO---while you learn much about bridges---you develop the skill of not bridging at all- you just hit.
Nice chatting with you guys. For civility unlike the title of this thread I wouldn't say that any key method that Lama Pai or CLF uses "sucks". Not really necessary when making cross style comparisons.
Cheers,

joy chaudhuri

I'm confused, are you saying I haven't been civil :confused:
I didn't start the thread, I am just making observations

[AdrianK]

Wing Chun has "basic techniques" doesn't it?

Yeah, vertical punch and lop sao.
Everything else is more complicated than your average strike or block.



Yet the structure that Wing Chun suggests a fight will take never manifests itself..

Thats great, i'm not defending wing chun as a system. I'm defending chi sao as a concept.



Uh, ok? Are you really defending wing chun then

Nope.



My long time contention is that to "fix" something, or make it work, you have to drill it realistically and train it live. But if you do, certain things will rise to the top and other things will be cast aside. My point is that Chi Sao is one of those things that would be cast aside

Thats ridiculous because chi sao is an idea for developing proficiency in a specific range. Do you have an exercise for developing that range, or would you just strip away all ideas pertaining to that range, altogether? :rolleyes:



Again, not exactly a ringing endorsement of Wing Chun.

Most, if not ALL CMA systems have significant issues with realism.



But to make matters worse, NO, Muay Thai and BJJ is not how human beings fight "instinctively". The seven things you'd insticintively do in the guard will all get you killed!

By instinctively I mean that human beings naturally punch, kick, and wrestle. We do not naturally trap. Human beings naturally utilize their strengths and aggression, whereas wing chun teaches you to never fight force with force, never to utilize that strength.



I would argue that chi sao as a defensive tool is not as effective as training head movement or simple parries the way fight sports do.

Thats the thing, head movement and simple parries are most effective, but they're still not contradictory to trapping range. Chi sao isn't as useful, but training that range is still a part of fighting that you can choose to train, or ignore. No matter what style you do, its useful to train that range.



t also doesn't seem to train how to control the opponents balance or effectively use leverage in the way that the Thai clinch, Greco Roman, Judo, and BJJ do.

Thats because the people who practice chi sao generally don't have experience with the thai clinch, greco roman wrestling, judo or bjj. Those that do, can utilize what they understand of those concepts, and add it to the concept of chi sao.

[Vajramusti]

Not the least bit. The thread title could have been better stated. I know that you didn't word the thread. No problem.

joy chaudhuri

[couch]

Here's my whole take on the whole Chi Sau thing.

CS can either be used or abused. I'm going to pull out the big guns here:

WC is supposed to be simple, direct and efficient. And a lot of CS is a complicated mess. So. This means that a lot of people are practicing their CS wrong! *gasp*

The means of CS is not to stick. All I'm doing is hitting the opponent and if there is something in the way - I just want to clear the path or go around in order to keep hitting! It's just that simple. When people start getting into CS technique vs. CS technique, it becomes unrealistic and a mess.

I love WC and I love CS. I see a huge value in the exercise. All I want to do is clear a path (with hands or footwork) so I can turn on my high pressure water hose and hit and hit and hit...

Lastly, I disagree that WC is a self-defense art. It's offensively defensive meaning that hitting first is on the agenda as well as walking right through my opponent should they launch an attack.

Cheers.

[lkfmdc]

Thats ridiculous because chi sao is an idea for developing proficiency in a specific range. Do you have an exercise for developing that range, or would you just strip away all ideas pertaining to that range, altogether? :rolleyes:



I am saying that the range you are describing exists yet looks nothing like chi sao and that's precisely the problem!

[SavvySavage]

We are coming back to the same old argument aren't we?

I have ten sons(not really). So I send five to a wing chun school and I send five to your school. At the wing chun school they do up the chi sao often. At your school they do up the clinch work often. At the end of one year can you promise me that the five sons I sent to you could defend themselves better than the five at the wing chun school? I am talking about just doing chi sao and just doing clinching.

You say chi sao isn't applicable because no one fights like that. Can you honestly say that MOST people that do MMA can actually pull off strikes/takedowns in the clinch? Or do they do sloppy sh!t that kung fu people get blamed for(rightly so for all the crap on youtube).

It seems MMA people tend to lean on the backs of the few. What percentage of MMA gym people actually go on to compete and win? What percentage of kung fu people compete and win? Most people who practice MMA don't go on to compete just like most kung fu people so how is the MMA method so amazing if most of them are just doing their thing and not competing? I'm not sure where these generalizations about MMA competency came from. If only 2% of MMA dudes compete then that means that 2% is fighting and testing. You can't say that the other 98% are training just as hard if they aren't competing as well.


Are you following my drift? Can you guarantee that the five sons I sent to you will be clinching monsters and won't end up just grabbing and groping and gay hugging?

We need to set up a sociological experiment to figure this out. We'll have a kung fu group, mma group, and a control group which does neither. Then we'll have them all compete against random opponents to see who wins what. We'll have to set up what winning rules actually are of course. Here's the catch with all sociological experiments. The contestants have to be randomly picked from all parts of the country, all different social levels, all races/sexes etc. In other words Chuck Liddel and Fedor won't be in the experiment. Are those two considered good anymore? This would clear up a lot of BS. If we found out that the control group(the group that doesn't study anything) won as much as any other group than that would prove that no method is better or worse.

Experiments like that are very useful in cutting through all the rhetoric. Two of my fav sociological studies: 1. Some Harvard(maybe Yale) students decided to commit themselves into psychiatric wards. None of them had a history of mental illness and all got in accept for one person. They all read about schizophrenia and told the psychiatrists that they were hearing "thuding" noises which is a biggy. So they all were let in and let out as soon as their so called symptoms went away. The psychiatrists were informed about the experiment and were told that it would happen again but it never did. During the time period of the next supposed test by Harvard, which never happened, the psychiatrists turned away more than half of the people that came to them. This study proved that psychiatry is a bunch of bullsh!t and open to too much interpretation.

2. Feminists, for years, claimed men were holding women back from becoming doctors. They rallied that the male dominated society pressured women into having babies and taking less paying jobs with no evidence whatsoever. A study was done on college females that were designated as premed. What the study discovered was that women, in their second year of college, changed majors and that's why more men than women entered medical school. Why did they change majors? Many of them wanted jobs that were less demanding so that they could raise a family eventually. The women consciously chose to not enter med school. Of course feminists, especially the ones that were never smart enough, still held their coveted position of being victims.

In closing: A study would definitely prove and end all the rhetoric for some anyway. Until such a study is done we'll never know what's BS and what's not.

[lkfmdc]

I have ten sons(not really). So I send five to a wing chun school and I send five to your school. At the wing chun school they do up the chi sao often. At your school they do up the clinch work often. At the end of one year can you promise me that the five sons I sent to you could defend themselves better than the five at the wing chun school?



I'd take your bet, and end up taking your money. I can pretty much guarantee you that someone with 6 months in any alive program would take anyone with 6 months TMA...




You say chi sao isn't applicable because no one fights like that. Can you honestly say that MOST people that do MMA can actually pull off strikes/takedowns in the clinch?


I can put up THOUSANDS OF HOURS of people pulling off knees from plam and takedowns from "over/under" in real life matches. I could probably post hours of just MY GUYS doing it... where are the real fights that look like wing chun chi sao :rolleyes:




It seems MMA people tend to lean on the backs of the few. What percentage of MMA gym people actually go on to compete and win? What percentage of kung fu people compete and win? Most people who practice MMA don't go on to compete just like most kung fu people so how is the MMA method so amazing if most of them are just doing their thing and not competing?



You are completely missing the point. It isn't about competition, it is about FUNCTIONAL SKILLS

Yup, my basic standard general student body would tear up the student body in a TMA place. And that isn't an assumption, it's based upon practical hand (foot, knee) on expierence

This week alone, a "black belt" and "instructor" from outside got KO'ed in sparring against a guy with 3 months training

[SavvySavage]

If some homeless guy from Idaho knocked out that blackbelt as well then that would disprove that the students in your school have functional skills. It would only prove that the blackbelt wasn't that good right? This would be a great starting point for our experiment. We'll see if this blackblet gets his butt kicked against Will Ferrel too. I'm not kidding at all. Just cause one single blackbelt got knocked out doesn't mean your method is better.



If an MMA guy beats a blackbelt instructor that proves that MMA produces more functional skills right? That's what you're saying. But if an MMA guys crushes another MMA guy...was it because MMA isn't the best method of fighting ever or was it because one of the guys sucked more? If MMa produces these so called functional skills then that means two equally skilled guys would just negate each other right and it would be a draw? No. One would win because of ferociousness and luck and because the other guy was worried about paying his phone bill. Guy B's functional skills didn't help him because there is more to it than just functional skills. Can we agree to that? And does MMa teach those other things? Does TMA? I don't know for sure but if it comes down to luck then what are we arguing about?

MMA people make it sound like their so called functional skills are all it takes. I study for six months clinching and what not and I'll be a monster guaranteed.

[lkfmdc]

If some homeless guy from Idaho knocked out that blackbelt as well then that would disprove that the students in your school have functional skills. It would only prove that the blackbelt wasn't that good right? This would be a great starting point for our experiment. We'll see if this blackblet gets his butt kicked against Will Ferrel too. I'm not kidding at all. Just cause one single blackbelt got knocked out doesn't mean your method is better.



you need to wake up, walk outside, breath in the fresh air, have some coffee maybe

I'm not talking about isolated incidents. It is standard practice here, people come in from TMA backgrounds, many HIGH LEVEL in thos TMA's and can't keep up with beginners here

I am not mentioning names, but I have the nephew of a very famous Wing Chun sifu, the guy was an instructor under him, who is now a student. He's great at chi sao and/or "trapping" but as soon as we start "boxing" he's a white belt

Hate to break it to you, but it's the truth




We were sparring tonight at my school. I broke my friends ribs(I feel like sh1t) and I almost fainted from the beating I took. Do MMA schools really train any harder than kung fu? Broken ribs! EEK. I did it with a lama punch too! Oh god, now I'm bragging and feeling even more crappy about what happened.



Go to a few MMA places, take a free class, see what they do and how they do it

[LSWCTN1]

words from Wong Shun Leung regarding chi sao training

enjoy....

Interviewer : "How does chi sau and the forms relate to combat ?"

WSL : "Many Ving Tsun people don't know how to fight . In chi sau you will practise those techniques which you have learned from the forms . We are training our reflex actions for certain situations created by our opponents . Some people have the wrong idea that chi sau is to teach you to tie up your opponent or stick endlessly to each other's arms . It is not . It is to train the reflex ability to continue your attacks if they have been deflected . In a true fight we must fight in reality . It should be our intention to do whatever is necessary to survive the situation . It is our mentality to combat which will teach us how to hit the opponent . If you are kind hearted you may try to play with the opponent's arms, whilst doing him no harm . Confidence in chi sao may result in over confidence in a fight . However , delay in an attack will only give the opponent more time to attack you. You , as the fighter , have the responsibility to attack your opponent and to try to finish him off in the shortest type and not to waste the time doing unnecessary fancy techniques . If you don't finish him he will finish you . If you don't want to finish him and he doesn't want to finish you then why are you fighting ?"

[Eddie]

We are coming back to the same old argument aren't we?

You say chi sao isn't applicable because no one fights like that. Can you honestly say that MOST people that do MMA can actually pull off strikes/takedowns in the clinch? Or do they do sloppy sh!t that kung fu people get blamed for(rightly so for all the crap on youtube).

In China, the san shou guys spend hours training how to catch your arms or legs in order to close the gap and to go in for a take down. I’ve seen, and experienced some throws from some really weird positions.

They also have a much more modern approach to san shou training in china now. I’ve met some boys (and girls) who has never learned any martial arts before going to university, and within two years, they have developed more skill than most ‘kung fu’ students have developed in 10 years. There are no secrets and no ‘special’ training methods other than good old ‘hard work’ and constant testing.

Few weeks ago I watched a fight between a boy and a girl. It was during class time, but it was a big deal. The boys train in one group in the back of the class and the girls (and a few other boys) train in the other corner. The girl kicked the boys a$$, but both tried really hard and both did really well.

Sure in san shou they don’t do allot of ground fighting (YET), but its still not anything like what allot of ‘traditional’ players train.

If learning Chi Sao will make you a better fighter in 20 years time, while practicing realistic take downs that will take you 3 or 4 lessons and a few hours of hard work to master would make you a better fighter now… why would anyone want to do CS then?

[Pork Chop]

We were sparring tonight at my school. I broke my friends ribs(I feel like sh1t) and I almost fainted from the beating I took. Do MMA schools really train any harder than kung fu? Broken ribs! EEK. I did it with a lama punch too! Oh god, now I'm bragging and feeling even more crappy about what happened.


Read my blog on the Training forum.
I'm still getting over a rib injury.
I broke them one other time in 2004, my arm in 2003, and suffered retinal damage in 2005.
Getting injured is NOT a sign of good training either.

2% seems like a VERY low number for competitors coming out of MMA gyms.
There are many venues for competition and a lot of "MMA" gyms are BJJ schools that have a standup coach or two.

At the MMA gym I go to, more than half of the student body competes in in-house BJJ tourneys, some fight mma, some do golden gloves, some have aspirations for muay thai, and a large number have wrestling experience.

At my muay thai gym, we had almost half the fighters on a recent smoker card- which was a large portion of the people who had been training for 1 year or longer.

My old muay thai gym in fort worth had 6 fighters make weight for an amateur event last summer. Only 2 were able to fight due to opponents backing out. Those 6 weren't even the main group of fighters that was competing when i was there (though I did train with them). I'd say more than half that gym competes.

The number of people who compete in fighting sports coming from fighting sport gyms is very similar to the number of people who go into traditional programs and stick it out to the intermediate or advanced level.

The muay thai folks I know that have been doing it at least 6 months can all land effective techniques from the clinch.

The mma people I know that have been doing mma training (as opposed to just grappling) for at least 6 months can all do dirty boxing from the clinch (at the very least) and pull off a throw or two.

The san shou folks I know that have been doing it for at least 6 months can pull out at the very least 2 throws from the clinch (especially if they've been crosstraining shuai chiao or judo :D).

[lkfmdc]

(in China)

I’ve met some boys (and girls) who has never learned any martial arts before going to university, and within two years, they have developed more skill than most ‘kung fu’ students have developed in 10 years. There are no secrets and no ‘special’ training methods other than good old ‘hard work’ and constant testing.



Yup, and this is pretty common. Why don't TMA understand this?

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Because, it is difficult to accept that something you may have devoted your life to...is not the best possible method. It is a lot for most people to swallow.

If the God of All Combat/Martial arts came down, threw a thunderbolt and said "Chi Sao is bad, Do not practice it!" You know what would happen? Tons of people would still continue to practice it because they 'like it'. They are comforted by the idea that it's 'what happens in a real KF fight'. They like being able to 'play' fight without getting hurt. They like the idea of 'touching' an opponent and thinking "OOOHH, I got you, I would have really killed you in real life."

Now I'm not saying that everyone who practices Chi Sao, thinks like this. However, most of the people that I have met growing up did. And I'll be more people who practice it do, than not.

Oh, and for all you people who keep talking about running, jumping rope, sledgehammers on tires, speed bags, etc. - please make arguments that make 'sense'. Training methods that don't relate to fighting but help train the attributes you need in fighting....don't compare to Chi Sao.

Chi Sao is a game. I hold hands with you...we roll them back and forth a bit...and then we say 'go'! And try to touch/hit each other. That's not even a good game.

When does a fight look like chi sao? At what part of the fight does it resemble this strange drill? Putting our feet parallel to each other (sometimes with toes turned in) and face each other, squarely...and then I'll put one hand this way, you put you're hand that way..and then we'll do the opposite on the other side. We'll count to three and flip flop our hands back and forth...and then we'll begin to 'fight'.

I just don't get it. Oh, and I do get it..but I still think it's stupid.

You wanna learn to trap? Establish a bridge (like when you parry, shield or block a punch) and then go from there. None of this holding hands crap and facing each other .

[sanjuro_ronin]

Because, it is difficult to accept that something you may have devoted your life to...is not the best possible method. It is a lot for most people to swallow.

If the God of All Combat/Martial arts came down, threw a thunderbolt and said "Chi Sao is bad, Do not practice it!" You know what would happen? Tons of people would still continue to practice it because they 'like it'. They are comforted by the idea that it's 'what happens in a real KF fight'. They like being able to 'play' fight without getting hurt. They like the idea of 'touching' an opponent and thinking "OOOHH, I got you, I would have really killed you in real life."

Now I'm not saying that everyone who practices Chi Sao, thinks like this. However, most of the people that I have met growing up did. And I'll be more people who practice it do, than not.

Oh, and for all you people who keep talking about running, jumping rope, sledgehammers on tires, speed bags, etc. - please make arguments that make 'sense'. Training methods that don't relate to fighting but help train the attributes you need in fighting....don't compare to Chi Sao.

Chi Sao is a game. I hold hands with you...we roll them back and forth a bit...and then we say 'go'! And try to touch/hit each other. That's not even a good game.

When does a fight look like chi sao? At what part of the fight does it resemble this strange drill? Putting our feet parallel to each other (sometimes with toes turned in) and face each other, squarely...and then I'll put one hand this way, you put you're hand that way..and then we'll do the opposite on the other side. We'll count to three and flip flop our hands back and forth...and then we'll begin to 'fight'.

I just don't get it. Oh, and I do get it..but I still think it's stupid.

You wanna learn to trap? Establish a bridge (like when you parry, shield or block a punch) and then go from there. None of this holding hands crap and facing each other .

So, your issue is with that STARTING position in Chi sao or just Chi Sao in general?

[Vajramusti]

Chi Sao is a game. I hold hands with you...we roll them back and forth a bit...and then we say 'go'! And try to touch/hit each other. That's not even a good game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eye of the beholder erroneous inference. You are likely to have "seen" some bad chi sao. Holding hands, rolling a bit and then say go?

Not even close to what chi sao is about.

I don't do that and many top flight wing chun folks I know don't to that.There are often problems in generalizing about a style or an important feature of the style.

Unfortunately the mass production folks in any style can ruin any art, and naive observation can confuse things further.

In Mike's illustration there is at the bottom of his emails there is a picture of a person in a very low stance. It could be just an identifiable logo.
Most likely when practiced right that may have some relevance in one of Mike's styles. Naivete may point to the question-- how is it related to fighting? Possibly there is an explanation.Saying it sucks would not be a fair or good asessment or statement on a forum or for sensible conversation.

A game? Short of actually killing someone- much of so called martial activity are games- some more bloody than others but still games.

joy chaudhuri

[Lama Pai Sifu]

The starting position is completely unrealistic...for starters! LOL

The drill itself is just not a realistic depiction of what will happen once you enter that range. And training it without a means to an end (as I mentioned before) is useless to me.

[lkfmdc]

The starting position would be a place to start (pardon the pun)

But the real problem is the assumptions, I've seen far too many drills and/or explanations which basicly assume "if I do x, of course he is going to do Y"... and this is a problem in ALL TMA's btw

[couch]

The starting position would be a place to start (pardon the pun)

But the real problem is the assumptions, I've seen far too many drills and/or explanations which basicly assume "if I do x, of course he is going to do Y"... and this is a problem in ALL TMA's btw

That's right! Good Chi Sau isn't about technique X vs. Y. It's about hitting the opponent while stressing your structure. As I said before, it's about hitting someone and if the hit didn't connect, it's about trying again to hit that person.

CS can be either used or abused. The masses are abusing it. Period.

I love Wing Chun and probably will continue to train and pass it along the whole live-long day. I really don't care if anyone sees or doesn't see the value in the training. I know how Chi Sau is supposed to work and what it's after. Not that this hasn't been offered before, but the way I train Wing Chun is: Post-contact first, Pre-Contact second. Is that unrealistic? It's just a means to an end done in a different fashion? Aren't we all trying to do one thing here (end a confrontation - that can't be solved with words - violently and quickly?)

PS - I've seen some really good Karate that crashes into someone's guard to find out what they're going to do and play off the energy or even just get the hands/limbs out of the way.

[Vajramusti]

As has been pointed out the POV of Lama Pai sifu and lkfmdc 's POV are in a different part of the spectrum from that of wing chun- though the latter has great diversities of quality and details of forms. Thus all one can do is to point out errors of fact and let it go.
Cheers, joy chaudhuri

[lkfmdc]

It is disappointing that just because we challenge an idea long held, the eventual result is to just dismiss us as havng "a different POV"

I was a Hung Ga student before I ever studied Lama. I studied Dragon before I met CTS, and I studied some Bak Mei with CTS as well. I'm hardly ignorant of the concepts of bridging and sticking, etc

Is it an "error of fact" that Chi Sao begins from a position that you never see in a real fight?

Is it an "error of fact" that chi sao often supposes that the other side will similarly respond and keep the bridge?

wow, everyone's so sensitive

[Vajramusti]

I was a Hung Ga student before I ever studied Lama. I studied Dragon before I met CTS, and I studied some Bak Mei with CTS as well. I'm hardly ignorant of the concepts of bridging and sticking, etc

((The wing chun I do is different from all of them in matters of structure and dynamics))

Is it an "error of fact" that Chi Sao begins from a position that you never see in a real fight?

((You don't begin with fixed chi sao positions in a real fight. The skills (not fixed shapes)you develop in good chi sao can come out in a real fight. Good chi sao efficiently develops
attributes for a real fight. A real fight is a real fight involving individuals- not necessarily a style versus a style. Other issues of character and guts and other qualities ina an individual can also play a role) ))

Is it an "error of fact" that chi sao often supposes that the other side will similarly respond and keep the bridge?

((An error of fact. A good wing chun person makes no such assumption. You focus on whatever you have to deal with))

wow, everyone's so sensitive[/QUOTE]

((Not sensitive-just somewhat bored with the same assertions by folks who have a vested interest in their schools and what they do., which(commitment to their styles) is ok by me.I don't see real curiosity in the questions. They are already conclusions despite the question marks.. I responded because of Parilla's glaring misrepresentation of an important training aspect of the wing chun style. I enjoyed reading about the late Lama Pai sifu and made no uninformed criticism of Lama Pai )) So basically cheers and bye.

joy chaudhuri

[lkfmdc]

The wing chun I do is different from all of them in matters of structure and dynamics



LMFAO, ah, yes, the old "what I do is so special and unique" argument... :rolleyes:




You don't begin with fixed chi sao positions in a real fight. The skills (not fixed shapes)you develop in good chi sao can come out in a real fight. Good chi sao efficiently develops
attributes for a real fight. A real fight is a real fight involving individuals- not necessarily a style versus a style.



You begin drilling Chi Sao in the same position, which as you admit, is NOT a position you see in a real fight. So why drill from that position? Pretty simple question




Not sensitive-just somewhat bored with the same assertions by folks who have a vested interest in their schools and what they do.,



LMFAO again, wow, just take your marbles and go home already :rolleyes:

Vested interests, no, doesn't sound like you are vested in wing chun at all (/sarcasm)

I happily and eagerly defend what I do, and have enough evidence and examples to back up what I say. We enter into a discussion and because we have the "nerve" to question how and why you do something you get so rilled up huh?

back to the church of wing chun, defenders of the faith, don't question the man behind the curtain

[lkfmdc]

oh, my mind isn't made up at all

just show me some real alive fighting which looks like chi sao and I'll say "wow, it does work"

I can definitely show you live plam, live "over under" and live slipping, etc

Am I supposed to believe chi sao develops all these attributes when I don't see them anywhere? :rolleyes:

[Lama Pai Sifu]

((Not sensitive-just somewhat bored with the same assertions by folks who have a vested interest in their schools and what they do., which(commitment to their styles) is ok by me.I don't see real curiosity in the questions. They are already conclusions despite the question marks.. I responded because of Parilla's glaring misrepresentation of an important training aspect of the wing chun style. I enjoyed reading about the late Lama Pai sifu and made no uninformed criticism of Lama Pai )) So basically cheers and bye.

joy chaudhuri

My 'Glaring Misrepresentation' of a training aspect of the WC style? When did I offer a representation???

And why do you believe that my criticism is 'uniformed'?

Does you're wing chun have some special moves that others don't? Or that I'm not privy to? Do you know some new and special way to move your arms in a way that is uncharacteristic of the Chinese Martial Arts as I know them? Do you know the extent of my knowledge or experience....or lack of it??

Well, it seems that Chi Sao may have some company... ;)

[lkfmdc]

Which of these is the real chi sau ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqPeEZ1-0eM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yCVL31XEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-iwCnoE20Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Q-jZ7fuws

to us lowly misinformed souls looks like they all start more or less from teh same position! :eek:

[taai gihk yahn]

Which of these is the real chi sau ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqPeEZ1-0eM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yCVL31XEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-iwCnoE20Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Q-jZ7fuws

to us lowly misinformed souls looks like they all start more or less from teh same position! :eek:

it's so hard to pick! one has the guys in the Devo outfits, one has a cute Chinese girl, one has a guy with Marfan's against someone with some sort of seizure-like disorder, one has really awesome music, one has the guy with the blindfold on backwards (:confused:), and one says that it's "superb" - I guess it's the one that says it's "superb"?

[Violent Designs]

**** I need to find the cute Chinese girl one.

[couch]

Which of these is the real chi sau ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-iwCnoE20Q

to us lowly misinformed souls looks like they all start more or less from teh same position! :eek:

I like this one out of all these you chose. They're trying to hit each other, they glove and gear up. Other than some structural problems of not keeping the elbow down, I'm impressed with the intensity of it all.

It all starts with patty-cake drills, patty-cake Chi Sau and then it's time to turn up the heat. Then after the Chi Sau is getting pretty intense, it's time to break away and spar.

Wing Chun is a conceptual based art. IMO, it is the way it is so that it doesn't make clones. So a core set of tools and concepts are taught and mastered and then the person is 'set free' to personalize their fighting.

I love it! :)

[diego]

**** I need to find the cute Chinese girl one.

"what chu want I got six spanish two white three blacks and an asian...give me the asian girl"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al0xjOtLPSc&feature=PlayList&p=9C180DA9FF4A2C6C&playnext=1&index=27

[hunt1]

You begin drilling Chi Sao in the same position, which as you admit, is NOT a position you see in a real fight. So why drill from that position? Pretty simple question



Are you interested in an answer or are you only interested to repeat your opinion over and over. So far it seems you are only interested in your own opinion and are not asking a real question.

I started learning wing chun in 1984 while I was learning Hop Gar from Ku Sifu in Atlanta. Since he allowed a wing chun sifu to use his school I thought I would learn wing chun too.

In all that time I have never heard a teacher say chi sao is like fighting or mimics a real fight etc etc. Chi Sao is a method for training concepts and body usage . After these are learned you then learn how to apply them to a real fight first via in school sparring then by training against people from other arts or styles.

Please tell me who told you chi sau is the same as fighting.

[punchdrunk]

this thread really is an opinion peice, I don't think all Wing Chun people should take it so personal. It's a waste of time trying to convert someone who's happy with their own style, I don't like thier long swinging looping punches or their cross stepping but wtf they can do what they like. Diversity in cma is cool and we should all keep an open mind.

[Vajramusti]

I didn' t take it personally. Just didn't see the point of sinking to the level of sarcastic retorts without any real interest in wing chun. I have zero problem with anyone who prefers something else.

Hunt is correct. No serious wing chun person regards chi sao as a fight.

The five chi sao's shown were not my cup of tea -but I think that two of those guys are pretty good fighters.

I didn't sense a serious discussion and I didn't waste any more time.

joy chaudhuri

[Lee Chiang Po]

I was told by an elder that chi sau is a childs game. Actually it is a game, but it is also a drill. You can work with a partner to perfect your technique applications. You punch, he blocks, then he punches and you block. Eventually, you use both hands in this back and forth punching and blocking drill. By playing this game you can learn to block and pary a blow quickly and smoothly and with power, without having to exert.
It is true that some people tend to go a lot further with it and some seem to think it is the end goal or something. It takes on a life of it's own in some cases. But even so, Wing Chun still reigns supreme over all other styles of Gung Fu.

[couch]

You punch, he blocks, then he punches and you block. Eventually, you use both hands in this back and forth punching and blocking drill. By playing this game you can learn to block and pary a blow quickly and smoothly and with power, without having to exert.
It is true that some people tend to go a lot further with it and some seem to think it is the end goal or something.

Two things here. First, I disagree it's a punch/block scenario in Chi Sau. While this may be the beginner's idea, it has to evolve into something much grander. You don't see boxers blocking and then punching each other in a sequence like we see in Chi Sau (however they do learn to 'stuff' jabs and to cover up). This is a good indication of where Chi Sau should go: there should be evasive movements, good footwork, counterpunching, etc.

In regards to people thinking it is the end game or something - that's pure marketing BS - and you're completely right. Some people think that Chi Sau is the end game / grand jewel / etc of the system.

I guess it's fine if people don't want to glove up and go at it and I guess I'm on the fence about all of that. Perhaps the general public takes up a martial art for 'fitness' and the 'social aspect' of it all. So it's totally club-dependent on the matter, I guess. Does the instructor create a core-group of people who actually understand that Wing Chun is a combative system that is designed to fight? Or does he/she decide that everyone is on their own path and has their own preferences and just leaves them be? If they want to stop at the Chi Sau stage and not even progress to the Goh Sau stage - so what?

Just some thoughts...

[Vajramusti]

Child's game? Quite wrong.
Chi sao is NOT fighting but-it's a bell weather on how much wing chun a person has really learned.
Trained eyes can tell.

There are different ways of fighting and the individual is an important variable.
Wing chun is not the only effective style.
But without chi sao work one is really not likely to do the wing chun motions,
strategy and tactics as fluidly as possible.

Again, why deal with the arrogant sarcasm in the start up posts of this thread here. Obviously not a dialogue-just repetitive egos and noise.

joy chaudhuri

[lkfmdc]

The five chi sao's shown were not my cup of tea -



so NONE of those were "correct"? Or just not as correct as your version? Or different? Surely, explaining what you don't like about them would advance DISCUSSION don't you think?




Child's game? Quite wrong.
Chi sao is NOT fighting but-it's a bell weather on how much wing chun a person has really learned.
Trained eyes can tell.



so it's "fighting without fighting" :rolleyes:

no, seriously, if it's a drill to ultimately teach fighting, why doesn't it adapt a more realistic shape. That's the question I keep asking and you keep avoiding answering

They all started the same way, the standing square rolling hands way, a situation you never see in a fight that way... so why do it that way? Just explain it and the DISCUSSION will be advanced, no?




There are different ways of fighting and the individual is an important variable.
Wing chun is not the only effective style.
But without chi sao work one is really not likely to do the wing chun motions,
strategy and tactics as fluidly as possible.



Again, hate to beat the dead horse here, but where can we see fighting the displays these wing chun motions?




Again, why deal with the arrogant sarcasm in the start up posts of this thread here. Obviously not a dialogue-just repetitive egos and noise.



Again, we are simply asking you direct questions that you seem to be unwilling to answer in a direct way. If that's "arrogant sarcasm" well then so be it :rolleyes:

I can show you pummeling drills for both plam (double neck ties) and "over/under clinches" , I can then show you LIVE FIGHTS which have the same structure as these drills

Why can't you show me live fights that have the structure of Chi Sao? OK, you've already said because you don't fight like you do Chi Sao, so then WHY DO CHI SAO LIKE THAT?

You can answer the question or continue to whine that we're asking the question

[Vajramusti]

They all started the same way, the standing square rolling hands way, a situation you never see in a fight that way... so why do it that way? Just explain it and the DISCUSSION will be advanced, no?



You can answer the question or continue to whine that we're asking the question
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling something as whining is not a particularly intelligent way to advance a discussion.
Too bad.

Joy Chaudhuri

[lkfmdc]

So, according to Joy, NO, they didn't start all the same way, it is just us poor uneducated non-wing chun folks who think it all started the same way... poor us, we'll never know the truth :rolleyes:

You act as if we just told you that G'd is dead..... are you really so sensitive about discussiong wing chun?

Here, let me give you a little example of how this MIGHT go down

Pretend I'm Joy for a minute

JOY - "ross, don't you think that Lama punches are impractical!"

Ross - "it depends, what exactly do you mean?"

JOY - "Those long, loopy punches, that side stance, the hands open, that SUCKS"

Ross - "I have MIXED FEELINGS, you see. I like the idea of avoiding bridges, I like the idea of using angles to be where you can hit and not get hit. I don't like the side stance the way it is often down. I don't like that the positions are too open, not hands up"

JOY - "so why do you do it?"

Ross - "actually, while I loved CTS and his methods, I also changed things to better suit my current students' needs. Tradition is fine and all, but NOT if you can't learn to fight. So we do "hands up" more of a boxing framework. We start off with STRAIGHT PUNCHES, etc etc

See, I don't have to get all defensive and accuse Joy of being cranky do it? :rolleyes:

[Hardwork108]

Child's game? Quite wrong.

A child's mind will see a child's game.;)

And that is what is wrong with TCMAs nowadays as a lot of the critiques and so called "expert" comments have a child's point of view as far as the deeper aspects of kung fu training are concerned.


Chi sao is NOT fighting but-it's a bell weather on how much wing chun a person has really learned.

I wonder how many people have really learnt Wing Chun beyond a superficial point. How about the "sifu" who started this thread?

I don't know you personally but I believe you to have a deep understanding of this art together with a couple of other posters in this forum (which I can count on one hand).


Trained eyes can tell.

Trained in what? Most of the people who post here are "masters" of the kickboxing aspects of any martial art that they practice, wether it is "kung fu", "karate" or tae kwon do, etc. or a combination of there of.


But without chi sao work one is really not likely to do the wing chun motions,
strategy and tactics as fluidly as possible.

Very true. Furthermore what many people don't realise is that chi sao is more than standing face to face with your partner and rolling. There is the sensitivity aspect; the sticking aspect;stand up grappling aspect and there is also the mobile way to chi sao. All of the above build attributes for fighting!


Again, why deal with the arrogant sarcasm in the start up posts of this thread here. Obviously not a dialogue-just repetitive egos and noise.

joy chaudhuri

I for one understand why you are economic with your posts even if I would love you to post more on Wing Chun as you are one of the few here who can actually teach us more about the various aspects of this art.:)

[GreenCloudCLF]

I may be joining late in the game. But short of practicing Chi Sao to compete in tournaments and win, I see no actual value in training it, from a fighting aspect. I see Chi Sao as a 2 man equivalent to forms. Here are some techniques you can train, but if done it will not teach you to fight. Where is the "live application?"

[Violent Designs]

By not doing chi sau the way 99% of WC schools do it.

You can still develop attributes related to bridging and seizing and control IMHO.

But you have to let it flow freely. E.G. you might start out touching wrists, but a split second later you may be clinched and getting elbowed and kneed. It's a transitionary position mostly, IMHO. I think from the position of a "bridge" you'll either be breaking the bridge, backing out or going into strike, or clinch/grapple.

[Buddha_Fist]

By not doing chi sau the way 99% of WC schools do it.

You can still develop attributes related to bridging and seizing and control IMHO.

But you have to let it flow freely. E.G. you might start out touching wrists, but a split second later you may be clinched and getting elbowed and kneed. It's a transitionary position mostly, IMHO. I think from the position of a "bridge" you'll either be breaking the bridge, backing out or going into strike, or clinch/grapple.

Wouldn't in that case be better to straight out spar? Why stand in front of each other looking like both of you gotta pee and rolling away the entire afternoon? Roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll... This is fun... Roll, roll, roll, roll... Let's put on some music... Roll, roll, roll, roll, roll...

Why each of these actions?

I think that critique on Chi-Sao comes when the objective of every single component of this drill is not clear. That's why there is no perceived benefit - misplaced focus.

[TenTigers]

Chi Sao is a game. I hold hands with you...we roll them back and forth a bit...and then we say 'go'! And try to touch/hit each other. That's not even a good game

When does a fight look like chi sao? At what part of the fight does it resemble this strange drill? Putting our feet parallel to each other (sometimes with toes turned in) and face each other, squarely...and then I'll put one hand this way, you put you're hand that way..and then we'll do the opposite on the other side. We'll count to three and flip flop our hands back and forth...and then we'll begin to 'fight'.

I just don't get it. Oh, and I do get it..but I still think it's stupid. [QUOTE]

ok, I am not a WCK practitioner, I've done a little, so let me give you my view based on my limited experience and understanding. I hope the more qualified exponents can correct me if I'm wrong:

The drill is multi-layerd, and is taught in steps, just as learning any skill.

The first step is learning structure, alignment, etc. So the student is taught the bong-sao, tan-sao, and fook-sao positions, with proper structure.
The rolling teaches the transition from one position to the other. When you move from one position to another,(in anything, not just chi-sao) there are gaps during the transition. In between spaces, where you are vulnerable. The rolling is a method for the beginning student who is just starting out in learning this skillset, to check his position, structure, and feel the gaps during transition, and develop his sensitivity to maintain those structures so as to close the gaps.

The concept of lut sao jik chung (lost hand, thrust foward) is then introduced. This helps the student now feel these gaps even more, as his partner attempts to slip strikes through his guard during transitions and if his structure is out of alignment=fei-jang, cho-kiu (flying elbow, collapsed bridge)

Learning methods of leaking hand, running hand, various strikes, elbows, trapping, etc are then introduced. Trapping is not emphasized as much as being able to feel for openings and hit. If a trap happens, great, but the idea is hitting.


Starting out with the feet parallel trains the student in developing his structure even more, and learning to root. It is a beginning method used to teach a specific skill, and once it is learned, it is dropped and chi-sao is used with active footwork. stepping, angling, kicks, etc are all used in chi-sao. The ideal range in WCK is to have my feet inside your horse, displacing you, while striking. It is NOT facing you toe to toe.

[QUOTE]You wanna learn to trap? Establish a bridge (like when you parry, shield or block a punch) and then go from there. None of this holding hands crap and facing each other .

Spot On, LPS! This is exactly what follows in the progression of learning.
The rolling, standing parallel, etc is simply a beginners learning syllabus. It is dropped once the skills are developed, and gor-sao is taught. Attack, bridge, attack, etc just as you said. It is simply WCK's method of teaching. Everyone has their own method-this is simply their's. Don't read into it any more than that.

What you see in chi-sao competitions, the three rolls and then GO, was put in place to establish an equal ground starting point, and, to make sure that it did not turn into a slugfest or slapfight.
The chi-sao comps are just to compete in this one single aspect of skills. It is not fighting per se, but gets pretty rough nonetheless.

I think it places emphasis on something the general public does not understand, and gives people the wrong impression.

In marketing, you have the USP-Unique Selling Point-what you do that makes you different. What separates your product from Brand X. WCK people showcase skills such as chi-sao, trapping,chain punches, etc, because it is what the general public can see as being different. So, it has become emphasized.
So the general public thinks this is all there is.

It is simply a vehicle to teach a skill.
You believe you have a better way, and that's fine. You may be right.
There are many roads up the mountain.

I am sure that people will take some of your points and work with them. Create a lab and work their skills from the clinch, and see what works and what does not work.
I know several WCK Sifus that train Muay Thai and boxing so that they may develop their skills to deal with them, as opposed to some that only fight against WC. I think this is becoming more and more prevalent.
I think that it is due to discussions such as these that opens people's minds to new possibilities and evolution of their training methods.

*again, I have only played a bit with WCK, and have only a beginner's understanding. I am certainly no authority. I am sharing what I see through my beginner's eyes, so don't take this as WCK gospel.

[Kansuke]

I wonder how many people have really learnt Wing Chun beyond a superficial point.



You mean, say, beyond two years of formal trainng? Something like that?

[Hardwork108]

For someone who has studied a "little" Wing Chun I would say that you have demonstrated more understanding of Chi Sao than most of the Kung fu "kings" in this forum, put together.

I would like to emphasis your following important points to the "confused" amongst the forum members.:


The drill is multi-layerd, and is taught in steps, just as learning any skill.


The rolling teaches the transition from one position to the other.


The rolling is a method for the beginning student who is just starting out [/B]in learning this skillset, to check his position, structure, and feel the gaps during transition, and develop his sensitivity to maintain those structures so as to close the gaps.



Learning methods of leaking hand, running hand, various strikes, elbows, trapping, etc are then introduced.



Starting out with the feet parallel trains the student in developing his structure even more, and learning to root.[I] It is a beginning method used to teach a specific skill, and once it is learned, it is dropped and chi-sao is used with active footwork.


stepping, angling, kicks, etc are all used in chi-sao. The ideal range in WCK is to have my feet inside your horse, displacing you, while striking. It is NOT facing you toe to toe.

The above comments say it all. Chisao is a dynamic learning tool that includes stepping, angling and chin-na (in the Siu Lam lineage), etc. The higher level chi sao leads to San Sao (free hands).

The skills that chi sao develops include sensitivity, "softness", "leaking" and "listening", all of which are fundemental kung fu elements and are hence very much misunderstood by the none authentic kung fu practioner "kung fu-ists" here in the forum, with the resultant confusing (for them) discussions about this important training tool.

[AdrianK]

Wouldn't in that case be better to straight out spar? Why stand in front of each other looking like both of you gotta pee and rolling away the entire afternoon? Roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll... This is fun... Roll, roll, roll, roll... Let's put on some music... Roll, roll, roll, roll, roll...

Because the frequency of trapping range is less common, its better to start out in that range, if thats what you want to train. Just like, if you want to train your groundwork specifically, you start out on the ground.

Specialized training is just smart. It is common sense to work on your weaknesses with specific training.

Otherwise, why do we bother drilling at all? Lets just ****in' spar til we all "get" it. *sigh*