what the difference?

[bennyvt]

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn't have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn't have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.

[jesper]

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn't have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn't have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.

Biggest difference imho is that to many people put to much into chi sao skills. Doesnt seem to happen so much with bjj rolling.

We even have people competing in chi sao for f... sake.

Bearing in mind im still very much new to bjj I would say that mostly the rolling is done to practice very specific skills to overcome a certain problem.
In contrast many people seem to make new "moves" in chi sao to overcome problems only encountered in chi sao.

Dunno if that makes any sense

[Knifefighter]

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn't have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn't have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.

BJJ starts in positions that regularly occur during full contact situations and continues from there using mostly positions, transitions and submissions that occur during full contact situations. Watch a BJJ guy on the ground and it will look pretty much like it looks during rolling.

Chi sao starts in a position that rarely or never occur during full contact situations and continues on with things that rarely happen during full contact situations. Watch a WC guy fight and it generally bears very little resemblance to what he does in chi sao.

[bennyvt]

****, I think I agree with you mostly. I think I need some help.:eek::D

[LoneTiger108]

Chi sao starts in a position that rarely or never occur during full contact situations and continues on with things that rarely happen during full contact situations. Watch a WC guy fight and it generally bears very little resemblance to what he does in chi sao.

Still, your words seem to highlight a lack of understanding as to what chisau actually is. I don't know why I'm concerned but I will share what I feel are the differences between chisau and BJJ rolling.

We search, strike and manipulate.

BJJ search and manipulate.

We are training to stay upright and take you down so it hurts.

BJJ trains to take you down and smother you to submission.

We back ourselves to walls.

BJJ backs up to the floor!

And from what I have seen first hand, BJJ players tend to take their cardio much much more seriously and the intensity of their floor work and overall flexibility seems to be more than an average chisau player (although the chisau I remember was just as intense and the cardio was trained to a max)

Of course, these are all similarities too to some extent. Both have their reasons and both are worth looking into if that floats your boat. No one way is better than the other imo, they're just independent ways to achieve the desired result.

And FWIW, a trained WCK fighter will move how he wants to. We are ever-changing, so you shouldn't expect to see any so-called signatures of WCK when we fight. It would be nice to see strong, accurate fistwork and legwork though, but unfortunately you are right. Once the pressure is on, most WCK players I've seen online seem to go tribal and just lose their heads. :o

The practitioners I have seen in front of me do not. They maintain a certain standard and crispness when the spar/fight. And it would be good to get that on tape one day, if they let me! :eek:

[YungChun]

The LukSao is a completely artificial construct.. (that's the steering wheel Dale ;) )

Beyond that, while T would say it is all unrealistic, I would say not really except that you are dealing with Chunners playing by Chunner's rules... Boxers do that too...

Once you get past the LukSao you see people continue into GorSao.. Again, the only thing 'unrealistic' about this is that you have Chunners playing by Chunners rules... Boxers do that too... So do BJJ-ers..

BJJ folks are working to perfect their moves against other BJJ people.. No shock there.. Likewise there should be no shock that Chunners are doing the same thing...

All too often the problem for the chunners comes in application....

Why?

Because in order for the Chunner to play his game he needs to be in his range and to be safe you have to break their structure...

The BJJ folks have more or less an easy time of getting this done.. They take you down..

For the Chunners to get into range, and break them down takes a bit more doing, especially against good outside fighters... Also, when closing range the chunner is still vulnerable to a variety of attacks that they would not have done in the classical training.. And while this is also true for the BJJ guys, they are safer IMO because they are on the ground where they are light years ahead of someone without any grappling experience.

Nevertheless the similarities are there because you have two people each working their art's particular moves against someone doing the same thing.

[Knifefighter]

Still, your words seem to highlight a lack of understanding as to what chisau actually is. I don't know why I'm concerned but I will share what I feel are the differences between chisau and BJJ rolling.

We search, strike and manipulate.

BJJ search and manipulate.

We are training to stay upright and take you down so it hurts.

BJJ trains to take you down and smother you to submission.

We back ourselves to walls.

BJJ backs up to the floor!

Those are all goals. Goals don't matter if what you are doing for training doesn't resemble the way you are actually fighting.


And it would be good to get that on tape one day, if they let me!

WC people who post here have been saying that for years. So far only Victor and Alan have actually posted videos of themselves doing full contact work, so you will more than likely be like the rest of the herd... simply making unsubstantiated claims.

[Knifefighter]

All too often the problem for the chunners comes in application....

Why?

Because in order for the Chunner to play his game he needs to be in his range and to be safe you have to break their structure...

The problem is that they are training in an unrealistic manner to solve their problem.

[horserider]

Actually that is half the problem. Wing Chun training was designed to follow a specific general fighting plan. No contact--- bridge the gap--- finish with a sweep or throw. After a level of skill and understanding has been reached in the chi sao range you are supposed to move out and learn the other 2 ranges, no contact and sweep/throw.

It is the bane and downfall of Wing Chun that the knowledge and practice of how to deal with the other 2 stages of stand up fighting is lost to all but a small few and that chi sao is now for many no more than a patty cake game and the staple training method.

[YungChun]

finish with a sweep or throw.


Not as I understand the method...

[horserider]

Quote:
Originally Posted by horserider View Post
finish with a sweep or throw.
Not as I understand the method...



Yes, thank you! My point exactly!

[Knifefighter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by horserider View Post
finish with a sweep or throw.
Not as I understand the method...


Yes, thank you! My point exactly!

Please supply some evidence for your approach is supposedly done.

[YungChun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by horserider View Post
finish with a sweep or throw.
Not as I understand the method...


Yes, thank you! My point exactly!

Right. And my point is that the goal of most modern Chun is not to sweep...or throw it's something else.

Sweeping does not lend any greater level of anything to anything--no one's lamenting--'if only we had those sweeps'. lol Unless you mean breaking their horse and controlling them, which I would not term sweeps and is not the "Goal of Chun" in any case...

What lineage are you talking about?

[t_niehoff]

Actually that is half the problem. Wing Chun training was designed to follow a specific general fighting plan.


That is true.



No contact--- bridge the gap--- finish with a sweep or throw. After a level of skill and understanding has been reached in the chi sao range you are supposed to move out and learn the other 2 ranges, no contact and sweep/throw.


The "finishing stage" traditionally has included -- but not required -- putting the opponent on the ground via sweep or throw. As I understand it, it was considered a higher expression of skill to be able to do that.

And, you are right that traditionally the contact stage is taught first since if you know what things to do or not do to control your opponent, you can then focus on getting a favorable position directly from your "entry" (and you won't fall into entering into a poor position). Similarly, if you can't control your opponent, you won't be able to sweep or throw him. Finishing depends on having control.

[YungChun]

The "finishing stage" traditionally has included -- but not required -- putting the opponent on the ground via sweep or throw. As I understand it, it was considered a higher expression of skill to be able to do that.


What happened to 'hold them up and hit them'?

I wouldn't consider Kwai Sat a 'sweep' either or most of the other leg moves used to break their horse..as a take down per se..like a sickle sweep for example. As for throwing it's simply not in Yip's version IMO although the seeds may well be there.

[horserider]

What lineage are you talking about?


All Lineage. Wing Chun is Wing Chun. Again you make my point in your last two posts. The fact that something is lost or not practiced in a line of Wing Chun does not mean it does not exist. It is this very loss that threatens Wing Chun as a viable fighting art in today's world.

Yes Mr T.Niehoff you seem to understand. However I do not like to say control because it conveys to some a period longer than it's momentary nature.
You are right of course the ability to do something is always an issue. Thus the need for practice against real resistince to gain the need abilities.

Yes, of course a fight can be finished with a punch,elbow or Knee etc etc. However all one needs to do is watch any UFC and see how many punches are thrown and of those how many actually end fights to see that in the real world, not the ,my version of wing chun is better than your version of wing chun world, relying on a strike to finish a fight is not a truly practical solution.


To Knifefighter I do not understand your question for proof. My family teaches this,all our students learn this what more proof is there?

Look at the last move of the Yip Man dummy form for this. It is a lop sau with a sweep/kick to the supporting leg. A lop Sau done correctly is a throw. The man lands on his face. kicking out the support leg insures this

[t_niehoff]

What happened to 'hold them up and hit them'?


In the "old days" in China, you were considered the victor in challenge fights when you put the other guy on the ground. Remember the story of Leung Bik fighting the young Yip Man (even if not true, it is illustrative of the culture)? What did Leung do but threw Yip to win.

The last of Sum Nung's san sik is white crane seizes fox, a quick throw.

But what I have found through experience is that today sweeping someone or throwing them doesn't end the fight, and often can leave you in a worse position, particularly if you don't go down with them and establish control.

As the KK says, the method comes from the ancestors, the key is adapting it to conditions.



I wouldn't consider Kwai Sat a 'sweep' either or most of the other leg moves used to break their horse..as a take down per se..like a sickle sweep for example. As for throwing it's simply not in Yip's version IMO although the seeds may well be there.

The tools are there but using them to sweep or throw are not emphasized in Yip's curriculum.

[YungChun]

All Lineage. Wing Chun is Wing Chun. Again you make my point in your last two posts. The fact that something is lost or not practiced in a line of Wing Chun does not mean it does not exist. It is this very loss that threatens Wing Chun as a viable fighting art in today's world.

You come off like just another guy with "The Real Chun"...

There is substantial leg work in Yip's line of Chun... Most of the moves I would not term a sweep in the disconnected knock them over sense..

There are many moves designed to break the horse...however..

The goal of Chun is not to throw them.

In any case the problem with Chun IMO is not that the throws are missing... (or that the secret way is missing) Not by a long shot..

But if you are going to claim to have the secrets then let's see it...or even any example of it in actual fighting..

[Knifefighter]

To Knifefighter I do not understand your question for proof. My family teaches this,all our students learn this what more proof is there?

Look at the last move of the Yip Man dummy form for this. It is a lop sau with a sweep/kick to the supporting leg. A lop Sau done correctly is a throw. The man lands on his face. kicking out the support leg insures this

Proof... of people actually applying these things against resisting opponents... not some theoretical pretend nonsense done in the dummy form.

[YungChun]

But what I have found through experience is that today sweeping someone or throwing them doesn't end the fight, and often can leave you in a worse position, particularly if you don't go down with them and establish control.


Throws are not fight enders.. They are fight repeaters..

They normally do less damage which is why they are emphasized in Aiki..

Not to say you couldn't throw them into pavement and hurt them badly, still typically not.

For the 'polite contest' sure.

[t_niehoff]

In any case the problem with Chun IMO is not that the throws are missing... (or that the secret way is missing) Not by a long shot..


But one problem is that people don't want to look outside their own little lineage and see the broader view of WCK.

Take the throws, sweeps that horserider talks about -- even if you don't want to use them as throws or sweeps but only as ways of destroying structure (you don't fully execute the sweep or throw but only do it enough to disrupt your opponent) -- they are elements of the broader art.

[t_niehoff]

Throws are not fight enders.. They are fight repeaters..

They normally do less damage which is why they are emphasized in Aiki..

Not to say you couldn't throw them into pavement and hurt them badly, still typically not.

For the 'polite contest' sure.

You are not looking from the historical/cultural context but from a modern context.

[YungChun]

But one problem is that people don't want to look outside their own little lineage and see the broader view of WCK.

Take the throws, sweeps that horserider talks about -- even if you don't want to use them as throws or sweeps but only as ways of destroying structure (you don't fully execute the sweep or throw but only do it enough to disrupt your opponent) -- they are elements of the broader art.

That's what they are... We have tons of leg moves.. I just don't think of them as sweeps per se but as horse destroyers..and normally that is from inside with contact, as in the kicks...

Still it's not IMO "the goal"...but part of a process or stage of control..

[YungChun]

You are not looking from the historical/cultural context but from a modern context.

Well in the old days you remarked that they would throw in a contest right?

Exactly my point: It was a (safer) way to show control without pounding his face into mush..still is.

[t_niehoff]

Proof... of people actually applying these things against resisting opponents... not some theoretical pretend nonsense done in the dummy form.

horserider mentions:

Look at the last move of the Yip Man dummy form for this. It is a lop sau with a sweep/kick to the supporting leg. A lop Sau done correctly is a throw. The man lands on his face. kicking out the support leg insures this.

Or, to put this in modern terms, a two-on-one and a foot sweep.

[t_niehoff]

That's what they are... We have tons of leg moves.. I just don't think of them as sweeps per se but as horse destroyers..and normally that is from inside with contact, as in the kicks...

Still it's not IMO "the goal"...but part of a process or stage of control..

Sum Nung told Rene that he always wanted to put his opponent on the floor (even after beating him senseless) since then "there would be no question as to who won the fight." I think this was the old-timers' view. And they taught, get in, control him while pounding him, and then finish by putting him on the ground.

[YungChun]

Sum Nung told Rene that he always wanted to put his opponent on the floor (even after beating him senseless) since then "there would be no question as to who won the fight." I think this was the old-timers' view. And they taught, get in, control him while pounding him, and then finish by putting him on the ground.

I can see that...

That is the end result of breaking the horse and holding him up to finish him..

[chusauli]

Even the word "Saat" (Cantonese) or "Sha" (Mandarin) in Chinese didn't always mean "Killed" - it could also mean "disabled" or "unconscious", "stopped" or "Knocked-out", or "Killed his ardor/desire" depending on the context.

Chinese martial arts practitioners have generally stopped when one is knocked down to the ground or off a Lei Tai.

[t_niehoff]

Yes, of course a fight can be finished with a punch,elbow or Knee etc etc. However all one needs to do is watch any UFC and see how many punches are thrown and of those how many actually end fights to see that in the real world, not the ,my version of wing chun is better than your version of wing chun world, relying on a strike to finish a fight is not a truly practical solution.


And if we look at the same UFC fights, you don't see sweeps or throws ending fights either, do we?

As I said, I think the the old days, they wanted to put the opponent on the floor (even after beating him senseless) since then "there would be no question as to who won the fight." And so they taught, get in, control him while pounding him, and then finish by putting him on the ground.

It wasn't that the throw in-and-of itself "finished" the opponent but that you performed it when you were finished beating the crap out of him!

However, in "friendly" fights, it was a good way to establish who had superior skills since to perform it required that you get in safely, control the opponent to set up the throw or sweep, and then execute it. And to do so without having to put a hurt in.

[horserider]

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1051004]And if we look at the same UFC fights, you don't see sweeps or throws ending fights either, do we?

Lol have you ever tried to throw or sweep spme one who is resisting ,punching ,countering ,attacking you? Watch high level Judoka . How pretty are their throws? Without striking? Not very. Wing Chun has a whole series of throws and sweeps. they work best after you have punched or elbowed some one a few times thus stunning them or breaking their center or gaining control over their center of gravity in some way.

It seems like this whole form has been sold a bill of goods. Wing Chun is not some magic that will allow you to do things that no other fighting art can do. No Kung Fu movie fights although they do look good.

Wing chun trains all phases of stand up fighting ending with throws to the ground. This should be no different than any other stand up art. Boxing is a sport so no throws. Also wing chun trains how to resist /prevent being thrown or swept.

No magic no special only i know the real wing chun. It is in all wing chun.

Yung Chun I can not help if you were not taught the whole system. I have talked with many wing chun Sifu from many different families over the years including Ip Man direct students. Everyone had the same elements just what some emphasized was different.

I have been told be several Ip Man students over the years he told them to go out and fight if they really wanted to learn wing chun. It is very clear that even if these student of Ip Man did this his grand and great grand students have not done this.

[Knifefighter]

Lol have you ever tried to throw or sweep spme one who is resisting ,punching ,countering ,attacking you? Watch high level Judoka . How pretty are their throws? Without striking? Not very. Wing Chun has a whole series of throws and sweeps. they work best after you have punched or elbowed some one a few times thus stunning them or breaking their center or gaining control over their center of gravity in some way.

It seems like this whole form has been sold a bill of goods. Wing Chun is not some magic that will allow you to do things that no other fighting art can do. No Kung Fu movie fights although they do look good.

Wing chun trains all phases of stand up fighting ending with throws to the ground. This should be no different than any other stand up art. Boxing is a sport so no throws. Also wing chun trains how to resist /prevent being thrown or swept.

No magic no special only i know the real wing chun. It is in all wing chun.

Yung Chun I can not help if you were not taught the whole system. I have talked with many wing chun Sifu from many different families over the years including Ip Man direct students. Everyone had the same elements just what some emphasized was different.

Great... so you apparently have the "realz" WC.

Post a sparring clip or two to demonstrate it.

[horserider]

Great... so you apparently have the "realz" WC.

Post a sparring clip or two to demonstrate it.

Your spelling as bad as mine English not your native language either? There is no " real" wing chun just wing chun. Sorry if some one take your money tell you they teach you wing chun then not do it. Not my fault or problem.

Why?

[bennyvt]

man I go to sleep with two reponses and now its about if throws finish fights.:eek:

[m1k3]

Great... so you apparently have the "realz" WC.

Post a sparring clip or two to demonstrate it.

Your spelling as bad as mine English not your native language either? There is no " real" wing chun just wing chun. Sorry if some one take your money tell you they teach you wing chun then not do it. Not my fault or problem.

Why?

realz is internet talk. Why does he want proof, because so many people claim to have the real wing chun but it only works when you are doing drills and not against people who are fighting back.

Now, my turn.

What I have read from T. and Horserider makes WC sound a lot like the grip and hand fighting and entry techniques used in Judo or Greco wrestling. Of course with the addition of strikes.

So, is chi sao similar to pummeling exercises done in grappling classes?

If that had been the case I might have stuck with it.

[m1k3]

Back to the original question.

I think one of the biggest differences is that in bjj once you start rolling you continue until someone taps or time runs out.

In the chi sao I did, and what I see posted all the time, is you go until someone lands a strike of some sort or contact is broken and then you reset.

From my personal experience the intensity is very different also.

[bennyvt]

In our school chi sao stops when you have complete control, normally hitting and the other guy has stopped defending. We learn if you are hit then hit back. I have been to several schools were they call it cheating if they hit you and you hit them back, weird. It becomes like a tag game. The strikes continue until they are stopped. how else do you learn to actually fight. If they hit you, you must do something to stop it not just go "****, I should have stopped that."
Any time we lose contact once at a certain level we just step back in but we aren't rolling to make contact. Rolling only starts again if we are botyh stuck. We would class this more as gorsao.

[Knifefighter]

So, is chi sao similar to pummeling exercises done in grappling classes?

If that had been the case I might have stuck with it.

That's how it SHOULD be done.

[YouKnowWho]

WC sound a lot like the grip and hand fighting and entry techniques ...

That's a good point. It looks very similiar to the SC grip fight:

http://johnswang.com/sc_grip_fight.wmv

[Knifefighter]

Great... so you apparently have the "realz" WC.

Post a sparring clip or two to demonstrate it.

Your spelling as bad as mine English not your native language either? There is no " real" wing chun just wing chun. Sorry if some one take your money tell you they teach you wing chun then not do it. Not my fault or problem.

Why?

You claim to have something that most other people are doing incorrectly. It's up to you to provide some type of evidence for that. Otherwise you are simply just another one of the hordes of theoretical, pretend, non-fighters who thinks he has the real deal.

[t_niehoff]

What I have read from T. and Horserider makes WC sound a lot like the grip and hand fighting and entry techniques used in Judo or Greco wrestling. Of course with the addition of strikes.

So, is chi sao similar to pummeling exercises done in grappling classes?

If that had been the case I might have stuck with it.

You've got the picture.

[horserider]

You claim to have something that most other people are doing incorrectly. It's up to you to provide some type of evidence for that. Otherwise you are simply just another one of the hordes of theoretical, pretend, non-fighters who thinks he has the real deal.


I claim nothing. I state what I do and what is included in the wing chun curriculum. My family wing chun is documented in writing going back to my ancestors teacher Master Leung Jaan. . I never stated anyone was incorrect. Only what is included. If you were not taught the full system and if others were not taught. That is nothing to do with me. By tradition you and others would not have been taught everything of any TCMA not just wing chun.

You are nobody I have to prove nothing to you or to anyone else. I owe you nothing. I owe the people on this forum nothing.

As for fighting I know theories and I know how to fight because I fought many times when I was young. I was forced to fight ,not given an option by those probably not very different than yourself.

I do not know what this 'real deal' is about. It has no importance or interest for me. I have what I have. That is all.

I do not charge for teaching Wing Chun. I only teach those recommended to me. I do not teach westerns. I follow my family traditions. I have Sidai that do teach all interested however.

If you ever visit Toronto you are welcome to visit and we will spar if you like. I am 63 years old not what I once was but still it would be fun.

If I did teach for money and wanted to promote myself and a school I would post videos. It would be smart marketing i would think.

[Knifefighter]

You are nobody I have to prove nothing to you or to anyone else. I owe you nothing. I owe the people on this forum nothing.

LOL... that's what all the theoretical, pretend, non-fighters say, yet you seem to feel the need to "prove" with words upon words in their posts.

These days, the web is just as much a video medium as it is a verbal medium. Video recorders are ubiquitous and it takes 5 minutes to download to UTube. Videos are worth a thousand words. Funny how you need to "prove" by posting, but you can't "prove" by showing a simple clip.

[Knifefighter]

I claim nothing. I state what I do and what is included in the wing chun curriculum. My family wing chun is documented in writing going back to my ancestors teacher Master Leung Jaan. . I never stated anyone was incorrect. Only what is included. If you were not taught the full system and if others were not taught. That is nothing to do with me. By tradition you and others would not have been taught everything of any TCMA not just wing chun..

You are claiming to be one of the few who have all the stages of WC. You said that here.


It is the bane and downfall of Wing Chun that the knowledge and practice of how to deal with the other 2 stages of stand up fighting is lost to all but a small few and that chi sao is now for many no more than a patty cake game and the staple training method.

Then you said this:

To Knifefighter I do not understand your question for proof. My family teaches this,all our students learn this what more proof is there?

I did not ask for proof. I asked for evidence. You provided neither proof nor evidence. You provided only words. Anyone can make any claim with simple words.

[bennyvt]

Id like to see the written documents as no-one has ever shown that sort of link past 80-100yrs backward, let alone leung Jan.
By the way you racist idiot, won't teach westerners. Thats was normally as the little men didn't want to be beatten by the "big bad westerners". Thought that stopped years ago. I know certain schools have changed to make it easier because they think westeners can't do certain things.
You must have been in heaps of fight but if you think throwing someone is the finish.:D. Not even grappling arts are that dumb. Thats why they go to the ground. As hitting the ground is never a given that they can't just get back up.
In catch they teach you to take falls much like judo does. My mate taught me by doing suplexes on me. Yeh if I didn't know how to land it might snap my neck. Seem it several times in UFC and they get straight back up.

[t_niehoff]

I claim nothing. I state what I do and what is included in the wing chun curriculum. My family wing chun is documented in writing going back to my ancestors teacher Master Leung Jaan. . I never stated anyone was incorrect. Only what is included.


Well, actually you did write that

"It is the bane and downfall of Wing Chun that the knowledge and practice of how to deal with the other 2 stages of stand up fighting is lost to all but a small few and that chi sao is now for many no more than a patty cake game and the staple training method."

and that suggests that you are one of those "small few" that have the "lost part" of WCK.

My own view is that these things are not lost, they are out there, but if we aren't open to them and don't actively seek them out, they are lost to us (individually). Many of us assume or take it for granted that our teacher is teaching us "the whole system" or "the complete art" or whatever, but how do we know? He may be teaching me all he knows - or thinks he knows. There may be more, lots more. Or, there may just be another way of teaching it or looking at it or whatever that helps me. This is why I think we need to stop thinking in terms of lineage/branch, to start thinking in terms of WCK is WCK, and seeing the art in broad terms, in terms of what is the core curriculum of WCK (and not as just my little lineage or branch).



If you were not taught the full system and if others were not taught. That is nothing to do with me. By tradition you and others would not have been taught everything of any TCMA not just wing chun.


That may have been the case, and still may be the case for some, but there are people who don't subscribe to such views and do teach openly, and completely, to anyone.

And I don't think this is the case of anyone not being taught "the full system". From my perspective, WCK is like geometry,where you need certain fundamentals (axioms) and method (deduction) and you can derive everything else.

[horserider]

T.Niehoff I see your point it does read that way. My point was that all wing chun I have ever seen contains all 3 stages of training and concepts even though forms may differ however for whatever reasons the focus has fallen onto just one aspect so much so that now chi sao seems to be the beginning and end all of wing chun. The knowledge is there open like a book for anyone to train but few do so. Instead I keep reading how our system does this or we don't do that in our system etc etc.

The attitude seems to be if your Sifu does not lead you to water you can not drink.

This leads to why i do not care to teach westeners. If I am racist by the way big deal. Don't think I am it is just in general westeners are difficult to teach due to cultural differences and I think better suited to boxing or arts created to suit them like Tae Kwon Do

Look at the Kuit how everyone claims they know them,follow them and then look at performance.

Wing Chun created by woman. What should this tell you. A 130 lb woman can not stand toe to toe with 200 man trade punches and expect to win. A woman must find another way must be mobile. What do we see in videos. People charging into each other with chain punches or standing in front of each other trading attacks. This is doing boxing with a wing chun cover. It is best to spend time actually learning how to box.

Look at chi sao videos, even those by experts.Llook at how often they move elbows back to the body or outside the plane of the body . This is not what wing chun says to do yet they do it. People should correct themselves but instead if Sifu does it or doesn't say anything they just go on not drinking the water.

Again look in chi sao. Do people ,even experts close in when attacking and break structure or do they stand at arms length trading attacks or throw fast hands from long range. Wing chun says to close ,step in ,break structure as you attack but this you seldom see.

And for benny my goal was always to bounce the back of head or face off the ground or a wall and try to leave as fast as possible. I did not fight looking to kill or to admire my handy work. If I was pulled to the ground I went there. I am not a fool nor was my father. I learned to wrestle both freestyle and greco-roman when I was young. I was grounding and pounding long before you and I dare say most on this forum knew what it was or were even born.
I am no ground expert but anyone that wants to be rounded should have a basic working knowledge of how to function when on ones back or on top of someone.

[bennyvt]

being a racist would be generalizing about people because of what race they are.:rolleyes:

[stonecrusher69]

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn't have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn't have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.


How is chi sao limited in movement? IMO the only thing limited in chi is what you impose on it.

[shawchemical]

LOL... that's what all the theoretical, pretend, non-fighters say, yet you seem to feel the need to "prove" with words upon words in their posts.

These days, the web is just as much a video medium as it is a verbal medium. Video recorders are ubiquitous and it takes 5 minutes to download to UTube. Videos are worth a thousand words. Funny how you need to "prove" by posting, but you can't "prove" by showing a simple clip.

Video clips mean sweet fk all bi/.tch

[YungChun]

T.Niehoff I see your point it does read that way. My point was that all wing chun I have ever seen contains all 3 stages of training and concepts even though forms may differ however for whatever reasons the focus has fallen onto just one aspect so much so that now chi sao seems to be the beginning and end all of wing chun.


ChiSao is a platform and does not limit what one can learn or teach..

Many schools work the leg techniques as well as the hand techniques from the same platform.. I am sure there are schools that work throws from it as well, KumNa is also seen and nothing to stop them from incorporating all elements into their ChiSao. Incorporation of many things into the drill is one of the advantages of the platform..however more rarely means better... And, not all schools have 'patty cake' ChiSao and I'll assume yours doesn't despite any evidence that you offer anything of any value...

If a lineage does not have an emphasis on throws it certainly does not preclude them from having the bulk of the art intact..

So far the comments you've made show that you are an ill-mannered, racist, elitist who thinks you are the only one with the real Chun. You offer little and certainly don't contribute anything positive to the art here..so one must wonder if you do so anywhere...

[t_niehoff]

ChiSao is a platform and does not limit what one can learn or teach..


I don't agree. I think chi sao is an exercise to teach using the WCK tools while attached not anything we want to learn.

Moreover, chi sao cannot be used to learn/teach the entry.



Many schools work the leg techniques as well as the hand techniques from the same platform.. I am sure there are schools that work throws from it as well, KumNa is also seen and nothing to stop them from incorporating all elements into their ChiSao. Incorporation of many things into the drill is one of the advantages of the platform..however more rarely means better... And, not all schools have 'patty cake' ChiSao and I'll assume yours doesn't despite any evidence that you offer anything of any value...

If a lineage does not have an emphasis on throws it certainly does not preclude them from having the bulk of the art intact..


I agree that different teachers/branches emphasize different things. But I do agree with horserider that many/most seem to be missing large parts of the curriculum of WCK and many/most teaching don't have basic skills (which depend a great deal on how you perform the drills/exercises). As I recall, you were saying the same thing . . . albeit more diplomatically.

[YungChun]

I don't agree. I think chi sao is an exercise to teach using the WCK tools while attached not anything we want to learn.

Moreover, chi sao cannot be used to learn/teach the entry.


Too wrapped up in words.. No I don't mean you can learn baseball using the ChiSao platform, I mean that you can work on more than just the Chun hands, as I wrote, the legs and throws, etc can also be worked...

[YungChun]

I agree that different teachers/branches emphasize different things. But I do agree with horserider that many/most seem to be missing large parts of the curriculum of WCK and many/most teaching don't have basic skills (which depend a great deal on how you perform the drills/exercises). As I recall, you were saying the same thing . . . albeit more diplomatically.

Sure but I don't agree that just because throws are not taught that that has to mean the rest has to be flawed.

[t_niehoff]

T.Niehoff I see your point it does read that way. My point was that all wing chun I have ever seen contains all 3 stages of training and concepts even though forms may differ however for whatever reasons the focus has fallen onto just one aspect so much so that now chi sao seems to be the beginning and end all of wing chun. The knowledge is there open like a book for anyone to train but few do so. Instead I keep reading how our system does this or we don't do that in our system etc etc.


I understand. The problem is that most people who "practice" WCK have little to no significant exposure to the "greater" art and so have extremely narrow views, then add sifu worship (he was after all the true inheritor or greatest fighter or etc.), etc.



The attitude seems to be if your Sifu does not lead you to water you can not drink.


Yup.



This leads to why i do not care to teach westeners. If I am racist by the way big deal. Don't think I am it is just in general westeners are difficult to teach due to cultural differences and I think better suited to boxing or arts created to suit them like Tae Kwon Do


I can see that an understanding of the Chinese culture could make it easier to learn a TCMA (to put things into context), and I do think think that we westerners, growing up as we do with sport -- which is a functional way of learning/developing skill -- can easily confuse the TCMA way of teaching (separating curriculum from application) with the sport way of teaching (curriculum is application), coming to think, like many do, that in WCK learning the WCK curriculum they are learning application.

But, that can be dealt with.



Look at the Kuit how everyone claims they know them,follow them and then look at performance.


Actually, I think most people don't even have the kuit!



Wing Chun created by woman. What should this tell you. A 130 lb woman can not stand toe to toe with 200 man trade punches and expect to win. A woman must find another way must be mobile. What do we see in videos. People charging into each other with chain punches or standing in front of each other trading attacks. This is doing boxing with a wing chun cover. It is best to spend time actually learning how to box.


Yes, I think the creation ALLEGORY has a point, and that point is that our method is to not rely on brute strength, but instead to weaken our opponent (by breaking his structure), to use natural advantages, like reach, against him (by crowding him), and at all times to keep him under control so that we don't end up trading.



Look at chi sao videos, even those by experts.Llook at how often they move elbows back to the body or outside the plane of the body . This is not what wing chun says to do yet they do it. People should correct themselves but instead if Sifu does it or doesn't say anything they just go on not drinking the water.

Again look in chi sao. Do people ,even experts close in when attacking and break structure or do they stand at arms length trading attacks or throw fast hands from long range. Wing chun says to close ,step in ,break structure as you attack but this you seldom see.


This is because you can have the drill/exercise (chi sao) but if you do not know what you are trying to do in the drill/exercise (and think, for instance, that just doing it will develop "sensitivity" or "contact reflexes"), you can't practice what the drill is trying to teach. To develop a skill you must always begin with the objective, and most people don't seem to know the objective of chi sao (to learn to use the tools of WCK to control an opponent while striking him).

[t_niehoff]

Sure but I don't agree that just because throws are not taught that that has to mean the rest has to be flawed.

I agree.

My view is that "the essentials" of WCK is the method (its approach and the strategic battle plan) and the fundamental tools of WCK -- in other words, those things you NEED to get in and control an opponent while striking him. Everything else is gravy.

[t_niehoff]

Too wrapped up in words.. No I don't mean you can learn baseball using the ChiSao platform, I mean that you can work on more than just the Chun hands, as I wrote, the legs and throws, etc can also be worked...

OK,I wasn't thinking baseball but how many people try to put in nonWCK things into their chi sao.

Yes, as WCK is a contact/close range method of fighting, it only follows that our exercise for learning/practicing our contact skills would also permit us to practice our contact skills, which include legs, throws, etc.

[k gledhill]

I don't agree. I think chi sao is an exercise to teach using the WCK tools while attached not anything we want to learn.

Moreover, chi sao cannot be used to learn/teach the entry.



I agree that different teachers/branches emphasize different things. But I do agree with horserider that many/most seem to be missing large parts of the curriculum of WCK and many/most teaching don't have basic skills (which depend a great deal on how you perform the drills/exercises). As I recall, you were saying the same thing . . . albeit more diplomatically.

attachment is to exchange force.....in a drill... you dont even know what your missing, cup full.

[Graham H]

attachment is to exchange force.....in a drill... you dont even know what your missing, cup full.

T if you don't see the attachment part of the Chi Sau drill as a way to improve force, structure and the punch, how do you increase and develop this in your system???

GH

[sihing]

Chi sau is a mutual cooperative exchange of pressure and force between two practitioners. It's a prolonged contact drill so that each participant can 1)develop the VT structure, 2)train it in various ways, 3)receive and give force/pressure. Similiar to how the body adapts to a weight lifting routine, it becomes stronger and bigger due to the stress of consistent lifting of weight (weight=pressure). Without an exchange of pressure (which is only accomplished when there's prolonged contact), one cannot develop and train the specific VT structure.

Now, why do we need structure/mechanics? Well in VT, our punch is powered from our legs/glutes. We bring the power up from the l/g into our hips and out our elbows. We need this type of power generation to be able to function in close. Inclose fighting allows us to shut down our opponents ability to hit us, while we are striking him (if you use the torque method of striking you lose the ability to apply pressure to your opponent while in close, your twisting in front of him, rather than moving into his center axis). This is the control aspect of VT striking. It's not about holding or grabbing, but controlling hitting. If you have no structure, you may be able to hit but your open to be hit as well, in VT we try not to allow that to happen.

For me, I think it is wise to learn how to master the striking aspect of this VT equation first. We don't need attachment in application, as we are just striking at our opponents center axis, but the chances of attachment happening while in our striking range is great, as most people cover up when being hit like this. But as one moves along in the system and gains experience (like Gary Lam has for e.g.) then one can explore the other ways of using the skills. IMO Gary has developed the standing grappling aspect of VT to a high degree. He mastered the striking aspect and choose to develop the control/feeling aspect, which is totally his choice. He is also a larger man and can get away with doing it this way since for the most part he out weights most people at 6'1" and 240+lbs.

James

[Frost]

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn't have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn't have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.


You mean apart from the obvious difference in that every BJJ player understands the goal of rolling whilst no one on this forum can seem to agree what chi sao is for and how it should be done :)

Or the other obvious difference in that there are thousands of clips of good rolling matches out there and no one can point to a single good chi sao clip….but there are hundreds people agree are terrible :)

Or how about the final obvious difference people can point to various MMA, vale tudo and street fights where the positions seen in rolling happen as soon as the fight hits the ground, but we are all still waiting for clips that look like chi sao in action :)

[Dragonzbane76]

any portion of ground work is "control" I'm not a WC practitioner, my advents are in the southern styles and with BJJ/grappling.

I've watched chi sao and can't see one thing remotely similar to BJJ/JJ/Judo etc. (they have physical contact, bout it)

Comparing the 2 is like comparing apples and oranges.