Sticking Hands

[couch]

Curious.

What are you 'doing' when practicing the Chi Sau?

Are you practicing Sticky Hands?
Definition:a : adhesive b (1) : viscous, gluey (2) : coated with a sticky substance

Or are you practicing Sticking Hands?
Definition: to hit or propel (as a hockey puck) with a stick (ergo: to stick an animal to death)

..something to think about...

[stonecrusher69]

I don't do any of those. I just feel and flow with the energy and if there is an imbalance in the flow I take advantage of it., and if there is none I create one.

[t_niehoff]

Curious.

What are you 'doing' when practicing the Chi Sau?

Are you practicing Sticky Hands?
Definition:a : adhesive b (1) : viscous, gluey (2) : coated with a sticky substance

Or are you practicing Sticking Hands?
Definition: to hit or propel (as a hockey puck) with a stick (ergo: to stick an animal to death)

..something to think about...

This underscores the problem with using English interpretations of Chinese terms. In this case, using "stick" for "chi". In English, "stick" has many meanings that the Chinese term "chi" doesn't. For example, "stick" in English can mean "to poke like with a pin."

The Chinese term "chi" denotes two grains of rice that cling (hence another interpretation of chi sao is "arm clinging") together, expressing the notion of a certain degree of attachment (not too solid and not too fragile).

What I do in chi sao is maintain a flexible attachment to my opponent's bridges while trying to control while striking my partner.

[Graham H]

What I do in chi sao is maintain a flexible attachment to my opponent's bridges while trying to control while striking my partner.

.........is not what to do in Chi Sau!!!!!

Tell me Terence. How would you fight a person that is not stupid enough to give you their arms???? :confused::rolleyes:

GH

[YungChun]

As a reference point..

This is good ChiSao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM_KgCSMtMM


Control while striking... All good things Chun control..

[LoneTiger108]

As a reference point..

This is good ChiSao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM_KgCSMtMM


Control while striking... All good things Chun control..

All depends on what you think Chisau IS.

To me, and for most in the Lee Shing family (I think!), we would call this Looksau :rolleyes:

Chisau may appear in there in split second moments, but it's basically Looksau. If this is what everyone sees as Chisau I think I can see why skilled guys like Wang kam Leung can take the advantage ALL the time.

Chisau is a teaching tool. WKL is teaching nothing but how to be beaten in this clip :D

[YungChun]

All depends on what you think Chisau IS.

The question was posed by Kenton.. I know what he means.. He means the drill ChiSao...



To me, and for most in the Lee Shing family (I think!), we would call this Looksau :rolleyes:

Are your eyes rolling because you're dizzy? If so then sit down and breath.

LukSao is the rolling.. The rolling is the basis for ChiSao, which is how we refer to the main two handed sticking drill. The term ChiSao could be used to refer to any contact (sticking) drill but is most commonly used to refer to the two handed drill.. This should not be news to anyone..



Chisau may appear in there in split second moments, but it's basically Looksau.

As I said LukSao is the rolling, the platform for two handed ChiSao... What you see and think is still a mystery..



If this is what everyone sees as Chisau I think I can see why skilled guys like Wang kam Leung can take the advantage ALL the time.

ChiSao is what the clip was called.. Moreover, it's the same two handed drill most any branch of the Yip family does and calls by the same term.. is every component of the drill seen? No. But it's still ChiSao.

Wan can "take advantage" in the drill as is seen because he has been doing it longer than his students...shocking isn't it?



Chisau is a teaching tool. WKL is teaching nothing but how to be beaten in this clip :D

ChiSao is a learning and teaching platform..

Ah, he's teaching how to be beaten.. Uh huh.. Care to elaborate?

[t_niehoff]

.........is not what to do in Chi Sau!!!!!

Tell me Terence. How would you fight a person that is not stupid enough to give you their arms???? :confused::rolleyes:

GH

You don't need an attached drill to learn to do unattached punching.

The point of chi sao is to learn to control while striking. To do that, I use MY bridges, to strike, to pull, push, wedge, jam, lift, sink, etc.

It's not that I want them to "give me their arms", I'd much rather they didn't. The kuit tells us, Chum Sen, Mo Chum Sao - Seek the body, not the hands. However, most often people won't give you direct access to their body, and try to keep their hands/arms are in the way (both offensively and defensively). I take whatever my opponent gives me, whether his arms or his body or whatever and use that contact as a handle to control him.

[k gledhill]

"You don't need an attached drill to learn to do unattached punching. ' terence

:D do you stick to the dummy arms too ?

[YungChun]

"You don't need an attached drill to learn to do unattached punching. ' terence

:D do you stick to the dummy arms too ?

Ironic..

I'm guessing the answer would be no if he doesn't follow the standard set...which does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqL9MdLj0k

[Graham H]

The best bit is where the big guy shows WKL which hand he is going to punch with. Impressive stuff!!!!! :rolleyes:

GH

[YungChun]

The best bit is where the big guy shows WKL which hand he is going to punch with. Impressive stuff!!!!! :rolleyes:

GH

It wouldn't matter since it's not a fight.. It's a drill where WKL is showing the method. :rolleyes:

[m1k3]

.........is not what to do in Chi Sau!!!!!

Tell me Terence. How would you fight a person that is not stupid enough to give you their arms???? :confused::rolleyes:

GH

I don't do wing chun any more but to me attached fighting is a lot more than attaching to someone's arms. There's head and neck control, underhooks, overhooks, pushing, jamming and even grabbing clothes.

Why limit yourself to just the arms?

[goju]

It wouldn't matter since it's not a fight.. It's a drill where WKL is showing the method. :rolleyes:
You were mocking that Uechi ryu clip a while back because you were saying the drill wasnt trained as it would be in a fight. then you turn around and say it doesnt matter when its something you like because its just showing something.

[YungChun]

You were mocking that Uechi ryu clip a while back because you were saying the drill wasnt trained as it would be in a fight. then you turn around and say it doesnt matter when its something you like because its just showing something.

You don't understand....and likely never will..

The issue here was a telegraphed attack.. The drill ChiSao actions WKL is teaching/showing has nothing to do with reading an attack...it's not a fight--what he's doing has to do with control...

The Uechi stuff is simply wrong no matter how you slice it and not the topic here--moreover WKL's stuff is light years ahead of it IMO..

[goju]

ill take your word for it:p

[k gledhill]

Ironic..

I'm guessing the answer would be no if he doesn't follow the standard set...which does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqL9MdLj0k

does ? your seeing YM sticking to the dummy ?
that explains a lot.

[YungChun]

does ? your seeing YM sticking to the dummy ?
that explains a lot.
Tools in contact with the arms... but no sticking eh...? I'm getting a little sick of the semantic BS... It serves no purpose except to try to save one's weak position.

Right, we train sticking hands but no Chun doesn't stick...doesn't make contact, doesn't control, doesn't issue energy, doesn't have techniques which steal balance..no of course not..it just chain punches till the cows come home, which is why there are only punches in the sets.....right.....

And yes that says a lot too...

Chun controls and open lines while striking... All Chun tools make contact....the duration of contact doesn't determine if it's sticking, contact used for opening lines and controlling is sticking...

[KPM]

What I do in chi sao is maintain a flexible attachment to my opponent's bridges while trying to control while striking my partner.


-----I don't think you can sum it up in one line any better than that! :)




How would you fight a person that is not stupid enough to give you their arms????

---You just hit them!!!! However, unless you are fighting a total scrub or have ambushed some poor guy unexpectedly, most people are going to reflexively throw up their arms to protect themselves. Its not stupid, its reflex. Then you have arms/bridges to use to control them while hitting them, and the skills developed in Chi Sao kick in!


do you stick to the dummy arms too ?

----I do! Let's say you do a Jum Sao to the upper arm, then Huen Sao to a low palm strike. Do you disengage the dummy arm when going from Jum to Huen, or do you stick to the arm? There is "sticking" involved through-out the dummy form.



LukSao is the rolling.. The rolling is the basis for ChiSao, which is how we refer to the main two handed sticking drill. The term ChiSao could be used to refer to any contact (sticking) drill but is most commonly used to refer to the two handed drill.. This should not be news to anyone..

---I agree! Luk Sao is the rolling "platform" used to develop the various skills by applying technique from that platform. Other mainland WCK methods use a "Poon Sao" platform that is more "coiling" and is different from the Luk Sao used in Yip Man WCK and Yuen Kay Shan WCK. The generic term "Chi Sao" can apply to the single hand version, double hand version, Lop Da drills.....anything that involves staying in contact with the partner/opponent and reacting to his movements through tactile feedback. But we do tend to apply the term almost exclusively to the Luk Sao activity and forget that it is really a generic label.

[k gledhill]

its not sticking. its the opposite. by hitting the 'immovable' dummy arms on a 'rigid' fixed axis we develop the ability to displace contact so we can hit/punch.....
we fight with lead and rear cycling for this reason. we cycle on the dummy for this reason....

sticking dummy !! hahahh what next ?

[YungChun]

its not sticking. its the opposite. by hitting the 'immovable' dummy arms on a 'rigid' fixed axis we develop the ability to displace contact so we can hit/punch.....
we fight with lead and rear cycling for this reason. we cycle on the dummy for this reason....

sticking dummy !! hahahh what next ?

There is no "cycling" except in your obsessive chain punching...

You know as well as I do that there is the controlling element and the line clearing/striking element.. Otherwise there would be no need for hand replacement or hand unity, more than half the techniques and tools, including leg/stance breaking moves, and dozens of others.

Put all these things together with the displacement/striking and you get controlling while striking... You or whomever choose to leave out major parts? Fine by me.. But pretending they're not there is just plain goofy, especially when you know they are there and have said your "new and different" approach leaves them out; Where "new and different" equates to an emphasis on a beginner's approach with hyper-timed chain punching and power based on momentum.

I mean really...

[k gledhill]

simple answer is you don't have all the info or you would agree....why don't we meet up ?

[Lee Chiang Po]

Chi Sao is nothing more than a drill. Whereby 2 people can pactice controling an opponent while striking him. Both get to practice this in a routine. It can be changed up in any way you want. However, people that have different ideas as to what it is and how it should be done have changed it into a childs game. A compitition of sorts where each person is trying to out chi sao the other and strike him. This does nothing really, as no one actually fights this way. If you can gain the inside on someone for an instant, you can sometimes control them for the time it takes for you to pop them a good one, maybe a couple of times, but it is fleeting and you will not maintain this bridge for long if you can not deliver.
The control methods that Chi Sao teaches are intended to be used on those that have no idea what Wing Chun is. They have no Chi Sao skills and will not be able to prevent your controlling them if you are good and fast with it. Once on the inside they lose effectiveness because they will not know how to deliver a punch at such a range, but you will, and all the while you will be preventing the use of one or both arms while you are able to deliver.
You will never be able to roll your hands with an opponent. If someone should attempt that with me they would regret it rather quickly. Unless of course he is a good WC man. It has been my experience over a lifetime that you will not meet one unless you hang around a kwoon.

[YouKnowWho]

The sticking hands concept is a 2 edges sword. When you can sense your opponent's intention, at the same time your opponent can sense yours too. The best way is the moment that you have sense your oponent's intention, you destroy your bridge and move in.

[KPM]

its not sticking. its the opposite. by hitting the 'immovable' dummy arms on a 'rigid' fixed axis we develop the ability to displace contact so we can hit/punch.....
we fight with lead and rear cycling for this reason. we cycle on the dummy for this reason....

sticking dummy !! hahahh what next ?

"Sticking" is a quality....the ability to maintain contact through a multi step motion. Are you saying you never do this on the dummy? :confused:

[t_niehoff]

"You don't need an attached drill to learn to do unattached punching. ' terence

:D do you stick to the dummy arms too ?

Of course. If not, why do you even need arms on your dummy -- you might as well just punch a bag.

[t_niehoff]

its not sticking. its the opposite. by hitting the 'immovable' dummy arms on a 'rigid' fixed axis we develop the ability to displace contact so we can hit/punch.....
we fight with lead and rear cycling for this reason. we cycle on the dummy for this reason....

sticking dummy !! hahahh what next ?

As I have said, what you describe is simply ONE LIMITED TACTIC in the WCK arsenal -- it has only very limited usefulness. Apparently Bayer either didn't learn the "rest" of WCK or can't do it so limited himself to teaching what he can. Either way, your "idea" and perspective of looking at everything through these tinted glasses only obscures what is blatantly obvious. Most of the action we practice on the dummy doesn't involve "displacing contact to hit/punch".

I am sorry that you can't see past Bayer's limitation, and see that other WSL students (Lam, Wan, etc.) have a great deal more to offer and focus on controlling while striking, that other lineages in the Yip family, and other nonYip lineages (YKS, PN, GuLao, etc.) also focus on controlling while striking the opponent. Bayer is alone in his little, limited boat, and WCK is a much larger pond.

[k gledhill]

"Sticking" is a quality....the ability to maintain contact through a multi step motion. Are you saying you never do this on the dummy? :confused:

No, it LOOKS like it to the uniformed observer, as does chi-sao, it LOOKS like we are trying to stick to the hands/wrists etc...due to a lack of understanding at the onset.

Chi-sao prepares us for the sudden chaotic clash of fighting a guy who DOESN'T DO CHI-SAO or is going to do something 'like' chi-sao, sure you can try to make it dirty clinch bs, but thats making s h i t up, because you dont know better...

[k gledhill]

As I have said, what you describe is simply ONE LIMITED TACTIC in the WCK arsenal -- it has only very limited usefulness. Apparently Bayer either didn't learn the "rest" of WCK or can't do it so limited himself to teaching what he can. Either way, your "idea" and perspective of looking at everything through these tinted glasses only obscures what is blatantly obvious. Most of the action we practice on the dummy doesn't involve "displacing contact to hit/punch".

I am sorry that you can't see past Bayer's limitation, and see that other WSL students (Lam, Wan, etc.) have a great deal more to offer and focus on controlling while striking, that other lineages in the Yip family, and other nonYip lineages (YKS, PN, GuLao, etc.) also focus on controlling while striking the opponent. Bayer is alone in his little, limited boat, and WCK is a much larger pond.


Look, you and others here dont have the same information I have, its not a secret, i am sharing, sadly I cant convey the idea via words on a forum, when you experience the attacking of WSL in front of your face as you try to stick to my arms you will figure out exactly what WSL did to guys and why he usually beat them within 3 moves...yeah 3.
I can understand how now too.

Remember i was classically trained in the ways your talking about now T, I met Robert and chi-saoed with him and a lot of Hawkins Sifu's class, along with other west coast schools. I have met a student of Roberts and he too understands himself....so he can see it, what do you think YOU will see ?

[t_niehoff]

Look, you and others here dont have the same information I have, its not a secret, i am sharing, sadly I cant convey the idea via words on a forum, when you experience the attacking of WSL in front of your face as you try to stick to my arms you will figure out exactly what WSL did to guys and why he usually beat them within 3 moves...yeah 3.
I can understand how now too.


You're right, it is not a secret. It is, as I said, a well-known LIMITED tactic in WCK.

You keep talking about "sticking to your arms" and you don't grasp that sticking in only part of the method.

WSL beat scrubs. Name any known fighter he beat. Yeah, none. What about when they carried WSL out on a stretcher -- did that happen in 3 moves too? ;)



Remember i was classically trained in the ways your talking about now T,


No you weren't.

First, understand that you aren't training now and you didn't train then. All you did and now do is keep repeating the curriculum of WCK. You don't DO WCK; you do the WCK curriculum. And the curriculum you learned from Victor Kan is lacking in many regards (as evidenced by your ignorance of the faat mun, the kuit, how the various parts fit together, etc.).



I met Robert and chi-saoed with him and a lot of Hawkins Sifu's class, along with other west coast schools.


So, what does that matter?



I have met a student of Roberts and he too understands himself....so he can see it, what do you think YOU will see ?

Yes, I know. The student of Robert's you are referring to wasn't a serious practitioner (that he now trains with you proves that) but a recreational student, he never has tried to make his WCK functional, etc. If you want to get a good idea of Robert's curriculum and/or how it is put to use, you need to look at Robert's students that have put in "the work." Robert can tell you who they are.

Regardless, the method comes from the ancestors. And you apparently haven't learned it.

[k gledhill]

You're right, it is not a secret. It is, as I said, a well-known LIMITED tactic in WCK.

You keep talking about "sticking to your arms" and you don't grasp that sticking in only part of the method.

WSL beat scrubs. Name any known fighter he beat. Yeah, none. What about when they carried WSL out on a stretcher -- did that happen in 3 moves too? ;)



No you weren't.

First, understand that you aren't training now and you didn't train then. All you did and now do is keep repeating the curriculum of WCK. You don't DO WCK; you do the WCK curriculum. And the curriculum you learned from Victor Kan is lacking in many regards (as evidenced by your ignorance of the faat mun, the kuit, how the various parts fit together, etc.).



So, what does that matter?



Yes, I know. The student of Robert's you are referring to wasn't a serious practitioner (that he now trains with you proves that) but a recreational student, he never has tried to make his WCK functional, etc. If you want to get a good idea of Robert's curriculum and/or how it is put to use, you need to look at Robert's students that have put in "the work." Robert can tell you who they are.

Regardless, the method comes from the ancestors. And you apparently haven't learned it.

you called it fantasy fu before, now you accept it ...hah. what next : )

you are in a quagmire of your own making Terence.

so now roberts student is a low level ? he's actually very good but is like robert and has his errors. sacrificing upper body for a false sense of control....same as when I met and chi- saoed with robert myself....I did the same things to rc as I did to his student...

no doubt I might do the same to you too. ; )

[KPM]

No, it LOOKS like it to the uniformed observer, as does chi-sao, it LOOKS like we are trying to stick to the hands/wrists etc...due to a lack of understanding at the onset.

Chi-sao prepares us for the sudden chaotic clash of fighting a guy who DOESN'T DO CHI-SAO or is going to do something 'like' chi-sao, sure you can try to make it dirty clinch bs, but thats making s h i t up, because you dont know better...

Hey Kevin!

I think we may be talking past each other with semantics. What I am calling "sticking", you may be seeing as "chasing." We don't "chase hands" in Chi Sao and we don't overdo the sticking to the dummy arms. But the fact remains that you can't do the dummy without maintaining a good amount of contact with the dummy arms. Otherwise, what's the point of having the arms at all? Going by my prior example.....moving from Jum Sao to Huen Sao to a low palm on the dummy....do you do that without losing contact with the dummy arm? If you do, then you are "sticking".

[t_niehoff]

you called it fantasy fu before, now you accept it ...hah. what next : )


As I have repeatedly said, what Bayer does is just one aspect (a limited tactic) but he's mistakenly taken it for the whole enchilada. All you have to do is look at Lam or Wan and contrast that with Bayer to see that he only got part of WSL's curriculum. And a small part.

And if you contrast that to what other, older legit branches of WCK teach, you see they also have a great deal more than Bayer.

The reality is that when you get inside you can't only punch (or tan/jum and punch) -- that you NEED to control the opponent or you will be run over (or at the very least get into trading punches). If you were realistically sparring you'd know that. If Bayer did any realistic sparring, he'd know that. And this is why what you guys are doing is fantasy fu: you're not DOING it (in realistic sparring) but have an "idea", a fantasy of how you believe things will work. And that's why Bayer puts up all kinds of videos but none show any sparring.

Moreover, just by looking at the videos he has put up, I can see that he has no body structure, uses only localized muscle, has no control over his opponent, his punch is weak and doesn't break his opponent's structure, etc. IOWs, it is an example of fast-hand, weak, low-level WCK.



you are in a quagmire of your own making Terence.


Says the guy who has his head stuck up Bayer's ass and can't see beyond it.



so now roberts student is a low level ?


Yes, he is. Why don't you ask him how much time he's spent training his WCK (ie, sparring) against boxers, MT or MMA fighters? Yup, none. So he has -- like you -- learned the curriculum (forms, drills, etc.) but not put in any work trying to make it functional. And so, he is a beginner with no real skill, and so no real understanding.

WCK is a fighting method, and if you don't fight (ride the bike), you have no skill or understanding about it (riding the bike).



he's actually very good


Why don't you and he spar with some white-belt level MMA fighters and see how "very good" either of you are?



but is like robert and has his errors. sacrificing upper body for a false sense of control....same as when I met and chi- saoed with robert myself....I did the same things to rc as I did to his student...

no doubt I might do the same to you too. ; )

Sure, sure.

Chi sao is an unrealistic EXERCISE. It's unrealistic because you can do -- and get away with -- all kinds of nonsense. Hence the kuit: Chi sao Mo Lien Fa Sik – Don’t practice flowery techniques in chi sao practice. It's just a teaching/learning platform (so you can practice the contact tools of WCK). It's not for skill comparison.

There are two HUGE problems with unrealistic practice (whether chi sao or unrealistic sparring). First, it doesn't develop - or show - realistic skill (realistic skill only comes from realistic practice). Second, and related to the first, is that it doesn't develop realistic understanding of either fighting or WCK. Understanding comes only from realistic skill.

The curriculum of WCK comes from our ancestors, and that curriculum includes the faat mun, the forms, the dummy, the weapons, the kuit, etc. Traditionally, the method is to control while striking the opponent. The curriculum provides the things we need to do that. And that is the method they left us. Some people in WCK still retain that method, and others, like Bayer, seem to have never learned it.

[Sean66]

Hey guys,

FWIW, I trained ving tsun for years in Germany with a student of Philip Bayer's, and I must say that Philip has plenty of experience fighting in the ring (in his Hong Kong days) and in the street. Sparring is part and parcel of the training.

My teacher, Michael Kurth, has sparred against plenty of people from other styles, including MMA. There are students of Bayer's who regularly take part in MMA fights. So to say that Bayer and his students have no experience in actually applying their ving tsun is absolutely false.

I have trained with Bayer plenty of times during workshops in Germany, and all I can say is that his "structure" is amazing. His whole body is behind whatever he does, be it a punch, jut sau, lap sau....everything. He destabilizes, controls and hits his opponent simultaneously.

Now, I've also trained with Wan Kam Leung, and I can say that Bayer's "structure" and abilities are just as good. Different, of course, but just as good.

@t_niehoff
Have you ever trained with Bayer?

Cheers,
Sean

[chusauli]

so now roberts student is a low level ? he's actually very good but is like robert and has his errors. sacrificing upper body for a false sense of control....same as when I met and chi- saoed with robert myself....I did the same things to rc as I did to his student...

no doubt I might do the same to you too. ; )

Kevin,

As I recall, you were flying Victor Kan's flag that day you visited Hawkins school with Victor Kan. Victor had you demonstrate SNT and CK, and roll.

You probably realize that we treated you like a visitor and a student of Victor Kan, Hawkins' senior. As a result, we just treated you politely - no egos, no need to dominate or control.

I'm sorry to say that my recollection of the events were simply we rolled and may have had a few Gor Sao, but in politeness, and hardly anything memorable. You hardly controlled me or Wally, Eric, or Elliot. You didn't have the proper mechanics at that time, as you "floated" and were largely "unrooted" doing that version of VT. And you were all "shoulder heavy" and shifted a lot "on top of the ground" rather than having root or control. That was hardly anything to boast about, which I am sure you now know doing the Bayer/WSL method (which I assume you could see your "limitations" after learning.)

The mechanics of what you were practicing at that time were severely limited, nothing like what WSL taught. I did Chi Sao with Gary Lam, his brother, David Peterson, and WSL himself, so I know what WSL VT feels like. Hawkins also was close to his senior WSL. It simply wasn't enough to "dominate".

Look at it simply, "fast hands" vs. "optimal body alignment"? What do you think is more powerful?

You had nothing of WSL VT at that time.

Kevin, we don't have to make this a p*ssing match, but you hardly kicked anyone's "arse" that day. The most we got out of it was "5 feet 2, eyes are blue" (whatever that means), a disgust of poor body mechanics VT way, (as you may recall nobody wanted a "certificate of attendance"), and more appreciation of our Sifu's teaching.

Please Kev, in your arguments with people here, don't just make stuff up to justify your view to defend your ego.

[bennyvt]

Hey terrence can you name the "good" people that WSL didn't fight back in the 60's-70's. You always say he fought scrubs. He fought anyone that would fight him, any style didn't matter. No he didnt fight randy couture. He wasn't alive, there was no MMA people so he fought the best there was at the time that was available.

[Buddha_Fist]

As I have repeatedly said, what Bayer does is just one aspect (a limited tactic) but he's mistakenly taken it for the whole enchilada. All you have to do is look at Lam or Wan and contrast that with Bayer to see that he only got part of WSL's curriculum. And a small part.

And if you contrast that to what other, older legit branches of WCK teach, you see they also have a great deal more than Bayer.

The reality is that when you get inside you can't only punch (or tan/jum and punch) -- that you NEED to control the opponent or you will be run over (or at the very least get into trading punches). If you were realistically sparring you'd know that. If Bayer did any realistic sparring, he'd know that. And this is why what you guys are doing is fantasy fu: you're not DOING it (in realistic sparring) but have an "idea", a fantasy of how you believe things will work. And that's why Bayer puts up all kinds of videos but none show any sparring.

Moreover, just by looking at the videos he has put up, I can see that he has no body structure, uses only localized muscle, has no control over his opponent, his punch is weak and doesn't break his opponent's structure, etc. IOWs, it is an example of fast-hand, weak, low-level WCK.



Says the guy who has his head stuck up Bayer's ass and can't see beyond it.



Yes, he is. Why don't you ask him how much time he's spent training his WCK (ie, sparring) against boxers, MT or MMA fighters? Yup, none. So he has -- like you -- learned the curriculum (forms, drills, etc.) but not put in any work trying to make it functional. And so, he is a beginner with no real skill, and so no real understanding.

WCK is a fighting method, and if you don't fight (ride the bike), you have no skill or understanding about it (riding the bike).



Why don't you and he spar with some white-belt level MMA fighters and see how "very good" either of you are?



Sure, sure.

Chi sao is an unrealistic EXERCISE. It's unrealistic because you can do -- and get away with -- all kinds of nonsense. Hence the kuit: Chi sao Mo Lien Fa Sik – Don’t practice flowery techniques in chi sao practice. It's just a teaching/learning platform (so you can practice the contact tools of WCK). It's not for skill comparison.

There are two HUGE problems with unrealistic practice (whether chi sao or unrealistic sparring). First, it doesn't develop - or show - realistic skill (realistic skill only comes from realistic practice). Second, and related to the first, is that it doesn't develop realistic understanding of either fighting or WCK. Understanding comes only from realistic skill.

The curriculum of WCK comes from our ancestors, and that curriculum includes the faat mun, the forms, the dummy, the weapons, the kuit, etc. Traditionally, the method is to control while striking the opponent. The curriculum provides the things we need to do that. And that is the method they left us. Some people in WCK still retain that method, and others, like Bayer, seem to have never learned it.

Terrence,

You have never met neither Wong Shun Leung nor Philipp Bayer, yet you pass judgment on their capabilities. There's too much yaddayadda going on here by keyboard-warriors. Comment on people you've actually sparred with, not on your fantasies. Everything else has no value... Freakin' waste of time...

Emil

[shawchemical]

.........is not what to do in Chi Sau!!!!!

Tell me Terence. How would you fight a person that is not stupid enough to give you their arms???? :confused::rolleyes:

GH

He'd try to kiss them. Scare them into submission. It seems his mouth is his only weapon, and a pretty poor one at that.

[YungChun]

You have never met neither Wong Shun Leung nor Philipp Bayer, yet you pass judgment on their capabilities. There's too much yaddayadda going on here by keyboard-warriors. Comment on people you've actually sparred with, not on your fantasies. Everything else has no value... Freakin' waste of time...


It's a two way Internet.. If folks are going to say that they have the "real new and improved Chun" and then put up video featuring the same old BS then what do you think is going to happen??

Talking BS posting it, posting video of crap etc, will always be met with reaction and discussion... Why that should come as a surprise or itself draw criticism on a discussion board remains a mystery...

[t_niehoff]

Hey terrence can you name the "good" people that WSL didn't fight back in the 60's-70's. You always say he fought scrubs. He fought anyone that would fight him, any style didn't matter. No he didnt fight randy couture. He wasn't alive, there was no MMA people so he fought the best there was at the time that was available.

These guys fought other TCMAists in Hong Kong. None of them fought "the best available at the time" -- they didn't fight the thai's (until later, and then were soundly defeated), they didn't fight any decent kickboxers, any decent (kyukoshinkai) karate guys, any decent boxers, etc.

Let's not romanticize things -- they were youngsters fighting other youngsters, and the "fights" were hardly knock-down, drag-out affairs, but friendly, not very intense matches.

For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4

Is the WCK fighter in the clip some "master", someone with "great understanding",with "profound knowledge"? Because you could replace him with any of Yip's other guys and it would look exactly the same.

[t_niehoff]

FWIW, I trained ving tsun for years in Germany with a student of Philip Bayer's, and I must say that Philip has plenty of experience fighting in the ring (in his Hong Kong days) and in the street. Sparring is part and parcel of the training.


Why is it that we always HEAR about how so-and-so did this or did that -- all the fighting he did do -- but we never see any evidence of it?

He puts up all kinds of clips of himself, why not ONE sparring clip? Why put up clip after clip showing him doing chi sao when he could put up clips with some significance?

But, to be fair, I have no doubt that you guys "spar". So do lame-ass, strip mall karate studio guys. Crap sparring with crap is meaningless. And, more importantly, it is all part of the brainwashing. It is like guys who train to fight hopping on one leg -- and then saying that they "spar" and that they can make it work. Of course they can -- because they are only "sparring" with other guys hopping on one leg! Whenever people with extremely limited tools/skills, like chain-punchers, "spar" with others having only extremely limited tools/skills, like their classmates, they SEEM to be able to make what they do work. Hell, aikido guys can make their aikido work in the aikido dojo. But that proves nothing. It is all part of the brainwashing (this is great stuff, we make it work, my sifu is so skilled, etc.).



My teacher, Michael Kurth, has sparred against plenty of people from other styles, including MMA. There are students of Bayer's who regularly take part in MMA fights. So to say that Bayer and his students have no experience in actually applying their ving tsun is absolutely false.


Are there any videos of any of this? MMA fights are, for example, routinely video-taped.



I have trained with Bayer plenty of times during workshops in Germany, and all I can say is that his "structure" is amazing. His whole body is behind whatever he does, be it a punch, jut sau, lap sau....everything. He destabilizes, controls and hits his opponent simultaneously.


I guess then that he only puts up videos of himself where he has poor structure, where he doesn't destabilize, control, etc.



Now, I've also trained with Wan Kam Leung, and I can say that Bayer's "structure" and abilities are just as good. Different, of course, but just as good.

@t_niehoff
Have you ever trained with Bayer?

Cheers,
Sean

No, I haven't. All I have to go by is his videos and what some of his students, like Kevin and Graham, report are his "teachings".

[k gledhill]

Hey Kevin!

I think we may be talking past each other with semantics. What I am calling "sticking", you may be seeing as "chasing." We don't "chase hands" in Chi Sao and we don't overdo the sticking to the dummy arms. But the fact remains that you can't do the dummy without maintaining a good amount of contact with the dummy arms. Otherwise, what's the point of having the arms at all? Going by my prior example.....moving from Jum Sao to Huen Sao to a low palm on the dummy....do you do that without losing contact with the dummy arm? If you do, then you are "sticking".

the action you refer to is not to maintain contact with an arm in 1:1 application.

imagine an old school large paper cutter with a long lever and a cutting edge underneath it. The 'huen' is not the key action, the elbow as the 'cutter hinge' is. It controls the forearm to 'cut' down and make the opponents low midsection punch/strike get displaced by the cut of the forearm/elbow.
The wrist iow doesnt do the action and sacrifice the elbow , lifting it to create a sticking 'hook'. Its easy to hit you if your elbow pops up like the dummy action , ergo we keep the dummy very low to develop the elbow principle further.

The jum sao [inside forearm] is launched simultaneously as the lowering midsection parry with huen so the lowering arm has an attacking hand backing it up.....and taking the forward line defense over as it attacks.

in chi-sao this can be dont from a bong that suddenly lowers on the partners tan sao [as a low midsection role play], with a jum sao strike together ...if you lift the elbow or dont bring it to center the partners tan can keep striking you to show a bad elbow, not a 1:1 fighting application from 2 extended arms in a drill...get it ?


btw the 3 palms of VT

vertical palm from tan sao makes the elbow expand off the line [tan elbow], try to do a palm in front of your centerline arm a little extended, then do a horizontal palm from this position and you will see the elbow contract in towards the centerline [jum elbow] while the palm stays centered. The point is that you can change the elbows of tan and jum while still striking on the centerline. Same as stepping into the dummy from the sides with both tan and a jum [horizontal palm] each is a strike at the opponent with BOTH POSSIBLE ELBOW STRIKES ..[we arent doing 1:1 applict...] ..but we dont know which would lead so we train facing and alignment [we dont fight with 2 'equally' extended arms as the drills]
the 3rd palm a low palm for pushing with a fixed elbow inwards [immovable elbow]

We can also use the rear pak sao to back up the lowering forearm> sidepalm or punch as it goes into a strike after displacing the midsection strike, the elbow being brought to your center as you strike brings the stance/structure force unity with momentum etc...so the key action is elbow control [your own].

Step away from each other and then step back and try to do these actions BEFORE you try to 'roll' then step back and step in a again ...you see that your visiting a person with attacking in mind, lat sao chit cheung instantly if they dont stop your punch as you reach this point in space and time we call chi-sao distance.....we enter into this space with a lead and a rear hand to work our way in regardless of attempts to stop us.

Progressively you see less 'sticking' attempts, instead you develop lightning fast attacking actions based off an entry 'mistake' like subtle hand chase offline to our leading attacking hand opening up for the rear, or a low bong you simply punch them in the face for, a bad bong that doesnt do anything , a 'hesitation' from your partner that allows you to keep attacking, bad stance when you 'clash' making it easy to strike or trap them from refacing.... All from entry to this point in space.
What hand leads and strikes depends on the angles you and your partner make, this can change many times before you even make an attack as each of you moves sideways /laterally, before even putting lead leg forwards....allowing the other to give the tactical entry , role playing in chi-sao allows us to react intuitively to this 'moment' thoughtlessly and maintain it without hesitstion, thus allowing the opponent to regain 'safe space'.

The dummy gives out 'unity' of action a sudden shocking /ballistic force to further turn or mishape a persons structure, so we can make punches on them or keep them defensive 'we are the rain, they are the windshield wipers'....if someone throws a bucket of water at you do you attempt to stand your ground and chase the drops of water ? or make defensive counter moves with your own bucket as you seek dry positions...further imagine your opponent has a cup of water in each hand and your trying to stop them from being able to throw both , so you turn them o trap them from facing momentarily so you can wet them first...this requires mobility and freedom to aim your water not play hand sticking games.

Terences responses prove he hasnt really ever KO'd a guy with a VT punch ; )...if he had all this talk of 'controlling' is redundant, you dont need to control guys lying down unconcious, or holding their [choose body part] in intense pain due to the fact you just hit them there...I have lost count fo guys who I had to deliver a strike in real force and situation. Its moot to talk about how good a fighter they are, becasue I am defending myself regardless....do i let them hit me to see if they have a good punch ? ask them their qualifications before engaging ina fight with them ? you see my point. I fight you blind you might be a black belt in 3 methods but I could care less.....

reality is all the OVER control guys indulge in is due to a lack of real experience of what happens when you deliver a VT punch into a guys head...

The real 'control' we learn isnt to control the other person...its to control our OWN ability .

[k gledhill]

Why is it that we always HEAR about how so-and-so did this or did that -- all the fighting he did do -- but we never see any evidence of it?

He puts up all kinds of clips of himself, why not ONE sparring clip? Why put up clip after clip showing him doing chi sao when he could put up clips with some significance?

But, to be fair, I have no doubt that you guys "spar". So do lame-ass, strip mall karate studio guys. Crap sparring with crap is meaningless. And, more importantly, it is all part of the brainwashing. It is like guys who train to fight hopping on one leg -- and then saying that they "spar" and that they can make it work. Of course they can -- because they are only "sparring" with other guys hopping on one leg! Whenever people with extremely limited tools/skills, like chain-punchers, "spar" with others having only extremely limited tools/skills, like their classmates, they SEEM to be able to make what they do work. Hell, aikido guys can make their aikido work in the aikido dojo. But that proves nothing. It is all part of the brainwashing (this is great stuff, we make it work, my sifu is so skilled, etc.).



Are there any videos of any of this? MMA fights are, for example, routinely video-taped.



I guess then that he only puts up videos of himself where he has poor structure, where he doesn't destabilize, control, etc.



No, I haven't. All I have to go by is his videos and what some of his students, like Kevin and Graham, report are his "teachings".


Terence has another person who experienced P Bayer 1st hand but still likes to make an argument without any personal first hand experience. He cant 'see' the force so its fantasy :D Im telling you PB is awesome...way ahead of us on the 'vt perfection loop'....

[k gledhill]

Kevin,

As I recall, you were flying Victor Kan's flag that day you visited Hawkins school with Victor Kan. Victor had you demonstrate SNT and CK, and roll.

You probably realize that we treated you like a visitor and a student of Victor Kan, Hawkins' senior. As a result, we just treated you politely - no egos, no need to dominate or control.

I'm sorry to say that my recollection of the events were simply we rolled and may have had a few Gor Sao, but in politeness, and hardly anything memorable. You hardly controlled me or Wally, Eric, or Elliot. You didn't have the proper mechanics at that time, as you "floated" and were largely "unrooted" doing that version of VT. And you were all "shoulder heavy" and shifted a lot "on top of the ground" rather than having root or control. That was hardly anything to boast about, which I am sure you now know doing the Bayer/WSL method (which I assume you could see your "limitations" after learning.)

The mechanics of what you were practicing at that time were severely limited, nothing like what WSL taught. I did Chi Sao with Gary Lam, his brother, David Peterson, and WSL himself, so I know what WSL VT feels like. Hawkins also was close to his senior WSL. It simply wasn't enough to "dominate".

Look at it simply, "fast hands" vs. "optimal body alignment"? What do you think is more powerful?

You had nothing of WSL VT at that time.

Kevin, we don't have to make this a p*ssing match, but you hardly kicked anyone's "arse" that day. The most we got out of it was "5 feet 2, eyes are blue" (whatever that means), a disgust of poor body mechanics VT way, (as you may recall nobody wanted a "certificate of attendance"), and more appreciation of our Sifu's teaching.

Please Kev, in your arguments with people here, don't just make stuff up to justify your view to defend your ego.


Okaaaay, Your Sifu complemented me on my use of bongsaos at the dinner after, that you didnt attend. I used these bong saos to turn your upper body power [tall guy] and you didnt have an answer for it so you took me back to the rear door outside so we could be alone and asked me all about bong saos, you peered over our arms like a bird as we 'rolled'....;) remember ?

I didnt say I kaarse...V Kan actually teaches very good mechanics it worked against you
didnt it.

Anyway your always welcome to come to ny and join in a class as old buddy's :D

My replies are aimed at Terence not you. He insults me I am a mirror, VK taught me that.

[LoneTiger108]

The question was posed by Kenton.. I know what he means.. He means the drill ChiSao...

Are your eyes rolling because you're dizzy? If so then sit down and breath.

LukSao is the rolling.. The rolling is the basis for ChiSao, which is how we refer to the main two handed sticking drill. The term ChiSao could be used to refer to any contact (sticking) drill but is most commonly used to refer to the two handed drill.. This should not be news to anyone..

As I said LukSao is the rolling, the platform for two handed ChiSao... What you see and think is still a mystery..


I really don't know why you're wasting your breath dude :confused: Lets just be honest with eachother. You don't know what I mean by Looksau. You just have your own interpretation of what you 'think' it is as for you it's all within this 'chisau' drill, yes? Let me ask you this, what is the difference between hand and forearm contact? Can you 'stick' and really control me with your forearm? :o

Looksau isn't only about rolling, it's about breaking structure and getting into hand to body contact range. Specific two handed postures are used to do this. They are linked and cycled. They help to actually defend chisau, and so I have to say you are not on my page man. You're thinking its all the same. All contact is Chisau? I have to disagree. :rolleyes:


ChiSao is a learning and teaching platform..

Ah, he's teaching how to be beaten.. Uh huh.. Care to elaborate?

I can't really be bothered. Was he really 'teaching' how to be beaten? No. He was just beating his student, he wasn't teaching him to do that. And FWIW he was using Looksau alot to gain the advantage against someone who didn't know the difference between Looksau and Chisau. :D

A common misinterpretation in Wing Chun today is thinking that all interactive exercises are Chisau. :rolleyes:

[Sean66]

@t_niehoff

I think if you were to train with Bayer just once, your opinion of him and his gong fu would radically change.

Likening Bayer and his students to "lame-ass, strip mall karate studio guys" without having experienced their training first-hand is simply unfair.

Why so much animosity?

Sean

[sihing]

Curious.

What are you 'doing' when practicing the Chi Sau?

Are you practicing Sticky Hands?
Definition:a : adhesive b (1) : viscous, gluey (2) : coated with a sticky substance

Or are you practicing Sticking Hands?
Definition: to hit or propel (as a hockey puck) with a stick (ergo: to stick an animal to death)

..something to think about...

Sticking hands is how I interpret it.

What are we practicing in Chi sau:
-structure development, without some sort of support behind your attacks
you have nothing. Imagine being hung up in the air in a harness, your off
the ground, now trying punching or kicking something with power, see what
happens.

-body mechanic development, how does your body perform the task, how
does it punch (frm inside or outside of bridge), how does it handle pressure,
excert pressure, divert pressure. Elbow initiation of all upper body movement
, dan chi brings SNT mechanics/structure alive, interaction with live energy.
Luk sau brings both 2 side alive training, so your 50/50 in your limbs actions, keeps
your facing correct.

-Lat sau jik chung- spring like reflexes within your arms and body, fills in the
gaps when holes are developed in your opponents defences, automatic
striking ability.

-prolonged contact drills train the neuromuscular system (muscle memory) to
aim, travel, flow, connect, project, punch, etc... all your focused power into
the center axis of your opponent. Why does lifting weight increase your
muscle size/strength? Because the prolonged stress over time forces the
muscles to adapt to that stress environment, they get bigger and stronger,
forcing you to increase the stress(weight) to force more of the same.

Just to name a few.

Regarding the other topics that have arisen from this thread, in my experience, until you have "personally" met and trained with someone, you really don't know what their knowledge/abilities are, as they may be making you think they do or don't know something from what they post online or on vids.

James

[Graham H]

I have trained with Bayer plenty of times during workshops in Germany, and all I can say is that his "structure" is amazing. His whole body is behind whatever he does, be it a punch, jut sau, lap sau....everything. He destabilizes, controls and hits his opponent simultaneously.

Something that Terence will never witness and I think that's a good thing.

I haven't seen any good structure or VT in ANY video T has offered to prove his point. Its just messy, ineffective rubbish that is practiced in many WCK schools today.

When PB was asked what he wanted for the future of WSLVT he simply said....."to keep the foolish people away from the system"

Terence falls directly in the middle of that category.

The more posts Terence puts up the bigger the hole he digs. It used to frustrate me but now I find it amusing. Keep 'em coming Terence. :D;)

GH

[YungChun]

You don't know what I mean by Looksau. You just have your own interpretation of what you 'think' it is as for you it's all within this 'chisau' drill, yes? Let me ask you this, what is the difference between hand and forearm contact? Can you 'stick' and really control me with your forearm? :o


You're changing the subject... LukSao is the rolling platform, I did not flesh out what that means or what it's purpose is....

The contact points in LukSao ranges between the wrist and forearm area.. That's where the contact is... The power comes from the horse and connection through structure..



Looksau isn't only about rolling, it's about breaking structure and getting into hand to body contact range.

And you think this is some new concept? Yes, of course, no one has been writing post after post about this stuff for years except you, right? GMAFB.



Specific two handed postures are used to do this. They are linked and cycled. They help to actually defend chisau, and so I have to say you are not on my page man. :rolleyes:

On your delusional page, no certainly I hope not.

Specific postures? Wow that's amazing..



You're thinking its all the same. All contact is Chisau? I have to disagree.


All you have is an ego contest, semantics and straw man arguments.. "All the same" is your wording.. All contact drills involving sticking are considered ChiSao because ChiSao means Sticking Hands, eg Sticking Hand Drills, even you should be able to understand that..



I can't really be bothered. Was he really 'teaching' how to be beaten? No. He was just beating his student, he wasn't teaching him to do that. And FWIW he was using Looksau alot to gain the advantage against someone who didn't know the difference between Looksau and Chisau. :D


He was demonstrating control using the tools and actions of Chun in a drill we call ChiSao.. Your superior tone without backing it up just makes you sound more the fool--superiority through semantics--yes very impressive and it's all you've got.

Of course he teaches LukSao, of course we do and learn LukSao it's a prerequisite to the two handed drill we call ChiSao... LukSao is mainly a 'fight' for position; for control of the line, the center...



A common misinterpretation in Wing Chun today is thinking that all interactive exercises are Chisau. :rolleyes:

Still dizzy eh?

All sticking drills are considered ChiSao, (Sticking Hand Drills) not just the two handed drill ChiSao that uses LukSao as it's platform.. The labels are secondary to the purpose....

[t_niehoff]

@t_niehoff

I think if you were to train with Bayer just once, your opinion of him and his gong fu would radically change.

Likening Bayer and his students to "lame-ass, strip mall karate studio guys" without having experienced their training first-hand is simply unfair.

Why so much animosity?

Sean

What am I to think of people who teach and SELL WCK to others for money, put up videos on youtube to promote themselves and their business, claim to be authorities on WCK, have organizations, claim to be able to teach you to fight, etc. but never, ever show themselves being able to handle themselves in fighting (oh, but they will put up all kinds of demo videos, won't they?)?

And, then his students promote a "theory" that is simply stupid?'

What am I to think?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, . . . .

[k gledhill]

What am I to think of people who teach and SELL WCK to others for money, put up videos on youtube to promote themselves and their business, claim to be authorities on WCK, have organizations, claim to be able to teach you to fight, etc. but never, ever show themselves being able to handle themselves in fighting (oh, but they will put up all kinds of demo videos, won't they?)?

And, then his students promote a "theory" that is simply stupid?'

What am I to think?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, . . . .

your so biased its obvious to us all....you have an agenda Terence, its sad really because your promoting 'yourself' and your ego here, regardless of ideas and opinions , you try to shoot people down in flames for the mark you can put on your old sopwith camel [aka old mans ego] :D

You havent really got that much 1st hand experience, and yet you flaunt yourself as a an authority with only 'faat twitch twitch' knowledge....:D

[Graham H]

Post deleted

[Sean66]

Hello Terence,

I am no spokesman for Bayer, but I'm pretty sure that he just doesn't feel that he has to prove anything to you or anybody else. His goal is to make what he learned from WSL work for him and to pass on his knowledge to his students.

I can understand your skepticism, but to dismiss the skills of someone like Philipp out-right, based solely upon what you've seen on youtube, is unfair. Go train with with him. Then we'll have a better basis for real discussion.

On topic:

Chi sao - structure, coordination, orientation (square on idea), distance, timing, lat sua jik chung, footwork....it's all in there.

[t_niehoff]

Hello Terence,

I am no spokesman for Bayer, but I'm pretty sure that he just doesn't feel that he has to prove anything to you or anybody else. His goal is to make what he learned from WSL work for him and to pass on his knowledge to his students.

I can understand your skepticism, but to dismiss the skills of someone like Philipp out-right, based solely upon what you've seen on youtube, is unfair. Go train with with him. Then we'll have a better basis for real discussion.

On topic:

Chi sao - structure, coordination, orientation (square on idea), distance, timing, lat sua jik chung, footwork....it's all in there.

Should I go train with everyone who posts WCK clips on youtube and give them all a chance?

You are looking at it from the wrong direction. I don't ASSUME someone has skills; I assume they don't UNTIL I SEE good evidence to the contrary. Bayer posts his own clips to youtube. He isn't posting them because he thinks they show him in a bad light. And that tells me he doesn't know they show him in a bad light. Based on what I see and what I hear of his teachings, training with Bayer would be training to fail.

[Graham H]

Bayer posts his own clips to youtube. He isn't posting them because he thinks they show him in a bad light. And that tells me he doesn't know they show him in a bad light. Based on what I see and what I hear of his teachings, training with Bayer would be training to fail.

If you are not prepared to Terence then why can't you button it for a change?

PB doesn't put up his own clips. :rolleyes:

What you see and what you hear compared to what really goes on are two totally different things. I know it, KG knows it and so do all the other people that I have told to come on here and look at your ramblings.

You really have no clue. The fact that you think you have is great reading!!! :D

GH

[t_niehoff]

If you are not prepared to Terence then why can't you button it for a change?


Hey, dude, it is not like I picked Bayer out of all the WCK people on the planet to criticize -- Kevin, and now you -- post what you claim are his "teachings", and I respond to them. Kevin portrays him as essentially the only person who has "the right idea" (LOL!).

If you and Kevin stop posting nonsense (it's all about the elbow, tan/jum punching, etc.) then I have nothing more to say about the guy.



PB doesn't put up his own clips. :rolleyes:


Oh, I see -- he's not responsible for the crap. ;) He has a website, there are clips that promote him, etc. but he isn't posting them. Gotcha.



What you see and what you hear compared to what really goes on are two totally different things. I know it, KG knows it and so do all the other people that I have told to come on here and look at your ramblings.


So what he does when the camera is on is one thing and what he does when it is off is another. Right. Apparently, when the camera is on, his punch is weak, he has no control, no decent body structure, etc. but turn that baby off and lookout!



You really have no clue. The fact that you think you have is great reading!!! :D
GH

If it's so much fun, why do you keep asking me to stop? ;)

[Graham H]

Hey, dude, it is not like I picked Bayer out of all the WCK people on the planet to criticize -- Kevin, and now you -- post what you claim are his "teachings", and I respond to them. Kevin portrays him as essentially the only person who has "the right idea" (LOL!).

No Terence you critisize everybody apart from RC and AO and at the same time put yourself on your imaginary pedestal. Like I have said before.......you never offer anything that I haven't heard or seen before. Its all pants!!! ;)


If you and Kevin stop posting nonsense (it's all about the elbow, tan/jum punching, etc.) then I have nothing more to say about the guy.

Its not nonsense Terence. You just dont know anything about it. That much is obvious.


Oh, I see -- he's not responsible for the crap. ;) He has a website, there are clips that promote him, etc. but he isn't posting them. Gotcha.

Is the correct answer. I wouldn't be so hasty to call it crap either because you have no idea and have never met the guy.


his punch is weak, he has no control, no decent body structure, etc. but turn that baby off and lookout!

All this from video footage???? You are amazing!!!



If it's so much fun, why do you keep asking me to stop?


Good point!!!!. In fact the only time you talk sense is when its not about WCK. :D:D:D:D

GH

[t_niehoff]

No Terence you critisize everybody apart from RC and AO and at the same time put yourself on your imaginary pedestal. Like I have said before.......you never offer anything that I haven't heard or seen before. Its all pants!!! ;)


As I've indicated, WCK's method is controlling while striking, and while this is what Robert teaches, so do many others (Lam, Wan, Moy, SN, Hawkins, Pan Nam, Gu Lao, HFY, etc.). It is, after all, part of the core curriculum of WCK. Good WCK is based on control (and controlling the opponent); poor WCK has little to no control.



Its not nonsense Terence. You just dont know anything about it. That much is obvious.


Again, all of that is just a small part of WCK, and everyone has it. Bayer has just mistaken it for the whole.



Is the correct answer. I wouldn't be so hasty to call it crap either because you have no idea and have never met the guy.


I haven't met most of the people who post crap on youtube! Why do you think that I need to personally meet everyone to see that what they are doing is crap?



All this from video footage???? You are amazing!!!


Hardly. All you have to do is look at what he is doing and how he is doing it.



Good point!!!!. In fact the only time you talk sense is when its not about WCK. :D:D:D:D

GH

Oh, I talk sense then too.

[LoneTiger108]

The contact points in LukSao ranges between the wrist and forearm area.. That's where the contact is... The power comes from the horse and connection through structure..

If you say so, but can you STICK to me with your forearm? Does that work better, or is it more efficient than sticking to me with your hands?? Hmmm... you sure you're not dizzy now?? :D


Specific postures? Wow that's amazing..

Okay. Name them. You must know them or you wouldn't be so condescending yourself. We refer to them as Sei Sik (Four Sets) and it is considered a speciality of Lee Shing Family as they're used everywhere!

So, please share what you know of the four sets of looksau...


All you have is an ego contest, semantics and straw man arguments.. "All the same" is your wording.. All contact drills involving sticking are considered ChiSao because ChiSao means Sticking Hands, eg Sticking Hand Drills, even you should be able to understand that..

Listen, just because I make contact with you I don't HAVE to stick y'know? Yes, I know it's our speciality, but it is just one method. That's all I was saying. Not trying to polish my ego here. In fact I'm totally ego-less. Ask people who know me! ;)


Of course he teaches LukSao, of course we do and learn LukSao it's a prerequisite to the two handed drill we call ChiSao... LukSao is mainly a 'fight' for position; for control of the line, the center...

Still dizzy eh?

All sticking drills are considered ChiSao, (Sticking Hand Drills) not just the two handed drill ChiSao that uses LukSao as it's platform.. The labels are secondary to the purpose....

Sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself dude ;) I only tried to highlight that I take Chisau training as something different to Looksau training. Yes they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and are normally practised together all the time! Problems arise when you don't know where you're at or what's happening to you during your interaction. And I generally see this ALL the time online.

Put it this way, my Looksau will hit and hurt the opponent. My Chisau will stick to and stop the opponent. Totally different outcomes and something I only ask for you to consider. Like I said, if you know what Looksau I'm talking about SHOW ME :rolleyes:

Look at this clip and tell me where the Looksau and Chisau is because they are both clearly present, with even more in there too. But that's another chat :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkp19KV9xg&playnext=1&list=PL913355AE6F4959A7&index=26

[shawchemical]

If you say so, but can you STICK to me with your forearm? Does that work better, or is it more efficient than sticking to me with your hands?? Hmmm... you sure you're not dizzy now?? :D



Okay. Name them. You must know them or you wouldn't be so condescending yourself. We refer to them as Sei Sik (Four Sets) and it is considered a speciality of Lee Shing Family as they're used everywhere!

So, please share what you know of the four sets of looksau...



Listen, just because I make contact with you I don't HAVE to stick y'know? Yes, I know it's our speciality, but it is just one method. That's all I was saying. Not trying to polish my ego here. In fact I'm totally ego-less. Ask people who know me! ;)



Sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself dude ;) I only tried to highlight that I take Chisau training as something different to Looksau training. Yes they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and are normally practised together all the time! Problems arise when you don't know where you're at or what's happening to you during your interaction. And I generally see this ALL the time online.

Put it this way, my Looksau will hit and hurt the opponent. My Chisau will stick to and stop the opponent. Totally different outcomes and something I only ask for you to consider. Like I said, if you know what Looksau I'm talking about SHOW ME :rolleyes:

Look at this clip and tell me where the Looksau and Chisau is because they are both clearly present, with even more in there too. But that's another chat :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkp19KV9xg&playnext=1&list=PL913355AE6F4959A7&index=26

I dont know why people keep promoting that crap as being good. It fundamentally lacks almost everything which VT seeks to achieve.

[t_niehoff]

I dont know why people keep promoting that crap as being good. It fundamentally lacks almost everything which VT seeks to achieve.

You mean your fantasy fu VT, right?

[Wayfaring]

Should I go train with everyone who posts WCK clips on youtube and give them all a chance?


Yes (+ word unfairly moderated out by Dave as it contains appropriate color commentary).

:D:D:D:D:D

But if the rolling with nobody and commenting about everybody is working for you, I don't want to ruin your momentum. ;)

[Alan Orr]

I dont know why people keep promoting that crap as being good. It fundamentally lacks almost everything which VT seeks to achieve.


Who is Shawchemical? I never understand why people don't just use their name?

VT? problem - lots of views on what chi sao is about and how to train it. Its just a tool for developing your skills.

Answer - does your wing chun work in a fight or under pressure.

If so then you will start having some feedback that others can learn from.

On fourms I hear so much talk. Best thing is to meet the people you are talking about before you have anything to say. Otherwise statements lack any depth of meaning.

Alan Orr

[Alan Orr]

Okaaaay, Your Sifu complemented me on my use of bongsaos at the dinner after, that you didnt attend. I used these bong saos to turn your upper body power [tall guy] and you didnt have an answer for it so you took me back to the rear door outside so we could be alone and asked me all about bong saos, you peered over our arms like a bird as we 'rolled'....;) remember ?

I didnt say I kaarse...V Kan actually teaches very good mechanics it worked against you
didnt it.

Anyway your always welcome to come to ny and join in a class as old buddy's :D

My replies are aimed at Terence not you. He insults me I am a mirror, VK taught me that.

Thats funny as I trained many years ago in Kan's style did not ever see body mechanics being taught.

Lots of turning punches and chain punching. In fact the reason I stopped was due to the lack of body mechanics. I saw the WSL method and could see it had better angles, but again not clear body power, then I was Si Gung H Cheung via a visiting student and that was the first time I saw correct body mechanics - that lead me to my teacher Robert Chu. My opinion of course, but based in the real world.

Alan

[YungChun]

I saw the WSL method and could see it had better angles, but again not clear body power, then I was Si Gung H Cheung via a visiting student and that was the first time I saw correct body mechanics - that lead me to my teacher Robert Chu. My opinion of course, but based in the real world.


Not everyone from each family has it or not.. There are wide variations in my family for example with some people totally not having good mechanics and others very much having good mechanics.. So I tend not to buy into the brand as much as the who and how.

[YungChun]

If you say so, but can you STICK to me with your forearm? Does that work better, or is it more efficient than sticking to me with your hands?? Hmmm... you sure you're not dizzy now?? :D

Yes, you're completely ego-less.....right...

I don't know what you're talking about and that's exactly what you want. If you really wanted to discuss something you would--you're not--you're having some kind of masturbatory ego stroke session with yourself with these responses--yuck!

LukSao for my family is as I described it.. If you would care to share some actual point or idea go right ahead and actually flesh one out.



Okay. Name them. You must know them or you wouldn't be so condescending yourself. We refer to them as Sei Sik (Four Sets) and it is considered a speciality of Lee Shing Family as they're used everywhere!


See above.. If you would like to share what your family names things and how you break things down great.. I am not familiar with your families' names for these things..



Listen, just because I make contact with you I don't HAVE to stick y'know? Yes, I know it's our specialty, but it is just one method. That's all I was saying. Not trying to polish my ego here. In fact I'm totally ego-less. Ask people who know me! ;)


The people who "know you" most likely haven't followed your posting here..either that or love is blind.

Again, if you would like to flesh out some actual point then be my guest..otherwise you're not saying much.... It's up to the poster to make a clear point, or not.. So far not so much...



Sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself dude ;) I only tried to highlight that I take Chisau training as something different to Looksau training.

I am trying to explain how we train...I have no need to "convince myself" of that. If you would like to do that then by all means do it.

We do not separate "LukSao training" and two handed ChiSao training except for beginners... Beginners are restricted to LukSao when they are learning LukSao, then later they simply do ChiSao where LukSao is the base.. Still at that time they are (or were when I was learning) encouraged to focus their ChiSao work on something in particular, which could be a technique, tool, or a tactic such as lut sao jik chung, other Kuit elements, controlling the partner, FanSao, etc..rather than simply doing freestyle ChiSao, which is considered more advanced and done later on... I have written more about what and how we do what we do over the years here...



Yes they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and are normally practised together all the time! Problems arise when you don't know where you're at or what's happening to you during your interaction. And I generally see this ALL the time online.

Too general a statement to comment on.

You made some disparaging remarks about WKL's work, why not actually back them up...?


Put it this way, my Looksau will hit and hurt the opponent. My Chisau will stick to and stop the opponent. Totally different outcomes and something I only ask for you to consider. Like I said, if you know what Looksau I'm talking about SHOW ME :rolleyes:

Again you appear dizzy and with ego well intact..

And again your statement is very generic... I can't comment on generalities..

I already told you part of our progression... I know what we call LukSao and how we use it, if you would like to explain what you do, again go ahead, or ask for clarification of what we do.. I am not going to play, "Name our labels" and do a dance for you...

I wouldn't say I "hit" with LukSao--control, take posiiton, but hit? Depends on exactly how you implement.. So you would have to elaborate, we want to hit with strikes, train FanSao, Chun gives out beatings.

We use ChiSao to flesh out the methods we want, that I want to use in fighting... Pretty simple conceptually but a long list of components to train...and that's pretty much it.

[Graham H]

I saw the WSL method and could see it had better angles, but again not clear body power,
Alan

Who did you see in the WSL lineage Alan???? Not all of WSL's students have the right idea which is why I had to look further a field than the UK.

GH

[Alan Orr]

Who did you see in the WSL lineage Alan???? Not all of WSL's students have the right idea which is why I had to look further a field than the UK.

GH


I think I have seen most of the well known wsl guys over the years, thats not important. If you understand body structure you can see what is correct in terms of body power etc. I did meet WSL as well, so I know what he did and can see most people copy his forms and movements but without any depth of body skills.

I think WSL had the skills but from the way the forms are taught I can't see that he had a complete understanding of why he could do what he did. MY opinion based in first hand experience.


So Graham, who do you think have wsl right idea and who has not?

[Graham H]

I think I have seen most of the well known wsl guys over the years, thats not important. If you understand body structure you can see what is correct in terms of body power etc. I did meet WSL as well, so I know what he did and can see most people copy his forms and movements but without any depth of body skills.

I think WSL had the skills but from the way the forms are taught I can't see that he had a complete understanding of why he could do what he did. MY opinion based in first hand experience.


So Graham, who do you think have wsl right idea and who has not?

Alan

The right idea????? Maybe we shouldn't use that phrase anymore. There are more variations of WCK then I care to imagine. Funny because most of them claim to come from one man.

If everybody was the same we'd all be wearing Clarks shoes. :rolleyes:

The conversations are pointless. Just trawling over old ground time and time again.

FWIW I have looked at some videos of yours and I can't see any "body structure" at all BUT I'm not Terence and I would never jump to any stupid conclusions from viewing video footage.

Can you explain it because I maybe totally misinterpreting what you and the rest mean by body structure?


GH

[Sean66]

Maybe you'll find your answer in here Graham:

http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/articles/structure.html

Good stuff in there.

Sean

[k gledhill]

Thats funny as I trained many years ago in Kan's style did not ever see body mechanics being taught.

Lots of turning punches and chain punching. In fact the reason I stopped was due to the lack of body mechanics. I saw the WSL method and could see it had better angles, but again not clear body power, then I was Si Gung H Cheung via a visiting student and that was the first time I saw correct body mechanics - that lead me to my teacher Robert Chu. My opinion of course, but based in the real world.

Alan

I met your teacher and found he sacrificed upper body for a false sense of security....I used bong saos easily for this. I also have a student who trained under RC, who I didnt relly have to much to to gain advantage by the same upper body errors...he is a good fighter, but lacks the 'idea' to make me worry when I fight him, he arm chases, multi tasks one arm etc...but he is fast, he over compensates with 'body' that can easily be dealt with. Now guys say he wasnt training long enough with RC, what do you think they will say about you when you meet PB, ???

Saying you 'saw' WSL not clear body power ?
I met many many more too :D other WSL , other YM student...

Philipp Bayer ;) Try him Alan, fight him if you like. He is closer to you...what have you got to lose ?

As for VK he teaches the SLT and stance process very well, sadly without WSL/PB thinking attached, but the elbows are in, the pivoting on heels, the 'turning punches' you refer to are simply for CK exercises and facing ...

Philipp 'unlocks' the system we all do before us. He reveals the simple ideas and clarifies the abstract that has confused many, me included.
I now have a knowledge that allows me to feel confidence that I always lacked thorugh my old ways of training. Maybe you might gain insight further to your training ?

There is only one way to find out....Philipp isn't a bully minded guy, very humble. You can ask him anything.

warning ! be prepared to drop a lot of the bs you are now doing ; )

Having a base to work with [vt training] it will be easier for you, like me to make your decisions.

I would even put money on it .

[Graham H]

Maybe you'll find your answer in here Graham:

http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/articles/structure.html

Good stuff in there.

Sean

Thanks Sean but no I didn't find answers. I only had a few minutes during a break to skim through it. Maybe I will have another look later.

At first glance it just seems like over analysing the contact through rolling arms. How you deal with pressure, manipulate pressure and control peoples balance. All things possible if you are glued to each others arms.

I'm not disagreeing with anything wrote by Alan but my idea of VT is not "attached" fighting like theirs is so there is no point in considering the plus and negatives.

My idea of body structure is purely about how we can best use the body to support the punching and displacement actions of Ving Tsun.

When two people are in contact pushing each other around with their Bong Saus, Fook Saus, and Tan Saus its easy to see how such a drill can be misinterpreted.

Whether MY idea of Chi Sau is correct or not I'm happy with it because I didnt get very far using the "attached" way of WCK.


GH

[YungChun]

My idea of body structure is purely about how we can best use the body to support the punching and displacement actions of Ving Tsun.


Because you are assigning your own meaning to other's words..

They don't mean just the arms when they say stick..

Stick means stick to the core regardless.. Your punches, ALL Chun punches displace, take the line, it's not a new idea.. But where you fall off the ferry is when you fail to see the punches stick to their core and break them down..if their arms are in the way then........guess what? But the punches break them down, break down their structure and center regardless of arms in the way or not.. I think Kevin knows this...

So the structure is the structure, ALL Chun wants to break them down with those strikes.. . It's just that the art offers more and other options of control while you do that...

What's often missing is the synchronization of the horse (legs) with the hands.. (and that means a strong--solid--sunk--aligned--horse) Power comes from the legs/body--without this you are relying on arm power...

[LoneTiger108]

I don't know what you're talking about and that's exactly what you want. If you really wanted to discuss something you would--you're not--you're having some kind of masturbatory ego stroke session with yourself with these responses--yuck!

I wish I got such enjoyment from posting here, but guess what? I don't :rolleyes:


LukSao for my family is as I described it.. If you would care to share some actual point or idea go right ahead and actually flesh one out.

Okay, I have also described how I use Looksau but you must've missed it or something.


See above.. If you would like to share what your family names things and how you break things down great.. I am not familiar with your families' names for these things..

So what are YOUR names for things? How do you make sense of it all?


The people who "know you" most likely haven't followed your posting here..either that or love is blind.

I think, personally, you maybe taking my posts the wrong way dude. Seeing things that aren't really there. But I can't help that, as I'm just here to share and discuss ideas. No agenda attached. No egos in the room.


Again, if you would like to flesh out some actual point then be my guest..otherwise you're not saying much.... It's up to the poster to make a clear point, or not.. So far not so much...

I have already said Looksau is on the forearms (and wrist you say) whereas Chisau is all in the hands, but you think this isn't saying much? I beg to differ. Looksau, fme, is termed Rotating Arm/s whereas Chisau is Sticking Hand/s. I agree that they both help eachothers development, but I'm also saying that they should be developed individually. That's crucial or you will lose yourself when the practise deepens and speed enters the mix.


I already told you part of our progression... I know what we call LukSao and how we use it, if you would like to explain what you do, again go ahead, or ask for clarification of what we do.. I am not going to play, "Name our labels" and do a dance for you...

Please clarify the names of postures you use to teach Looksau. :D


I wouldn't say I "hit" with LukSao--control, take posiiton, but hit? Depends on exactly how you implement.. So you would have to elaborate, we want to hit with strikes, train FanSao, Chun gives out beatings.

Fme, the Looksau rotation is in itself quite a hefty force. Designed mainly for defence, yes, but if you walk into an elbow/shoulder/fist it is going to have an effect. Looksau hits all by itself. But what I was referring to was distancing. If we touch forearm to forearm we are both in hand-to-body contact range already. If we're both well versed it will be impossible for either to hit, until there is a mistake. However, if I'm touching your forearn with my palm to stick and manipulate, 9/10 times I will not be in the same close range. My opinion of course!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkp1...959A7&index=26

I dont know why people keep promoting that crap as being good. It fundamentally lacks almost everything which VT seeks to achieve.

Without getting into any good/bad opinions, I just posted this clip because it highlights what I'm (trying!) to say. Kind of ;)

[Alan Orr]

Alan

The right idea????? Maybe we shouldn't use that phrase anymore. There are more variations of WCK then I care to imagine. Funny because most of them claim to come from one man.

If everybody was the same we'd all be wearing Clarks shoes. :rolleyes:

The conversations are pointless. Just trawling over old ground time and time again.

FWIW I have looked at some videos of yours and I can't see any "body structure" at all BUT I'm not Terence and I would never jump to any stupid conclusions from viewing video footage.

Can you explain it because I maybe totally misinterpreting what you and the rest mean by body structure?


GH


If you can't see what body structure is then how can you have a view point?

I have written quite a few article on what it is already. But what you don't seem to be able to see is the linking and delling of the joints in the body to control an opponents weight and balance. This is what gives you timing and position.

Chi Sao for me is not just a quick chain punch and line changes. Its developement of my personal skill sets.

[t_niehoff]

My opinion of course, but based in the real world.


And therein lies the distinction.

[Alan Orr]

I met your teacher and found he sacrificed upper body for a false sense of security....I used bong saos easily for this. I also have a student who trained under RC, who I didnt relly have to much to to gain advantage by the same upper body errors...he is a good fighter, but lacks the 'idea' to make me worry when I fight him, he arm chases, multi tasks one arm etc...but he is fast, he over compensates with 'body' that can easily be dealt with. Now guys say he wasnt training long enough with RC, what do you think they will say about you when you meet PB, ???

Saying you 'saw' WSL not clear body power ?
I met many many more too :D other WSL , other YM student...

Philipp Bayer ;) Try him Alan, fight him if you like. He is closer to you...what have you got to lose ?

As for VK he teaches the SLT and stance process very well, sadly without WSL/PB thinking attached, but the elbows are in, the pivoting on heels, the 'turning punches' you refer to are simply for CK exercises and facing ...

Philipp 'unlocks' the system we all do before us. He reveals the simple ideas and clarifies the abstract that has confused many, me included.
I now have a knowledge that allows me to feel confidence that I always lacked thorugh my old ways of training. Maybe you might gain insight further to your training ?

There is only one way to find out....Philipp isn't a bully minded guy, very humble. You can ask him anything.

warning ! be prepared to drop a lot of the bs you are now doing ; )

Having a base to work with [vt training] it will be easier for you, like me to make your decisions.

I would even put money on it .

Not sure what you point is? Philipp Bayer looks okay and he he helped you with stuff you where confused about which is great for you. I am not confused at all and understand the system I train a very complete system, I don't have the same problems as you.

My teacher Robert Chu teaches me in a very clear way - to understand the principles in a very functional manner. Also I train with many professional fighters, so sparring with them and teaching them the CLS boxing skills of my wing chun as taught me a lot. The feedback we have has given us a great insight.

[Alan Orr]

Maybe you'll find your answer in here Graham:

http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/articles/structure.html

Good stuff in there.

Sean

Thank You Sean

[Alan Orr]

Thanks Sean but no I didn't find answers. I only had a few minutes during a break to skim through it. Maybe I will have another look later.

At first glance it just seems like over analysing the contact through rolling arms. How you deal with pressure, manipulate pressure and control peoples balance. All things possible if you are glued to each others arms.

I'm not disagreeing with anything wrote by Alan but my idea of VT is not "attached" fighting like theirs is so there is no point in considering the plus and negatives.

My idea of body structure is purely about how we can best use the body to support the punching and displacement actions of Ving Tsun.

When two people are in contact pushing each other around with their Bong Saus, Fook Saus, and Tan Saus its easy to see how such a drill can be misinterpreted.

Whether MY idea of Chi Sau is correct or not I'm happy with it because I didnt get very far using the "attached" way of WCK.


GH

Not sure what you mean by attached fighting. We chi sao we cross hands we sparr - boxing format (using our wing chun with gloves) kickboxing format - mma format.

I train and teach top professional fighters with our system, if it didn't work on each level I don't think they would be interested.

The chi sao in the clip is one way of training chi sao for feeling the persons body timing and reaction. Of course we can go for the kill each time. Then is roll finish - roll finish. That was not the drill.

I see a lot of guy chain punch changing angles in chi sao - all cool. But when then boxing they get hit all the time and have no power. One skill must feed the other otherwise as T often says its not real. He right when talking about that kind of chi sao.

Alan

[Alan Orr]

And therein lies the distinction.

We are getting deep now!

[k gledhill]

Not sure what you point is? Philipp Bayer looks okay and he he helped you with stuff you where confused about which is great for you. I am not confused at all and understand the system I train a very complete system, I don't have the same problems as you.

My teacher Robert Chu teaches me in a very clear way - to understand the principles in a very functional manner. Also I train with many professional fighters, so sparring with them and teaching them the CLS boxing skills of my wing chun as taught me a lot. The feedback we have has given us a great insight.

I understood the VK system well..like you understand RC idea
great ...

not what I meant....but nevermind.
your choice.

[Alan Orr]

I understood the VK system well..like you understand RC idea
great ...

not what I meant....but nevermind.
your choice.


Life is full of choices.

I know the WSL method well. So I can have an informed opinion. Simple.

A lot of people talk about what I do etc, but funny its guys I have never met.

[KPM]

A common misinterpretation in Wing Chun today is thinking that all interactive exercises are Chisau. :rolleyes:

I don't think so. The "common" thing in Wing Chun today is that different lineages define terms differently. So no one should go getting all out of sorts because one person defines "Chi Sau" in one way, and someone else has a different or broader definition of the term.

[Alan Orr]

I don't think so. The "common" thing in Wing Chun today is that different lineages define terms differently. So no one should go getting all out of sorts because one person defines "Chi Sau" in one way, and someone else has a different or broader definition of the term.

I like this, nice

[k gledhill]

Life is full of choices.

I know the WSL method well. So I can have an informed opinion. Simple.

A lot of people talk about what I do etc, but funny its guys I have never met.

So do I, informed , ive chi-saoed with your teacher :D Terence talks a lot about what I do and Philipp But met neither ...:D strange eh ?

anyway who cares eh? :D good luck fighting

[shawchemical]

You mean your fantasy fu VT, right?

Whatever you reckon nancy boy.

[shawchemical]

Who is Shawchemical? I never understand why people don't just use their name?

VT? problem - lots of views on what chi sao is about and how to train it. Its just a tool for developing your skills.

Answer - does your wing chun work in a fight or under pressure.

If so then you will start having some feedback that others can learn from.

On fourms I hear so much talk. Best thing is to meet the people you are talking about before you have anything to say. Otherwise statements lack any depth of meaning.

Alan Orr

It sure does work under pressure in real world confrontations. I'm not claiming to be the best in the world, or to be anywhere close to perfect, or even close to having the all of the tools of the system working for me.l But i will continue to work and improve. Chi sao is a drill. An incredibly useful drill as long as you don't begin to think that its all there is. It can be use.d in a variety of different manners, to focus on different things

Your comment about the heels not being on the ground is laughable. All you show in that clip is leaning on your training partner, and although you talk about the waist, you're not driving your movement from your waist.

If you never understand why people don't use their name, you don't understand much about the vulnerabilities of information on the internet.

Its not necessary to always meet people before you have something to say, not even close.

[k gledhill]

It sure does work under pressure in real world confrontations. I'm not claiming to be the best in the world, or to be anywhere close to perfect, or even close to having the all of the tools of the system working for me.l But i will continue to work and improve. Chi sao is a drill. An incredibly useful drill as long as you don't begin to think that its all there is. It can be use.d in a variety of different manners, to focus on different things

Your comment about the heels not being on the ground is laughable. All you show in that clip is leaning on your training partner, and although you talk about the waist, you're not driving your movement from your waist.

If you never understand why people don't use their name, you don't understand much about the vulnerabilities of information on the internet.

Its not necessary to always meet people before you have something to say, not even close.

heels pivot...upper body gets compromised otherwise, been there done that...

[Graham H]

Not sure what you mean by attached fighting.

A term coined by Terence on a regular basis.


We chi sao we cross hands we sparr

As do we......


I train and teach top professional fighters with our system, if it didn't work on each level I don't think they would be interested.

I respect that.


The chi sao in the clip is one way of training chi sao for feeling the persons body timing and reaction. Of course we can go for the kill each time. Then is roll finish - roll finish. That was not the drill.

The way I see it is why even roll at all. I can't see any point in the way you roll. I couldn't roll with you. Too many differences and we roll for different reasons.



I see a lot of guy chain punch changing angles in chi sao - all cool. But when then boxing they get hit all the time and have no power.

There is no chain punching in what I do and Philipp has a certain strategy in his VT. One I haven't seen until the time I met him.


One skill must feed the other otherwise as T often says its not real. He right when talking about that kind of chi sao.

In our lineage we train to spar. There is no rolling in sparring. Hands up and get stuck in. Its no different than how boxers do it.

I'd like to see Terence take part in one of PB's sparring sessions. I think he may leave with different ideas. Maybe you too Alan. Like you Philipp entertains all sorts of fighters. MMA, Boxers etc etc. As far as I know everybody that goes there from another lineage never goes back to their old ways. I am one of those people. :rolleyes:

GH

[t_niehoff]

So do I, informed , ive chi-saoed with your teacher :D Terence talks a lot about what I do and Philipp But met neither ...:D strange eh ?


So what if you chi sao'ed with Robert (how many years ago? in a friendly visit). That you think this is somehow meaningful proves you are clueless.

I can see for myself how Bayer moves, his structure, what he is doing and not doing from his own clips. He's not putting them up on youtube because HE thinks they are good examples of poor WCK (so he must not know any better). And I go by what YOU write concerning his "idea" of WCK.

[k gledhill]

So what if you chi sao'ed with Robert (how many years ago? in a friendly visit). That you think this is somehow meaningful proves you are clueless.

I can see for myself how Bayer moves, his structure, what he is doing and not doing from his own clips. He's not putting them up on youtube because HE thinks they are good examples of poor WCK (so he must not know any better). And I go by what YOU write concerning his "idea" of WCK.

Thats beside the point, being, you pass judgments without any FIRSTHAND experience....

you might think you see things, but like eating an apple you can look at it and imagine all you like how it will taste....you have to bite it with your own mouth, not others.

I can at least give informed opinions, regardless, because i actually experienced the methods mentioned.....friendly or unfriendly :D

[t_niehoff]

Thats beside the point, being, you pass judgments without any FIRSTHAND experience....


Yes, so what? If you say that you can levitate, do I need to meet you firsthand to know that you are full of sh1t?

I KNOW fighting. I train WCK, BJJ and MMA. I've put in a ton of work. I know what sorts of things are possible -- even if I can't do them -- and what are not. I see what things happen in fighting. So when someone tells me they will do this or that, I know from firsthand experience that whether they are talking sense or nonsense.

Your description of Bayer's theory/idea of WCK indicates that it is extremely limited, and rests essentially one one tactic of WCK. You seem to have missed the larger picture. I don't need to train personally with you or Bayer to know that you will NEED more -- much more -- to be able to fight successfully. And if you spent 30 minutes in a MMA gym, you'd know it too.

WCK's method is to control while striking. What makes WCK work is the control aspect, not the punching, not the elbow, etc. Without that control, we have nothing. It is the cornerstone of the method. It is our defense, it sets up our offense, etc.

[Sean66]

Yes, controlling the opponent while striking or controlling/disrupting the opponents "center" while remaining "centered" oneself is indeed the cornerstone of WCK.

And this is exactly what Bayer does.

He controls through his use of leverage/angling, through his sense of distance and timing, and through bringing his whole body mass behind every action.

At least that's what I've felt when rolling with him. like rolling against a wall. My own equilibrium being destroyed and my attacks falling into emptiness while he was hitting me. Same feeling that I had when rolling with WKL one time in Hong Kong, by the way.

There are many ways to control an opponent in a fight. I've already mentioned timing and distance, but also superior strategy and even psychology.....you don't necessarily have to have contact with the opponent to control/manipulate him.

Anyway, I really don't understand this bickering. Bayer is making the most out of what he learned from WSL and it works for him and his students. He never claimed to be the best, but has only sought to improve his skills (and those of his students) to the best of his ability.

Mr. Orr also has a good thing going and it works for him and his students. And to my knowledge he's not claiming to be the best either.

So where exactly is the problem? Or did I miss something?
I am new here, so please forgive my ignorance when it comes to old themes.

[CFT]

Sean, you're too "good" for this forum. ;)

If you stick around long enough you might be dragged down to the level of the mob.

[KPM]

heels pivot...upper body gets compromised otherwise, been there done that...

I disagree. My foundation is from a lineage that teaches to pivot on the heels. I practiced that way for many years until guys like Robert Chu and Zopa Gyatso on forums like this convinced me to try it otherwise. When I tried it I didn't get the results or acknowledge the difference right away. I had to keep practicing until I was good at the different method before I could admit that they were right. The upper body absolutely is not compromised when not pivoting on the heels....as long as you are doing it correctly. I also found my structure was much more solid by avoiding pivoting on my heels. Its comes down to simple biomechanics. If your weight is already on your heels when you are pivoting, then you have very little "reserve" to support your structure if pressed during the pivot. Any kind of "push off" against the opponent to apply "forward pressure" has to come almost exclusively from the hips and thighs, because being on the heels takes the calf muscles out of the equation. Again....lineage considerations aside and looking strictly from a biomechanical standpoint.....pivoting near the K1 point with close to 50/50 weight distribution engages the calf muscles for forward pressure and provides a "springy" reserve, almost like a shock absorber. The upper body absolutely does not get compromised, but is actually even more solid and functional. Been there...done that. But it took time and practice to do it well enough to see the benefits. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you can't argue against the fact that having the weight on the heels doesn't allow good use of the calf muscles or use of the the elasticity of the calf and arch of the foot. That is not to say that pivoting on the heels doesn't work. Obviously guys like WSL made it work very well! But it is not optimal from a anatomical viewpoint. And I know anatomy. ;)

[couch]

I disagree. My foundation is from a lineage that teaches to pivot on the heels. I practiced that way for many years until guys like Robert Chu and Zopa Gyatso on forums like this convinced me to try it otherwise. When I tried it I didn't get the results or acknowledge the difference right away. I had to keep practicing until I was good at the different method before I could admit that they were right. The upper body absolutely is not compromised when not pivoting on the heels....as long as you are doing it correctly. I also found my structure was much more solid by avoiding pivoting on my heels. Its comes down to simple biomechanics. If your weight is already on your heels when you are pivoting, then you have very little "reserve" to support your structure if pressed during the pivot. Any kind of "push off" against the opponent to apply "forward pressure" has to come almost exclusively from the hips and thighs, because being on the heels takes the calf muscles out of the equation. Again....lineage considerations aside and looking strictly from a biomechanical standpoint.....pivoting near the K1 point with close to 50/50 weight distribution engages the calf muscles for forward pressure and provides a "springy" reserve, almost like a shock absorber. The upper body absolutely does not get compromised, but is actually even more solid and functional. Been there...done that. But it took time and practice to do it well enough to see the benefits. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you can't argue against the fact that having the weight on the heels doesn't allow good use of the calf muscles or use of the the elasticity of the calf and arch of the foot. That is not to say that pivoting on the heels doesn't work. Obviously guys like WSL made it work very well! But it is not optimal from a anatomical viewpoint. And I know anatomy. ;)

I've always been curious as to how the heel-shift developed. A lot of my Moy Yat 'family' members shift on the heel...but when I talk to those who trained directly under Moy Yat, they advocate shifting with the 'whole foot' or on K1, etc.

A good friend of mine who practices Red Boat Wing Chun was taught by his Sifu, simply, to just shift. As long as the hips were moving correctly, he let the rest come naturally. I wonder if that's perhaps how teachers like Ip Man did things...and then that's why we have such differences between families.

[t_niehoff]

Yes, controlling the opponent while striking or controlling/disrupting the opponents "center" while remaining "centered" oneself is indeed the cornerstone of WCK.


OK, then we are on the same page. But this is not what Kevin says . . . .



And this is exactly what Bayer does.


Perhaps you're right. I would expect so considering his teacher was WSL, and that other WSL students, Lam, Wan, etc. focus on controlling the opponent while striking him. BUT, that isn't what he shows on his videos and isn't how his teachings have been "portrayed".



He controls through his use of leverage/angling, through his sense of distance and timing, and through bringing his whole body mass behind every action.


Yes, but there is more to it than that -- you also have to use the right tools to control the opponent. Punches alone can't control your opponent (except in rare cases). You also NEED to push, pull, wedge, lift, sink, etc. your opponent to both break their structure and keep it broken, which is the prerequisite to controlling him.



At least that's what I've felt when rolling with him. like rolling against a wall. My own equilibrium being destroyed and my attacks falling into emptiness while he was hitting me. Same feeling that I had when rolling with WKL one time in Hong Kong, by the way.


And that is what chi sao is for: to learn/practice controlling the opponent while striking him.



There are many ways to control an opponent in a fight. I've already mentioned timing and distance, but also superior strategy and even psychology.....you don't necessarily have to have contact with the opponent to control/manipulate him.


I think it more accurate to say that there are various levels of control, from very little to very high levels. Yes, you can have low levels of control on the outside (when not in contact). The problem is that WCK's is a close range, inside game, not an outside game (and so doesn't equip us with the tools to fight on the outside). If you compare WCK's tools with those of boxing, kickboxing, etc. -- which focus on the free-movement (outside) game - you can see this.

There is a reason that chi sao is our signature, core drill. And why boxing, kickboxing doesn't have an attached drill like that.

[KPM]

I've always been curious as to how the heel-shift developed.

---Me too! In my investigation of the mainland versions of WCK like Pin Sun and Yuen Kay Shan, I discovered that none of them that I encountered shifted on the heels. I know that Ho Kam Ming and Wong Shun Leung taught the heel shift. My hypothesis was that one of these senior Yip Man students was the one that began teaching it this way. But I have nothing solid to back that up.



A good friend of mine who practices Red Boat Wing Chun was taught by his Sifu, simply, to just shift. As long as the hips were moving correctly, he let the rest come naturally. I wonder if that's perhaps how teachers like Ip Man did things...and then that's why we have such differences between families.

---I think that's a pretty good theory! When I watched the limited video footage that we have of Yip Man, it was often hard to tell what part of the foot he was shifting on. Sometimes it looked like K1, and sometimes it looked like the heel. So he may very well have not been very specific on this topic and his students developed their own ideas on which was better. If WSL was the one to start teaching the heel pivot specifically, then it makes sense that some of his Si Dai would pick up on it and start doing it as well, since he was so well respected. But I have seen no Wing Chun methods that weren't connected to Yip Man that pivot on the heels.

[Peaceful Orchid]

Why would one shift on the heel? That is the least stable position. One can be knocked over easily if shifting on the heel. Plus, you can't develop any power on the heel.

[sihing]

The pivot is not "on" the heel, it is "from" the heel. The weight when pivoting does not go back on the heel for us to pivot, lol. The weight is evenly as possible distributed on the whole foot. If I found this to be weak when pressure was applied to my structure, I would have given it up 4 yrs ago.

The idea is to learn how to keep your center stable and straight, rather than swaying side to side, and is a very small part of the training, as you would never pivot like this in application. It gives you hip/waist sensitivity, connects the waist to the upper body which means we learn how to move as a unit with the legs/glutes providing power and stability to the upper body.

James

[sihing]

Why would one shift on the heel? That is the least stable position. One can be knocked over easily if shifting on the heel. Plus, you can't develop any power on the heel.

Go to a gym, and the squat area. Place two 45lbs plates on each side of a barbell, get in the middle of the bar and perform a squat with your heels off the ground, then with the heels on the ground, let us know which feels stronger/more stable and activates the thigh muscles.

James

P.S. If while squating down, you go back in direction (barbell behind your heels), you will fall over backwards, but if you adjust the direction of your squating, so that the barbell is centered with your feet, then you will have balance and power.

[KPM]

The pivot is not "on" the heel, it is "from" the heel. The weight when pivoting does not go back on the heel for us to pivot, lol. The weight is evenly as possible distributed on the whole foot.

James

Hi James!

You can "lol" all you want. But the fact remains that in order to pivot "from the heel", the majority of your body weight has to be "on the heels." This is not the optimal place for it to be. I agree that the weight can be as evenly distributed as possible to the whole foot. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you cannot pivot at the heel without the majority of the body weight being carried through that pivot point. You don't see boxers or kickboxers standing with their weight on their heels. They call this "standing flat-footed." They see it as an easy way to get knocked backwards if they are "caught" standing this way. They keep the majority of their weight further forward near the balls of the feet. The same is true for wrestlers, MMA fighters, track athletes, tennis players, football players, etc.

You cannot pivot around a point unless that point is carrying the majority of your weight. During a pivot "from the heel", there is a point during the pivot when you are vulnerable to being off-balanced to the rear because the majority of your weight is carried through the pivot point in order to allow the rest of the foot to shift. As I said before, you are also missing out on being able to use the calf muscles to generate power and the calf and arch of the foot to serve as a "reserve" when the majority of your weight is on your heels. These are physical/anatomical facts. So please don't laugh about it until you have taken the time to truly consider what is being said.

[KPM]

Go to a gym, and the squat area. Place two 45lbs plates on each side of a barbell, get in the middle of the bar and perform a squat with your heels off the ground, then with the heels on the ground, let us know which feels stronger/more stable and activates the thigh muscles.

James

P.S. If while squating down, you go back in direction (barbell behind your heels), you will fall over backwards, but if you adjust the direction of your squating, so that the barbell is centered with your feet, then you will have balance and power.


Squatting with a barbell is a poor analogy. It doesn't even come close to replicating the biomechanics of WCK. Here's a better experiment: have someone chase you around the gym trying to smack you with a wet towel. Avoid him as best you can. How much time do you spend with your weight back on your heels? :eek:

[sihing]

Hi James!

You can "lol" all you want. But the fact remains that in order to pivot "from the heel", the majority of your body weight has to be "on the heels." This is not the optimal place for it to be. I agree that the weight can be as evenly distributed as possible to the whole foot. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you cannot pivot at the heel without the majority of the body weight being carried through that pivot point. You don't see boxers or kickboxers standing with their weight on their heels. They call this "standing flat-footed." They see it as an easy way to get knocked backwards if they are "caught" standing this way. They keep the majority of their weight further forward near the balls of the feet. The same is true for wrestlers, MMA fighters, track athletes, tennis players, football players, etc.

You cannot pivot around a point unless that point is carrying the majority of your weight. During a pivot "from the heel", there is a point during the pivot when you are vulnerable to being off-balanced to the rear because the majority of your weight is carried through the pivot point in order to allow the rest of the foot to shift. As I said before, you are also missing out on being able to use the calf muscles to generate power and the calf and arch of the foot to serve as a "reserve" when the majority of your weight is on your heels. These are physical/anatomical facts. So please don't laugh about it until you have taken the time to truly consider what is being said.

Hi Keith,

My "lol" was directed more towards those that think one is back weighted and off balance (like a chair that is ready to be pushed over). All stances or situations where one is static causes one to be off balance somewhere, you may be able to handle pressure in one place, but not in a 360deg reference.

Now as one that pivots from the heel, that doesn't mean I'm a slave to it, or that the weighting in my stance is always there, it's ever changing and not always set in stone, the key thing like I mentioned it to learn how to keep one's center stable and not swaying side to side. Some in WC go away from center when they pivot, I don't, my center stays where it is and I absorb, deflect the pressure coming upon it. It's like someone that runs from pressure vs someone that takes the pressure and uses it. In my training, I've found that the thigh muscles are kicked in for the most part but on the releasing of my energy into my partner, the calf muscle kicks in as it is here that the heel rises a bit to release (which is just like any sport).

For me this has worked well in enhancing my structure, making it capable of handling some pressure and not having to run for it, other's may have a different experience, guess it depends on who they are learning from and how well they understand it.

James

[sihing]

Squatting with a barbell is a poor analogy. It doesn't even come close to replicating the biomechanics of WCK. Here's a better experiment: have someone chase you around the gym trying to smack you with a wet towel. Avoid him as best you can. How much time do you spend with your weight back on your heels? :eek:

Actually Keith I think we will have to agree to disagree. Much easier to discuss this stuff in person:)

James

[k gledhill]

I teach the 'foot' as a small tri-pod, ball of foot>outside edge> heel. weight even...

when we shift we slide the foot like an air hockey puck 3"x 3" small steps , allowing you to deliver a 'flat-line' of force, not a sine wave, while also maintaining balanced cog, blah blah...if we need to generate quadriceps we dont go onto the toe until after the heel has pushed into the gorund for = and opposite force through structure to fists [inch punch]....avoiding doing large steps making you heel / toe , heel/toe, losing the quads while moving, ergo small shuffling steps driven by the intial force of the quads into the heel, repeat 234....lets you deliver the 'line of force' uninterrupted while attacking....yak yak yak....:D

add body weight in motion, driven by these suddedn blasts from the quadriceps and hey presto you have a force YOU CANT SEE TERENCE :D...but you can feeeeeeel it ...whanna feel huh, whanna ..come to nyc, free lessons in simple s h i t :D.... I have had a lot of visitors ...

shifting on the balls of feet is possible but you dont get the hip blast of the heels driving into the ground for the = & opposite force...you may know anatomy , but simple physics is er a simple...keeping elbows low and in allows this energy to be harnessed ...invisibly TERENCE ! you CANT SEE IT IN CLIPS ! can you hear my large caps ?

We also do this hip heel unity thing in Knife ....dummy....CK...fighting...chi-sao.

heels are not the point of balance, they simply act as the generation point for force to come from the ground or vice versa.
Hawkins Cheung sifu, gave me a mini seminar in that one day, memorable.

[couch]

the key thing like I mentioned it to learn how to keep one's center stable and not swaying side to side. Some in WC go away from center when they pivot, I don't, my center stays where it is and I absorb, deflect the pressure coming upon it. It's like someone that runs from pressure vs someone that takes the pressure and uses it.

guess it depends on who they are learning from and how well they understand it.

James

Hey James!

Just to jump in here and clear something up.

I totally get the heel shift. There is a definitely linking that way from the heel, to the hip, to the elbow. I get it. It works realllly good with your, if you will, Wing Chun method.

However...to say that when shifting on the ball of the foot - one is swaying - is incorrect. But! I can see how this would look so. If, after heel shifting for a time, one were to try and shift on the ball with the same type of energy, one would sway.

As far as in my practice goes, the 'sway' is taken out of the equation by sinking the stance. The sinking or rather the bending of the knees (especially so on the back leg) is used to absorb and deflect the pressure as you talked about.

While I'm sure there are ball-of-foot-shifters out there who sway, I think the above explained mechanics will clear out how us *others* don't end up swaying.

Peace,
CTK

[sihing]

Hey James!

Just to jump in here and clear something up.

I totally get the heel shift. There is a definitely linking that way from the heel, to the hip, to the elbow. I get it. It works realllly good with your, if you will, Wing Chun method.

However...to say that when shifting on the ball of the foot - one is swaying - is incorrect. But! I can see how this would look so. If, after heel shifting for a time, one were to try and shift on the ball with the same type of energy, one would sway.

As far as in my practice goes, the 'sway' is taken out of the equation by sinking the stance. The sinking or rather the bending of the knees (especially so on the back leg) is used to absorb and deflect the pressure as you talked about.

While I'm sure there are ball-of-foot-shifters out there who sway, I think the above explained mechanics will clear out how us *others* don't end up swaying.

Peace,
CTK

Hi Kenton,

I was thinking more about the LT guys that sway side to side, as I have heard others say that pivoting from the K1 does not mean swaying is present:)

Hey, to each their own. For me, this heel pivoting thing is a very small part of the equation, it just sets a theme, which is "Don't run from pressure". I only posted because some think that the heel thing means we are chairs ready to fall over, which is not the case.

Kev G, good post, and I totally agree. It's a moment in time thing, but one has to do this slowly at first to be able to produce the natural effect. It's not like one is sitting in a bai jong stance, weight back on the heels waiting for a push to fall over, lol. Opps sorry Keith about the lol, couldn't help myself:)

James

[Alan Orr]

It sure does work under pressure in real world confrontations. I'm not claiming to be the best in the world, or to be anywhere close to perfect, or even close to having the all of the tools of the system working for me.l But i will continue to work and improve. Chi sao is a drill. An incredibly useful drill as long as you don't begin to think that its all there is. It can be use.d in a variety of different manners, to focus on different things

Your comment about the heels not being on the ground is laughable. All you show in that clip is leaning on your training partner, and although you talk about the waist, you're not driving your movement from your waist.

If you never understand why people don't use their name, you don't understand much about the vulnerabilities of information on the internet.

Its not necessary to always meet people before you have something to say, not even close.


How would you know what I am doing? You can't see my control as the skill is in the body movement and termed ' hidden skill' in kung fu. Hidden as you must feel it if you are not at the level to se it.

Yes you don't use your name so you don't have to back up your views.

[Alan Orr]

So do I, informed , ive chi-saoed with your teacher :D Terence talks a lot about what I do and Philipp But met neither ...:D strange eh ?

anyway who cares eh? :D good luck fighting

You chi sao with my teacher what 15 years ago, at a freindly seminar and have a totally different view of what happen. lol

Terence is very right in his views, its shame people can't see the truth of his points. He trains with fighters so he knows what is real application and what is drills. Chi Sao where you chain punch and switch a lot is not much value in a fight. Look out for a left hook!

[Alan Orr]

A term coined by Terence on a regular basis.



As do we......



I respect that.



The way I see it is why even roll at all. I can't see any point in the way you roll. I couldn't roll with you. Too many differences and we roll for different reasons.


There is no chain punching in what I do and Philipp has a certain strategy in his VT. One I haven't seen until the time I met him.



In our lineage we train to spar. There is no rolling in sparring. Hands up and get stuck in. Its no different than how boxers do it.

I'd like to see Terence take part in one of PB's sparring sessions. I think he may leave with different ideas. Maybe you too Alan. Like you Philipp entertains all sorts of fighters. MMA, Boxers etc etc. As far as I know everybody that goes there from another lineage never goes back to their old ways. I am one of those people. :rolleyes:

GH

You don't understand out training, which is fine. But posting comments about my lack of structure etc is pointless i that case.

I am sure you have your methods etc. as do I.

Chi Sao is what it is to different schools, thats all cool. In the end its down to what if develops for you.

I have 6 guys fighting this month. As a group we have over 20 plus fights - MMA Boxing a year, with good results.

I coach professional fighters in striking using our skills so tried and tested.

[Alan Orr]

Why would one shift on the heel? That is the least stable position. One can be knocked over easily if shifting on the heel. Plus, you can't develop any power on the heel.

That is correct.

[Alan Orr]

I disagree. My foundation is from a lineage that teaches to pivot on the heels. I practiced that way for many years until guys like Robert Chu and Zopa Gyatso on forums like this convinced me to try it otherwise. When I tried it I didn't get the results or acknowledge the difference right away. I had to keep practicing until I was good at the different method before I could admit that they were right. The upper body absolutely is not compromised when not pivoting on the heels....as long as you are doing it correctly. I also found my structure was much more solid by avoiding pivoting on my heels. Its comes down to simple biomechanics. If your weight is already on your heels when you are pivoting, then you have very little "reserve" to support your structure if pressed during the pivot. Any kind of "push off" against the opponent to apply "forward pressure" has to come almost exclusively from the hips and thighs, because being on the heels takes the calf muscles out of the equation. Again....lineage considerations aside and looking strictly from a biomechanical standpoint.....pivoting near the K1 point with close to 50/50 weight distribution engages the calf muscles for forward pressure and provides a "springy" reserve, almost like a shock absorber. The upper body absolutely does not get compromised, but is actually even more solid and functional. Been there...done that. But it took time and practice to do it well enough to see the benefits. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you can't argue against the fact that having the weight on the heels doesn't allow good use of the calf muscles or use of the the elasticity of the calf and arch of the foot. That is not to say that pivoting on the heels doesn't work. Obviously guys like WSL made it work very well! But it is not optimal from a anatomical viewpoint. And I know anatomy. ;)

Good post!

[Alan Orr]

Lik Chong Gerk Jang Sang - Power originates from the heel
Some people use the saying ‘power comes from the heel’. This may be the reason some people may think that having your weight on your heels is powerful. It is not.

The reason we use the terminology “originates” rather then “comes from” is that weight distribution starts from the whole of the feet before power is issued through the balls of the feet. So you could say that power started in the heels, but had to be transferred through the balls of the feet in order to be used. If you were to merely have your weight in your heels and not transfer your weight to issue power you would end up with a very unstable stance. This is why many people find it hard to equalize pressure or forward pressure when utilizing a stance position with their weight dead on their heels or any other fixed part of the foot. In truth you could say that the weight in your feet really truly depends on what direction pressure is coming into your body. What I mean by this is if you have true body structure the real skill is to take pressure and redirect that pressure into the ground, commonly described as “rooting”. If you have this control of skill you should be able to redirect the force through your body and also store force in your body, which will allow you to reissue it back to your opponent with greater power. That brings me to the next maxim which is often also misunderstood:

Ging Chong Gwut Gun Faat, Lik Chong Gerk Jang Sheng - Power comes from bones and tendons, strength originates from the heels
Often people describe power in Wing Chun being delivered by bone power or bone alignment. Unfortunately, what you often see is locking out of the joints, i.e. the main punching arm will be extended at the elbow and shoulder. This is a very limited source of power development and more importantly causes severe damage in the long term to the elbow and to the rotor-cuff of the shoulder. (As a practitioner of Chinese medicine, I can confirm that I have often had to treat this problem with new students). Now, locking the joints out on impact does produce a release of power but this is only a small amount compared to the power that can be produced with the whole body structure via kinetic linking to the ground. One of the main benefits of this type of body connection alignment is that not only can you issue power in this manner due to the “spring” nature of the body but you can also absorb power through the body into the ground without taking undue pressure into the joints. If you align your body in this correct manner the joints will absorb pressure and redirect the pressure without effort into the ground and the tendons will twist and strengthen and become stronger with this practice. Therefore when we talk about strength originating from the heels this is really talking about absorbing pressure and rooting therefore explaining the nature of the body in its spring position.

"Power originates from the heels, travels up the ankle and knee joints, is in conjunction with the waist, issues forth from the body and rib cage, travels down the shoulders, to the elbow, to the wrist and manifests from the hands". -Robert Chu Sigung

Let me sort out the missing links for you. Kinetic linking is a term which describes how to correctly load gravitational forces in your body.

Generating maximum mass is achieved through the alignment of the ankle, knee, hip, shoulder and elbow. These are the kinetic links in which power is generated and transferred. Should one of these links be out of alignment, its ability to transfer power from the rest of the body is reduced. To issue power using these mechanics you push your body forward and upward, making sure the three dan tian are moving in sequence, from bottom to top (Qi Hai > Tan Zhong > Yin Tang). Your three dan tian points are located approximately at the same positions as your segmented centers of gravity. So what you’re doing is pushing your entire mass forward and upward using all the aligned kinetic links (joints) in your body. Whether stepping or stationary, the principles remain the same. This is what is meant by using power from the ground up. Naturally, rooting power into the ground is done using the same mechanics.

The problem you will have in combat if you are locking out your joints is that you have committed your striking power. Therefore if you have actually missed your target you will find yourself exposed and also will have no stored power available. When I think of this I would say it is like having only one arrow, once you’ve shot that arrow you’ll have none left. If you generate your power from the ground you’ll have an endless source of ammunition. So now you have an automatic machine-gun! Therefore if you punch and miss you can then readjust and re-fire much more quickly and much more effectively because you haven’t over-committed your arm position. The fact is, the body alignment and body position are the important factors in generating power.

“Jang Dae Lik - Elbow down power”
Some people think that by having your elbow down, you’re automatically getting more power; this isn’t true. The key thing here is what we call “vector power lines”. Simply put, having your elbow pointing downward and having the arm bent, gives you a vector power line that bypasses the shoulder in terms of using it for power generation, and goes directly into the hip. This way you can use your body mechanics to full effect. Having your arm straight creates a vector power line that goes straight through the shoulder, taking away the structural support. The shoulder joint (primarily the rotor cuff area) is designed for stabilizing the shoulder joint, nor for storing power. Long term use of the shoulder in this manner will deteriorate the rotor cuff prematurely causing serious degrading of the stability of the joint. So, in fact, “elbow down power” is really teaching one to bypass power from the hip through the arm when punching and then through the arm to the hip when receiving power. That will bring us on to the next maxim of what happens to this power once stored into the body.

Bo Gun Sen Juen Ying Yee Mao – The horse moves with the body like a cat.
This maxim clearly shows the body mechanics of the Wing Chun fighter. The body of the cat demonstrates agility and mobility. In order to produce these traits one must have good body mechanics, strong sense of centre, balance and explosive power. Having the ability to adapt your weight and balance under pressure or when issuing pressure is the key. When a cat moves it will have light footwork but centred body weight.

“Siu Nim Tao Lien Yiu Sen Ma” – Siu Nim Tao trains the waist, torso and horse stance.
The first form in Wing Chun, Siu Nim Tao, teaches the practitioner correct body alignment but also correct storing and issuing of power. Many branches of Wing Chun practise this stance in a very static manner with no linking of the body into the movements of the arms. In the Chu Sau Lei system the Siu Nim Tao teaches the student to generate linked kinetic power and also what we term as the “spring core.”

The form teaches how to explode power with coordination between waist, body and horse. Another important aspect here is what is called the core-musculature. The “core” consists of the abdominal and low back musculature which are responsible for transferring force from the upper extremities to the lower extremities, and vice-versa. The core aids in stability during all physical activity. Even if the rest of your body is very strong, but your core is weak, you will not be able to use all your power since there is no way for the body to stabilize the movement. Improving core strength will improve your ability to transfer power, thus, improve your Wing Chun Kuen power.

The idea of the “spring core” is that the central fulcrum of power is controlled by the centre of the body i.e. the hips and waist (core musculature). But, like a giant sphere, the core is just the centre; pressure received from any direction will be equalized from the opposite direction. So in terms of combat if you receive pressure into the arm it will be stabilized by the hips and transferred into the ground via the legs. And the opposite can be generated to produce issuing power by sinking the bodyweight into the ground and the focusing intention of the hips as the storing point of this borrowed pressure one can then issue explosively from the hips, pressing the balls of the feet into the ground and releasing the power via the elbow through the fist into the target.

“Externally train the tendons, muscles and bones”
This relates to the idea of Gung Lik within our system, something that we translate as “Trained Strength”. To us, it has nothing to do with “hard energy” or “brute force” as some branches of WCK regard it to be. Gung Lik is trained in the forms and also in Chi Sao practice. Actually, everything we do moulds our bodies to comply with the nature of the system, therefore Gung Lik is always employed. For instance, twisting your Tan Sao will use muscle (to cause the twisting) and when the muscle is contracted this makes the tendons pull on the bone, making muscle, tendon and bone stronger. The tendons are the “rubber bands” of the body and they are what make us able to use true elastic energy. When receiving or absorbing force your muscles control the movement but your tendons store the energy. When the energy is released, there is a minimum of muscular involvement, which in turn makes the movement efficient, less tiring and enables greater force production.

We spring-load ourselves this way either by absorbing force from our opponent, or by using gravity to stretch our tendons.

[Alan Orr]

Go to a gym, and the squat area. Place two 45lbs plates on each side of a barbell, get in the middle of the bar and perform a squat with your heels off the ground, then with the heels on the ground, let us know which feels stronger/more stable and activates the thigh muscles.

James

P.S. If while squating down, you go back in direction (barbell behind your heels), you will fall over backwards, but if you adjust the direction of your squating, so that the barbell is centered with your feet, then you will have balance and power.

Squating is not walking. If you clean you use triple extension which is at the point of issue of power. So you have - squat into the whole foot as you said then when you lift you press to the ball of your foot as your knee and hip move forward.

So power came from the heal then was moved to the ball of the foot to be used

[Alan Orr]

Go to a gym, and the squat area. Place two 45lbs plates on each side of a barbell, get in the middle of the bar and perform a squat with your heels off the ground, then with the heels on the ground, let us know which feels stronger/more stable and activates the thigh muscles.

James

P.S. If while squating down, you go back in direction (barbell behind your heels), you will fall over backwards, but if you adjust the direction of your squating, so that the barbell is centered with your feet, then you will have balance and power.

Do a squat then have some one push you. You will need to vector forward and push from the balls of your feet, others wise you will be on your a--! lol

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Terence is very right in his views, its a shame people can't see the truth of his points. He trains with fighters so he knows what is real application and what is drills." (Alan Orr)

...............................

***THERE IS no evidence whatsoever that Terence actually trains with fighters - and even less so that he himself has any real fighting skills. And this, combined with his endless trash talking arrogance and his 180 degree turns on things like, for example - what chi sao is or is not - is the reason why so many people dismiss so much of what he says.

Be reminded that this is the same guy who also told the forum that elbow strikes are wing chun's primary weapon, and that tan sao can be used to break out of a MT plum necktie. :rolleyes:

[KPM]

Lik Chong Gerk Jang Sang - Power originates from the heel
Some people use the saying ‘power comes from the heel’. This may be the reason some people may think that having your weight on your heels is powerful. It is not.

The reason we use the terminology “originates” rather then “comes from” is that weight distribution starts from the whole of the feet before power is issued through the balls of the feet. So you could say that power started in the heels, but had to be transferred through the balls of the feet in order to be used. If you were to merely have your weight in your heels and not transfer your weight to issue power you would end up with a very unstable stance. This is why many people find it hard to equalize pressure or forward pressure when utilizing a stance position with their weight dead on their heels or any other fixed part of the foot. In truth you could say that the weight in your feet really truly depends on what direction pressure is coming into your body. What I mean by this is if you have true body structure the real skill is to take pressure and redirect that pressure into the ground, commonly described as “rooting”. If you have this control of skill you should be able to redirect the force through your body and also store force in your body, which will allow you to reissue it back to your opponent with greater power. That brings me to the next maxim which is often also misunderstood:

Ging Chong Gwut Gun Faat, Lik Chong Gerk Jang Sheng - Power comes from bones and tendons, strength originates from the heels
Often people describe power in Wing Chun being delivered by bone power or bone alignment. Unfortunately, what you often see is locking out of the joints, i.e. the main punching arm will be extended at the elbow and shoulder. This is a very limited source of power development and more importantly causes severe damage in the long term to the elbow and to the rotor-cuff of the shoulder. (As a practitioner of Chinese medicine, I can confirm that I have often had to treat this problem with new students). Now, locking the joints out on impact does produce a release of power but this is only a small amount compared to the power that can be produced with the whole body structure via kinetic linking to the ground. One of the main benefits of this type of body connection alignment is that not only can you issue power in this manner due to the “spring” nature of the body but you can also absorb power through the body into the ground without taking undue pressure into the joints. If you align your body in this correct manner the joints will absorb pressure and redirect the pressure without effort into the ground and the tendons will twist and strengthen and become stronger with this practice. Therefore when we talk about strength originating from the heels this is really talking about absorbing pressure and rooting therefore explaining the nature of the body in its spring position.

"Power originates from the heels, travels up the ankle and knee joints, is in conjunction with the waist, issues forth from the body and rib cage, travels down the shoulders, to the elbow, to the wrist and manifests from the hands". -Robert Chu Sigung

Let me sort out the missing links for you. Kinetic linking is a term which describes how to correctly load gravitational forces in your body.

Generating maximum mass is achieved through the alignment of the ankle, knee, hip, shoulder and elbow. These are the kinetic links in which power is generated and transferred. Should one of these links be out of alignment, its ability to transfer power from the rest of the body is reduced. To issue power using these mechanics you push your body forward and upward, making sure the three dan tian are moving in sequence, from bottom to top (Qi Hai > Tan Zhong > Yin Tang). Your three dan tian points are located approximately at the same positions as your segmented centers of gravity. So what you’re doing is pushing your entire mass forward and upward using all the aligned kinetic links (joints) in your body. Whether stepping or stationary, the principles remain the same. This is what is meant by using power from the ground up. Naturally, rooting power into the ground is done using the same mechanics.

The problem you will have in combat if you are locking out your joints is that you have committed your striking power. Therefore if you have actually missed your target you will find yourself exposed and also will have no stored power available. When I think of this I would say it is like having only one arrow, once you’ve shot that arrow you’ll have none left. If you generate your power from the ground you’ll have an endless source of ammunition. So now you have an automatic machine-gun! Therefore if you punch and miss you can then readjust and re-fire much more quickly and much more effectively because you haven’t over-committed your arm position. The fact is, the body alignment and body position are the important factors in generating power.

“Jang Dae Lik - Elbow down power”
Some people think that by having your elbow down, you’re automatically getting more power; this isn’t true. The key thing here is what we call “vector power lines”. Simply put, having your elbow pointing downward and having the arm bent, gives you a vector power line that bypasses the shoulder in terms of using it for power generation, and goes directly into the hip. This way you can use your body mechanics to full effect. Having your arm straight creates a vector power line that goes straight through the shoulder, taking away the structural support. The shoulder joint (primarily the rotor cuff area) is designed for stabilizing the shoulder joint, nor for storing power. Long term use of the shoulder in this manner will deteriorate the rotor cuff prematurely causing serious degrading of the stability of the joint. So, in fact, “elbow down power” is really teaching one to bypass power from the hip through the arm when punching and then through the arm to the hip when receiving power. That will bring us on to the next maxim of what happens to this power once stored into the body.

Bo Gun Sen Juen Ying Yee Mao – The horse moves with the body like a cat.
This maxim clearly shows the body mechanics of the Wing Chun fighter. The body of the cat demonstrates agility and mobility. In order to produce these traits one must have good body mechanics, strong sense of centre, balance and explosive power. Having the ability to adapt your weight and balance under pressure or when issuing pressure is the key. When a cat moves it will have light footwork but centred body weight.

“Siu Nim Tao Lien Yiu Sen Ma” – Siu Nim Tao trains the waist, torso and horse stance.
The first form in Wing Chun, Siu Nim Tao, teaches the practitioner correct body alignment but also correct storing and issuing of power. Many branches of Wing Chun practise this stance in a very static manner with no linking of the body into the movements of the arms. In the Chu Sau Lei system the Siu Nim Tao teaches the student to generate linked kinetic power and also what we term as the “spring core.”

The form teaches how to explode power with coordination between waist, body and horse. Another important aspect here is what is called the core-musculature. The “core” consists of the abdominal and low back musculature which are responsible for transferring force from the upper extremities to the lower extremities, and vice-versa. The core aids in stability during all physical activity. Even if the rest of your body is very strong, but your core is weak, you will not be able to use all your power since there is no way for the body to stabilize the movement. Improving core strength will improve your ability to transfer power, thus, improve your Wing Chun Kuen power.

The idea of the “spring core” is that the central fulcrum of power is controlled by the centre of the body i.e. the hips and waist (core musculature). But, like a giant sphere, the core is just the centre; pressure received from any direction will be equalized from the opposite direction. So in terms of combat if you receive pressure into the arm it will be stabilized by the hips and transferred into the ground via the legs. And the opposite can be generated to produce issuing power by sinking the bodyweight into the ground and the focusing intention of the hips as the storing point of this borrowed pressure one can then issue explosively from the hips, pressing the balls of the feet into the ground and releasing the power via the elbow through the fist into the target.

“Externally train the tendons, muscles and bones”
This relates to the idea of Gung Lik within our system, something that we translate as “Trained Strength”. To us, it has nothing to do with “hard energy” or “brute force” as some branches of WCK regard it to be. Gung Lik is trained in the forms and also in Chi Sao practice. Actually, everything we do moulds our bodies to comply with the nature of the system, therefore Gung Lik is always employed. For instance, twisting your Tan Sao will use muscle (to cause the twisting) and when the muscle is contracted this makes the tendons pull on the bone, making muscle, tendon and bone stronger. The tendons are the “rubber bands” of the body and they are what make us able to use true elastic energy. When receiving or absorbing force your muscles control the movement but your tendons store the energy. When the energy is released, there is a minimum of muscular involvement, which in turn makes the movement efficient, less tiring and enables greater force production.

We spring-load ourselves this way either by absorbing force from our opponent, or by using gravity to stretch our tendons.

Go to the "cut and paste" mode guys! This post is keeper! :) Great job Alan!

[Peaceful Orchid]

Go to a gym, and the squat area. Place two 45lbs plates on each side of a barbell, get in the middle of the bar and perform a squat with your heels off the ground, then with the heels on the ground, let us know which feels stronger/more stable and activates the thigh muscles.

James

P.S. If while squating down, you go back in direction (barbell behind your heels), you will fall over backwards, but if you adjust the direction of your squating, so that the barbell is centered with your feet, then you will have balance and power.

Go to a weightlifting competition and you will see shoes like this:
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=500&uid=1159638607

The built up heel is used to allow the weight to come forward because weight on the heels makes you unstable. You even alluded to this above when you said you have to adjust forward.

When you pivot, you must shift to a smaller surface area (ball or heel). Otherwise there is too much friction. The heel is to unstable. That's why most dynamic movements need the weight to be on the ball of the foot.

[k gledhill]

I disagree. My foundation is from a lineage that teaches to pivot on the heels. I practiced that way for many years until guys like Robert Chu and Zopa Gyatso on forums like this convinced me to try it otherwise. When I tried it I didn't get the results or acknowledge the difference right away. I had to keep practicing until I was good at the different method before I could admit that they were right. The upper body absolutely is not compromised when not pivoting on the heels....as long as you are doing it correctly. I also found my structure was much more solid by avoiding pivoting on my heels. Its comes down to simple biomechanics. If your weight is already on your heels when you are pivoting, then you have very little "reserve" to support your structure if pressed during the pivot. Any kind of "push off" against the opponent to apply "forward pressure" has to come almost exclusively from the hips and thighs, because being on the heels takes the calf muscles out of the equation. Again....lineage considerations aside and looking strictly from a biomechanical standpoint.....pivoting near the K1 point with close to 50/50 weight distribution engages the calf muscles for forward pressure and provides a "springy" reserve, almost like a shock absorber. The upper body absolutely does not get compromised, but is actually even more solid and functional. Been there...done that. But it took time and practice to do it well enough to see the benefits. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you can't argue against the fact that having the weight on the heels doesn't allow good use of the calf muscles or use of the the elasticity of the calf and arch of the foot. That is not to say that pivoting on the heels doesn't work. Obviously guys like WSL made it work very well! But it is not optimal from a anatomical viewpoint. And I know anatomy. ;)

weight ISN'T ON the heels its on 3 points , the generation of quadriceps 'focus point' is the heel, then you can move to toes, called stepping ;) secret stuff ...stepping.

[YungChun]

The whole foot is on the floor but the focus is on the K1.. The focal point on the K1 WITH the heel on the floor creates a stretch and loading of the muscle and ligaments like a bow ready to fire...this creates energy storage or potential energy reserves..but your weight must be focused on the K1 not the heel...the heel must be grounded in order to create this "stretch"..

If you do it right you will feel this stretch and loading in the form of great tension in the muscles and ligaments, you can feel the stored power and it is quite pronounced.. This along with the loading of other muscles including the leg muscles and glutes (qua) is the energy generating machine Chun uses to make short, quick bursts of power that transfer into the whole body unit (hammer) and fires the arm (nail) into the target..

[Tom Kagan]

Go to a weightlifting competition and you will see shoes like this:
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=500&uid=1159638607

The built up heel is used to allow the weight to come forward because weight on the heels makes you unstable.


The advantage of the raised heel on a specialized olympic style weightlifting shoe was developed due to the human body's limits of ankle flexibility necessary for the squat variation of the snatch and C&J lifts. Stability is mantained by allowing the lifter to more solidly connect his or her heel to the floor during the bottom phase of the lifts -- thus making the lifter more stable, not less. Regardless, this shoe design is not pertinent to discussing movement patterns where the ankles, knees, and hips are not at the limits of range for human joint flexion.

[YouKnowWho]

If you want to throw your opponent over your body, you will need to raise your heel too. More than 50% of the throwing skill require "raising your heel".

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3427/leglift.jpg

[YungChun]

If you want to throw your opponent over your body, you will need to raise your heel too. More than 50% of the throwing skill require "raising your heel".

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3427/leglift.jpg

To be clear the loading, the stretching I mentioned does not exist as some static model, the stretch with the heel on the floor and focus on K1 is merely the bow stretched, not the bow firing.....heel now up, all muscles and tendons releasing power, etc.

[t_niehoff]

The advantage of the raised heel on a specialized olympic style weightlifting shoe was developed due to the human body's limits of ankle flexibility necessary for the squat variation of the snatch and C&J lifts. Stability is mantained by allowing the lifter to more solidly connect his or her heel to the floor during the bottom phase of the lifts -- thus making the lifter more stable, not less. Regardless, this shoe design is not pertinent to discussing movement patterns where the ankles, knees, and hips are not at the limits of range for human joint flexion.

One of the guys in my group (Scott) had a very difficult time developing his structure, because he had learned WCK with his weight on the heels/whole foot and kept reverting to that instead of keeping his weight on the balls of his foot. So. one day he showed up to our workouts wearing what he called his "structure boots"! These were big, heavy work boots that had an elevated heel that forced his weight to his toes -- he couldn't, even if he wanted to, put his weight on his heel. While we all made fun of him in his funny boots, they did help him develop his structure. I wish I had known of these shoes!

[KPM]

weight ISN'T ON the heels its on 3 points , the generation of quadriceps 'focus point' is the heel, then you can move to toes, called stepping ;) secret stuff ...stepping.

Sorry Kevin. No matter how you slice it, the majority of the weight IS on the heels if that is the pivot point. Its just a biomechanical fact. Trying to convince yourself otherwise won't change that fact. Just try this experiment....in your YGKYM, lean forward so that the majority of your weight is obviously at the balls of your feet. Now try to shift on the heels without transfering your weight back. You'll find that the majority of your weight HAS to be at the pivot point, regardless of what you use for that pivot point. In addition to the points that Jim Hawkins and I have made about the distinction between pivoting on the heels vs. pivoting at the K1 point there is another point concerning control. Pivoting at the K1 point works better at keeping the toes involved to control balance during the shift. Pivoting at the heels requires the toes to "swing" more than pivoting at the K1 point and therefore means they are not functioning as well at controlling the pivot.

Like I said, I have no doubt that people can function very well with the heel pivot. I have seen Wong Shun Leung, Gary Lam, and David Peterson do so on video. I have personally been on the receiving end of Augustine Fong using it on several occasions. But that does not mean that there is not a better way to do it. From a biomechanical standpoint, pivoting on the K1 point with a near 50/50 weight distribution is more optimal and efficient. I'm all about doing things the best way possible, not just following lineage tradition. David Peterson quotes Wong Shun Leung as saying that if anyone could show him a better way of doing things he wanted to learn it! Who knows, if he had seen a biomechanical explanation of the advantages of the K1 pivot he might just have made the switch! ;)

[t_niehoff]

Like I said, I have no doubt that people can function very well with the heel pivot. I have seen Wong Shun Leung, Gary Lam, and David Peterson do so on video. I have personally been on the receiving end of Augustine Fong using it on several occasions.


"Function" at what? Yes, they can make that work in chi sao, in drills, etc. But, if they fought at 100%, they couldn't make it work. Our bodies can't work at 100% when we are not weighted on our toes. This is why all combative athletes, boxers, wrestlers, judoka,etc. ALL are on the balls of their feet.



But that does not mean that there is not a better way to do it. From a biomechanical standpoint, pivoting on the K1 point with a near 50/50 weight distribution is more optimal and efficient.


It's not just pivoting, but being all the balls of your feet in EVERYTHING you do.



I'm all about doing things the best way possible, not just following lineage tradition.


Let application (doing it in fighting) be your sifu.



David Peterson quotes Wong Shun Leung as saying that if anyone could show him a better way of doing things he wanted to learn it! Who knows, if he had seen a biomechanical explanation of the advantages of the K1 pivot he might just have made the switch! ;)

Wong said "show him" a better way. The trouble is that explanations are just intellectual -- what people NEED is to EXPERIENCE it for themselves firsthand.

[LoneTiger108]

It's not just pivoting, but being all the balls of your feet in EVERYTHING you do.

Just to throw something into the mix here, but I don't agree 100%. Yes, the balls of the feet are vital for pivoting, but I would say anyone who has practised sei ping ma with their pole work will know when to use the heel, K1 or whole of the foot to maintain a root for their stance. Even the knife edge of the foot has its use, as do all 5 toes!

Naturally, we walk from heel to toe and there is much of that in mobility work with the pole fme. Again, it's the generalizations that work in certain situations but we must see where changes are made, whether we're using both feet in the same way at once and when they differ slightly depending on our objective.

Does everyone turn the same in both CK and BJ forms?

[k gledhill]

[QUOTE=KPM;1062664]Sorry Kevin. No matter how you slice it, the majority of the weight IS on the heels if that is the pivot point. Its just a biomechanical fact. Trying to convince yourself otherwise won't change that fact. Just try this experiment....in your YGKYM, lean forward so that the majority of your weight is obviously at the balls of your feet. Now try to shift on the heels without transfering your weight back. You'll find that the majority of your weight HAS to be at the pivot point, regardless of what you use for that pivot point. In addition to the points that Jim Hawkins and I have made about the distinction between pivoting on the heels vs. pivoting at the K1 point there is another point concerning control. Pivoting at the K1 point works better at keeping the toes involved to control balance during the shift. Pivoting at the heels requires the toes to "swing" more than pivoting at the K1 point and therefore means they are not functioning as well at controlling the pivot.

Like I said, I have no doubt that people can function very well with the heel pivot. I have seen Wong Shun Leung, Gary Lam, and David Peterson do so on video. I have personally been on the receiving end of Augustine Fong using it on several occasions. But that does not mean that there is not a better way to do it. From a biomechanical standpoint, pivoting on the K1 point with a near 50/50 weight distribution is more optimal and efficient. I'm all about doing things the best way possible, not just following lineage tradition. David Peterson quotes Wong Shun Leung as saying that if anyone could show him a better way of doing things he wanted to learn it! Who knows, if he had seen a biomechanical explanation of the advantages of the K1 pivot he might just have made the switch! ;)[/quote)

GLad you feel WSL functions very well :rolleyes: Compared to Keiths way :D

Thanks for info , when your in NYC drop by .

[shawchemical]

How would you know what I am doing? You can't see my control as the skill is in the body movement and termed ' hidden skill' in kung fu. Hidden as you must feel it if you are not at the level to se it.

Yes you don't use your name so you don't have to back up your views.

lol. YOur control should be easily seen in the opponent's movement.

I am using my name moron.

[CFT]

I am using my name moron.You sound like a pharmaceutical company. Do you have a brother called SmithKline Beecham by any chance?

If the only way you can debate is by using personal insults then I suggest you go back to school.

[bennyvt]

I think this has to do with the body cue ( what we discribe to people to be able to complete the task) and what is actually happening. Like in WSL vt we say use your elbow. This is a way of getting people to use the entire arm to punch, thinking of just the elbow is an easier way of learning then trying to keep the pressure even on the entire arm. Its just way to hard to do. But by thinking of just the elbow the bodies natural tendency to use the wrist will mean that the pressure is even.
We learnt too much weight on the heels means you are pushed back easy and too much and the toes makes it easy to pull you. By having it even your body will naturally change the weightdepending on what is happening. We tend to forget that it is a dynamic movement not just the stance in SLT.
WSL told my teacher that he taught the heels in seminars as it was way too hard to get people to do it properly so he had found people were able to make it work without the proper time put into doing it right.

[CFT]

benny, that is a very *balanced* argument :)

Seems like even WSLVT, at least via Barry Lee, is working around the K1 point?
Not many people take the time to really slow down and feel what is going on when they turn, punch etc. Though to be honest I'm not sure what that level of introspection will actually give you in terms of results.

Also, I don't think performing the actions in the air is a good way of examining the body mechanics either. You need to be punching against a wallbag to see how the heel, K1, etc. is stressed when punching. You need someone pushing against you when you turn.

Just moving when you are unloaded won't tell you as much as when there is a load. If you can't handle the incoming/outgoing force stably then you will know something isn't quite right.

[bennyvt]

totally agree. The stance is about dynamic movement. The weight changes depending on what direction force is applied. Its funny when you think most people work off the basic toes instance in the form. Problem is the only force when doing the form is from gravity. So when force is applied from a forward or backwards direction (like when actually doing it against a opponent) it makes a big difference. Most make the stance stronger in the basic SLT way by by making the head and back line up with the heels. Look at most VT people and they look like they are leaning back. When put into the fighting stance (and keeping the same angle of the hips) the person would be leaning back with their shoulder behind their heels. The fact that we don't have a front leg means we have to have some weight in front of our toes. When in a fighting position it means that your weight is between your legs, we say (just a guestament) 50 in the back leg 30 in the front and 20 in the waist. this means that the weight is not only in the back leg as this means you are easily posted on it (back leg rammed in the ground). Thinking of the weight in the waist means the weight is slightly infront of the back leg so when force is applied from a horizontal direction it is able to be directed into the back leg while still leaving enough to move if needed. Idea being you resist the force until your waist or structure will give way and then you have to step back to release the excess force. People have really strong YKYM stance as they are only fighting gravity and their own weight and "sit" in their stance. When you think about someone actually hitting you or you striking them the direction of force is different so if the weight is before the toes it means you are doing more of the fighting stance then just sitting fighting gravity

[KPM]

GLad you feel WSL functions very well :rolleyes: Compared to Keiths way :D

Thanks for info , when your in NYC drop by .

No need to roll your eyes at me. That just sounds like an almost polite way of saying that despite logic, common sense, and anatomical fact, you still aren't even considering what has been said. Nothing I have written is "Keith's way." I would have thought that if you were paying attention at all to what I have written you would see that what I am pointing out is simply good biomechanics. I am certainly not the only one, or the first one, to do the pivot this way. But it sounds like you just want to do things a certain way because that is how you have been taught without question. I do question. I look for better ways to do things. I try to keep an open mind. Wasn't Wong Shun Leung famous for say......Wing Chun should be your slave, not your master?

[k gledhill]

No need to roll your eyes at me. That just sounds like an almost polite way of saying that despite logic, common sense, and anatomical fact, you still aren't even considering what has been said. Nothing I have written is "Keith's way." I would have thought that if you were paying attention at all to what I have written you would see that what I am pointing out is simply good biomechanics. I am certainly not the only one, or the first one, to do the pivot this way. But it sounds like you just want to do things a certain way because that is how you have been taught without question. I do question. I look for better ways to do things. I try to keep an open mind. Wasn't Wong Shun Leung famous for say......Wing Chun should be your slave, not your master?

I am 'rolling eyes ' becasue you, as many use a 'phrase' WSL used and turn it to however you interpret it ...NOT! He refered to the strict elbow training of VT , to not be 'thought about' while fighting. IOW dont concern yourself with training mind. Not do anything you like ...then it wouldnt be VT as many do anyway .

Look i have met people FIRST HAND who do the K1 idea ...ME not I heard someone do it or saw a clip...and I can show you the errors COMPARED to VT ...YOU can do ANYTHING !! lmao..you can jump up and down before a fight, crouch, do the crab, etc....
As i mentioned the 'balance' point isnt ON the heels, BUT when you deliver the Quadriceps force [largest muscle group of the leg] you use the heel to drive [milliseconds] into the ground for the force you generate into your arms via the structure. This in physics is referred to as equal and opposite force, I drive 200lbs of force into the ground with my leg and depending on the alignment of my hips /structure/elbow angles, I can deliver that same force, using timing distance and movement etc...CK helps us for this. Body weight momentum driven by this sudden force generation at close range coupled with simultaneous arm actions is our aim.

If you add the hinge joint of the ankle you engage the calf muscles you lose the quadriceps, why we 'shuffle' , to allow us to repeat the same heel into ground THEN toes. We DONT take large steps becasue we LOSE the quadriceps under contact with the opponent. This force is invisibleso you cant see it in clips ...its hard to deliver unless coached , because guys ( some guys on this forum I have met ) compensate for lack of this ability by using upper body /leaning. Big tall guys especially ;) Also due to the nature of their attempts to fight in 'contact' its easy to feel a wave and trough of energy, ~ you can dial into their timing instantly and counter them mercilessly ....:)

Try standing off the ground with your heels and on the balls of your feet/toes and you immediately engage the calf muscles. then try to deliver leg force....you have to use heels, but not weigh back on the heels as mentioned in previous posts.

The other point to keep in mind is our axis line, running down our center. If you shift this under pressure of engagement you will allow ME :D to unbalance you as you move.
.One of the key elements of VT movement is to align the hips in a smooth facing attack towards your intended victim. Not a lot of guys i have met can do this and maintain a flatline of energy at me at the same time...very hard to correct mistakes while I am doing this AT YOU..iow you make a footwork mistake like moving your front foot first while moving sideways/backwards under pressure and you wont regain your balance.

words, but showing and feeling takes less time.

Chi-sao allows us to isolate the axis lines while doing bong /jut-lop sao drills. So when you are suddenly pulled by an opponent you shift with axis line vertical EVEN under sudden pressure randomly applied...basic thing that MANY fail....pressure testing in chi-sao for fighting .

Seung ma toi ma drills also focus on the heels as the driving point for drilling, delivering the 'unseen' force of the leg via the tan sao / jum sao punches.....small steps allow this.

A way to analyze systems that dont do this, they 'sway' or step with lead leg THEN drag the rear...or the step lead foot then and lift the rear to make the stance equal again....don in stages you lose the body weight momentum, iow we try to harness our forces available to us using simple physics. bodyweight in motion under control, ballistic displacement of parries and strikes simultaneously, energy [not seen] from the quadriceps shuffling, being driven by the heel INTO the ground while maintaining our balance on the whole foot...air hockey puck.

Chi-sao prepares us to MEET these forces in the SUDDEN clash that we enter into while fighting ..iow we train chi-sao MOMENTS of distance etc....for reflex reactions to attempts to stop us ....and NOT be taken advantage of ourselves...like bad stance , bad foot positions, bad elbows etc.....

the actual fighting is simple compared to the drills.

[KPM]

I am 'rolling eyes ' becasue you, as many use a 'phrase' WSL used and turn it to however you interpret it ...NOT!

---He said what he said. I interpret it to mean he was keeping an open mind about things and willing to consider viewpoints and methods if they were an improvement on what he was doing. As David Petersen presents this in his book, he seems to have the same interpretation. I'm not "turning" it into anything. It seems pretty straight-forward to me. It isn't an invitation to do anything you want. Its simply an indication about being open-minded in how you use and understand your Wing Chun. Its another way of being WCK's "master", not its "slave."


Look i have met people FIRST HAND who do the K1 idea ...ME not I heard someone do it or saw a clip


---But have you practiced it yourself enough to get good at it? I did. And now that's how I do the pivot.



and I can show you the errors COMPARED to VT


---Then how about actually discussing what you see as errors here. After all, this is a discussion group. This would be preferred to simply ignoring what others take time to post and then rolling your eyes at the points we make.



YOU can do ANYTHING !! lmao..you can jump up and down before a fight, crouch, do the crab, etc....

---What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about? You seem to think that being open-minded and willing to consider biomechanical factors that can improve our WCK is the same as just doing any old movement you want. I've never said that or even suggested that. That idea is blowing things all out of proportion and seems to be avoiding addressing the biomechanical points that have been brought up.


As i mentioned the 'balance' point isnt ON the heels, BUT when you deliver the Quadriceps force [largest muscle group of the leg] you use the heel to drive [milliseconds] into the ground for the force you generate into your arms via the structure.

---Then please explain to me how it is possible to "use the heel to drive into the ground" without having the majority of your weight on the heel.

This in physics is referred to as equal and opposite force, I drive 200lbs of force into the ground with my leg and depending on the alignment of my hips /structure/elbow angles, I can deliver that same force, using timing distance and movement etc...

---Sure. Now how is that going to be possible with the majority of your structure (and therefore of your weight) NOT being aligned over your heel at the time?


If you add the hinge joint of the ankle you engage the calf muscles you lose the quadriceps,

---No you don't. Do you think a sprinter loses the power of the quadriceps when they push out of the blocks with the heels up? Why would you NOT want to "engage the calf muscles" when trying to generate forward pressure and power?


why we 'shuffle' , to allow us to repeat the same heel into ground THEN toes.

---I hope you don't think when talk about pivoting on the K1 point that we are going around "dancing on our toes." It is simply the point that carries the MAJORITY of the weight. Maybe 60%. The rest is distributed on the sole of the foot. The heel is in contact with the ground. The heel is still connected with the ground and we can do everything you have described.


Try standing off the ground with your heels and on the balls of your feet/toes and you immediately engage the calf muscles. then try to deliver leg force....you have to use heels, but not weigh back on the heels as mentioned in previous posts.

---Did you try my experiment? No? Then why should I try yours? ;) I never do my WCK "up on my toes" with the heels off the ground, so how is your example pertinent?

The other point to keep in mind is our axis line, running down our center. If you shift this under pressure of engagement you will allow ME :D to unbalance you as you move.

---That is why I said on more than one occasion that the pivot is done with near 50/50 weight distro. Did you not see that? I am not a Leung Ting guy. I don't let my central axis sway from side to side any more than you do when you pivot on the heels. I still have the impression that you have not been truly reading what has been written with an open mind and giving it a fair consideration.


A way to analyze systems that dont do this, they 'sway' or step with lead leg THEN drag the rear...or the step lead foot then and lift the rear to make the stance equal again....

---I agree with you 100%. But that is a different discussion and is not what we have been talking about.

[trubblman]

Here is a quote from attributed to Ho Kam Ming at seminar: sticky hands is to force people to stick to you - not to stick hands with, if you use more power he feels that right away

[k gledhill]

I am 'rolling eyes ' becasue you, as many use a 'phrase' WSL used and turn it to however you interpret it ...NOT!

---He said what he said. I interpret it to mean he was keeping an open mind about things and willing to consider viewpoints and methods if they were an improvement on what he was doing. As David Petersen presents this in his book, he seems to have the same interpretation. I'm not "turning" it into anything. It seems pretty straight-forward to me. It isn't an invitation to do anything you want. Its simply an indication about being open-minded in how you use and understand your Wing Chun. Its another way of being WCK's "master", not its "slave."


Look i have met people FIRST HAND who do the K1 idea ...ME not I heard someone do it or saw a clip


---But have you practiced it yourself enough to get good at it? I did. And now that's how I do the pivot.



and I can show you the errors COMPARED to VT


---Then how about actually discussing what you see as errors here. After all, this is a discussion group. This would be preferred to simply ignoring what others take time to post and then rolling your eyes at the points we make.



YOU can do ANYTHING !! lmao..you can jump up and down before a fight, crouch, do the crab, etc....

---What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about? You seem to think that being open-minded and willing to consider biomechanical factors that can improve our WCK is the same as just doing any old movement you want. I've never said that or even suggested that. That idea is blowing things all out of proportion and seems to be avoiding addressing the biomechanical points that have been brought up.


As i mentioned the 'balance' point isnt ON the heels, BUT when you deliver the Quadriceps force [largest muscle group of the leg] you use the heel to drive [milliseconds] into the ground for the force you generate into your arms via the structure.

---Then please explain to me how it is possible to "use the heel to drive into the ground" without having the majority of your weight on the heel.

This in physics is referred to as equal and opposite force, I drive 200lbs of force into the ground with my leg and depending on the alignment of my hips /structure/elbow angles, I can deliver that same force, using timing distance and movement etc...

---Sure. Now how is that going to be possible with the majority of your structure (and therefore of your weight) NOT being aligned over your heel at the time?


If you add the hinge joint of the ankle you engage the calf muscles you lose the quadriceps,

---No you don't. Do you think a sprinter loses the power of the quadriceps when they push out of the blocks with the heels up? Why would you NOT want to "engage the calf muscles" when trying to generate forward pressure and power?


why we 'shuffle' , to allow us to repeat the same heel into ground THEN toes.

---I hope you don't think when talk about pivoting on the K1 point that we are going around "dancing on our toes." It is simply the point that carries the MAJORITY of the weight. Maybe 60%. The rest is distributed on the sole of the foot. The heel is in contact with the ground. The heel is still connected with the ground and we can do everything you have described.


Try standing off the ground with your heels and on the balls of your feet/toes and you immediately engage the calf muscles. then try to deliver leg force....you have to use heels, but not weigh back on the heels as mentioned in previous posts.

---Did you try my experiment? No? Then why should I try yours? ;) I never do my WCK "up on my toes" with the heels off the ground, so how is your example pertinent?

The other point to keep in mind is our axis line, running down our center. If you shift this under pressure of engagement you will allow ME :D to unbalance you as you move.

---That is why I said on more than one occasion that the pivot is done with near 50/50 weight distro. Did you not see that? I am not a Leung Ting guy. I don't let my central axis sway from side to side any more than you do when you pivot on the heels. I still have the impression that you have not been truly reading what has been written with an open mind and giving it a fair consideration.


A way to analyze systems that dont do this, they 'sway' or step with lead leg THEN drag the rear...or the step lead foot then and lift the rear to make the stance equal again....

---I agree with you 100%. But that is a different discussion and is not what we have been talking about.

you cant understand because you never understood the method you LEFT for your K1...it needs hands on not words...what takes seconds in action takes a worthless attempt to change YOUR mind, Im not here to make you change for my liking...you do what you want ....like I said, not many can do what I am talking about , so you WILl be able to do a lot of stuff....x on k1, shift on toes, sway, etc....cha, cha...I don't care anymore, whatever makes you happy.:D

BTW i have the article WSl said the slave master thing, it was after his mentioning the elbow training.....again your trying to defend your GENERAL outlook on whatever 'you' can do to compensate for lack of understanding , as your way....YOUR WAY, means you, you do what you want.
That doesn't make it VT Keith.
Like I said I have met a lot of guys with the same 'melting pot' outlook as you, they play chi-sao energy feeling, develop sticking re-directing hands in a redundant hand game...use blocks and punches while pivoting on their precious K1 ....until they meet someone unwilling to play nice.


btw we use our WHOLE leg muscle groups when we fully extend our legs, hamstrings, calf muscles and quads....the rear leg muscles create and 'X ' behind the knee joint forcing the leg to full extension, BUT we don't fully extend our legs like runners or use the blocks to explode from 'crouching' starts, crouching for your info DOESN'T ALLOW the heels to touch the ground unless your sitting back on them squatting ..but you knew that. Your an anatomy expert. Plus runners arent concerend with a bouncing cog ~~~~~ : ) we ARE. You lose control of your axis line or cog and you compromise yourself to someone who can take advantage of it. If they CANT you can do what the hell you like....


i dont hold a degree in anatomy, but I am a fully qualified Personal trainer, ACE, & Equinox trainer ...I don't do gym training anymore, but apply my knowledge and experience to VT training.

[KPM]

you cant understand because you never understood the method you LEFT for your K1...it needs hands on not words...what takes seconds in action takes a worthless attempt to change YOUR mind,

---I do understand. Did it occur to you that I found a better understanding?

again your trying to defend your GENERAL outlook on whatever 'you' can do to compensate for lack of understanding , as your way....YOUR WAY, means you, you do what you want. That doesn't make it VT Keith.

---Like I've stated already. Its not MY way. In fact, in the overall world of WCK, the lineages that shift on the K1 point far out-number those that shift on the heel.

Like I said I have met a lot of guys with the same 'melting pot' outlook as you,

---Just what the hell are you talking about? "Melting pot" outlook? Being willing to have an open mind and take good biomechanics into account is a "melting pot outlook?" I could say you have a "head in the sand" outlook, but that would be rude.



btw we use our WHOLE leg muscle groups when we fully extend our legs, hamstrings, calf muscles and quads.

---You're the one that wrote that you keep the heel down to take the calf out of the equation.



i dont hold a degree in anatomy, but I am a fully qualified Personal trainer, ACE, & Equinox trainer ...I don't do gym training anymore, but apply my knowledge and experience to VT training.

---Then that begs the question.....why have you completely ignored the sound anatomical and biomechanical points that have been made? You haven't tried to refute a single one.

---Oh well. I'm not here to make converts. I thought we could at least discuss the various points. But if you aren't even willing to consider them and say why you think they are not right, then there is no real discussion. Have a good holiday!

[k gledhill]

tried them Keith, but they dont work....have a happy thanksgiving anyway:D

[Alan Orr]

lol. YOur control should be easily seen in the opponent's movement.

I am using my name moron.

You are using your name Moron, yes that name suits you.

Hide and call names. Let me know when you feel like meeting up to ask about it.

[jesper]

You are using your name Moron, yes that name suits you.

Hide and call names. Let me know when you feel like meeting up to ask about it.

Ouch and a nice rebound from Alan :)

[t_niehoff]

tried them Keith, but they dont work..

Because you didn't learn them properly and didn't train properly.

[k gledhill]

Because you didn't learn them properly and didn't train properly.


Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 714
Disclaimer: this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply.

Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
WCK is to control the opponent while striking him. To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Another previous one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.
Again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
Sounds like fighting to me...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't a "moment", it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
But wait, that's not right either:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Grappling is being in contact and trying to physically manipulate your opponent to reach your objective. That's what wrestlers do, that's what judoka do, that's what sumo wrestlers do,and that's what we do in WCK -- except we add strikesto the mix. Chi sao is similar to a wreslter's handfighting.
and lastly again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling."
Which is it, is it grappling and striking (fighting), or is it an excersize? Is it wrestler's handfighting or is it a useless unrealistic excersize?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh wait, one more time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
and
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Or, was it
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
...it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
Is it an excersize that teaches useful fighting skills or unrealistic excersize?
Is it grappling or isn't it?
Is it for fighting or isn't it?
No wonder there's confusion...
Reply With Quote

all the above is you :D 30 years and your still babbling....the faat ! twitch twitch :D

You forget i have personally met YOUR way and STILL dont do it because i showed the guys using it that it DIDNT work against....me. YOU can do what you want Ter.

I have no doubts that i will show you the same way I have others ...


Its funny reading your posts above, how you refer to 'lop sao' as 'grappling' ....lmfaorotf !! you really are mixed up.

The rest...
Classic 1:1 mistake of trying to make sense of a system without any fundamental understanding.

[shawchemical]

You are using your name Moron, yes that name suits you.

Hide and call names. Let me know when you feel like meeting up to ask about it.

Quite the petty, petulant little child aren't you?

There is no hiding taking place. I've heard better comebacks from mute, intellectually disabled chimps. Keep working on it, you'll get this communication thing one day.

[bennyvt]

Watch out for the biu jee head lock man, he'll get you :rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

would be required to read your last post, k gledhill (Kevin).

The total contradictions and 180 degree reversals in the middle of the field by Niehoff are just friggin' amazing. :rolleyes:

The guy is a joke.

[t_niehoff]

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 714
Disclaimer: this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply.

Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
WCK is to control the opponent while striking him. To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Another previous one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.
Again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
Sounds like fighting to me...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't a "moment", it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
But wait, that's not right either:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Grappling is being in contact and trying to physically manipulate your opponent to reach your objective. That's what wrestlers do, that's what judoka do, that's what sumo wrestlers do,and that's what we do in WCK -- except we add strikesto the mix. Chi sao is similar to a wreslter's handfighting.
and lastly again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling."
Which is it, is it grappling and striking (fighting), or is it an excersize? Is it wrestler's handfighting or is it a useless unrealistic excersize?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh wait, one more time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
and
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Or, was it
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
...it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
Is it an excersize that teaches useful fighting skills or unrealistic excersize?
Is it grappling or isn't it?
Is it for fighting or isn't it?
No wonder there's confusion...
Reply With Quote

all the above is you :D 30 years and your still babbling....the faat ! twitch twitch :D

You forget i have personally met YOUR way and STILL dont do it because i showed the guys using it that it DIDNT work against....me. YOU can do what you want Ter.

I have no doubts that i will show you the same way I have others ...


Its funny reading your posts above, how you refer to 'lop sao' as 'grappling' ....lmfaorotf !! you really are mixed up.

The rest...
Classic 1:1 mistake of trying to make sense of a system without any fundamental understanding.

It appears you aren't very bright. It's not difficult to understand.

Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise/drill that is a learning platform (to learn the contact tools of WCK). But it doesn't develop fighting skill (the ability to use those tools in fighting). That only comes from fighting.

Chi sao is a contact/attached exercise. Since it is attached, where we maintain sustained contact, it is grappling. Not a form of grappling, not a style of grappling, but grappling -- that also involves striking. And since WCK's method is to control while striking, it makes sense that you'd have a teaching platform to learn controlling while striking.

And chi sao, like all grappling, is primarily concerned with controlling the opponent.

Lop sao is likewise a grappling move (you grab and pull) where you control the opponent to set up your striking. Gosh, what a surprise!

How else can you learn contact/attached fighting skills but in a contact/attached mode or platform?

[t_niehoff]

The total contradictions and 180 degree reversals in the middle of the field by Niehoff are just friggin' amazing. :rolleyes:


There are no contradictions or reversals in those posts. That you don't see that tells me you have limited reading comprehension skills (3rd grade level?).

[anerlich]

I've heard better comebacks from mute, intellectually disabled chimps.

Sounds like someone needs to widen his social circle.

[k gledhill]

It appears you aren't very bright. It's not difficult to understand.

Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise/drill that is a learning platform (to learn the contact tools of WCK). But it doesn't develop fighting skill (the ability to use those tools in fighting). That only comes from fighting.

Chi sao is a contact/attached exercise. Since it is attached, where we maintain sustained contact, it is grappling. Not a form of grappling, not a style of grappling, but grappling -- that also involves striking. And since WCK's method is to control while striking, it makes sense that you'd have a teaching platform to learn controlling while striking.

And chi sao, like all grappling, is primarily concerned with controlling the opponent.

Lop sao is likewise a grappling move (you grab and pull) where you control the opponent to set up your striking. Gosh, what a surprise!

How else can you learn contact/attached fighting skills but in a contact/attached mode or platform?

you really don't understand ....you try to sound like u do....but your inability to see is understandable.
Your trying to make a 1:1 of chi-sao to fighting because you haven't had the fundamental techniques presented properly. Or used the drills 'systematically' to develop the simple idea.

Simple when you see past the drills to the actual GOAL.

trying to type your way ut of what you wrote won't change what we all se either. A guy who wants to be taken seriously as an authority of VT, sadly your making a fool of yourself.

[couch]

you really don't understand ....you try to sound like u do....but your inability to see is understandable.
Your trying to make a 1:1 of chi-sao to fighting because you haven't had the fundamental techniques presented properly. Or used the drills 'systematically' to develop the simple idea.

Simple when you see past the drills to the actual GOAL.

trying to type your way ut of what you wrote won't change what we all se either. A guy who wants to be taken seriously as an authority of VT, sadly your making a fool of yourself.

Hey Kevin!

Just trying to make sense of it all..I think it's just a couple different ways of thinking.

You see it (as well as many others) that the drills 'systematically' lead to a goal.

Whereas (as far as I can tell), T is all about activity-based training. In a recent interview, GSP was asked if he used a treadmill or ran outside to keep his cardio up. He responded that he didn't do those things, but instead just sparred, practiced MT, BJJ and wrestling - sport/activity-specific. If proficiency in fighting is the goal, then practicing the actual goal should be a large part of the whole of practice.

I can see both sides of it...

Peace,
CTK

[Tom Kagan]

One of the guys in my group (Scott) had a very difficult time developing his structure, because he had learned WCK with his weight on the heels/whole foot and kept reverting to that instead of keeping his weight on the balls of his foot. So. one day he showed up to our workouts wearing what he called his "structure boots"! These were big, heavy work boots that had an elevated heel that forced his weight to his toes -- he couldn't, even if he wanted to, put his weight on his heel. While we all made fun of him in his funny boots, they did help him develop his structure. I wish I had known of these shoes!

He had a lack of mobility, not a lack of stability.

BTW, this shoe (http://www.strength-shoes.com/) actually keeps weight off the heels. But, this shoe (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=210522591&listingid=71511842) would cost considerably less than the specialized weightlifting shoe if you still want a heel crutch. ;)


... also, it's "sticking hands" -- "sticking" is used as a verb; "sticky" can only be an adjective.

[k gledhill]

Hey Kevin!

Just trying to make sense of it all..I think it's just a couple different ways of thinking.

You see it (as well as many others) that the drills 'systematically' lead to a goal.

Whereas (as far as I can tell), T is all about activity-based training. In a recent interview, GSP was asked if he used a treadmill or ran outside to keep his cardio up. He responded that he didn't do those things, but instead just sparred, practiced MT, BJJ and wrestling - sport/activity-specific. If proficiency in fighting is the goal, then practicing the actual goal should be a large part of the whole of practice.

I can see both sides of it...

Peace,
CTK

We spar without pre contact, we know what to do if guys try to stop us from hitting them from chi-sao drills. We can fight either side of an opponent seamlessly from chi-sao using either hand. The drills teach us not to retract our hands before striking/parrying and to generate force behind this premise, from our stances etc...against each other in DRILLS. For sparring from no pre-contact to a sudden clash ...? what to do in the sudden clash ? think ? wonder what to do ? what side to use what arm etc...or the guy moves away from us ? towards us with a right extended arm..what side tactically to go to ....you see my side ?

I know why T fights as he does , no mystery. He doesnt know VT attack ideas using the fundamental striking ability developed from chi-sao drills. Or the tactics to apply them.

GSP doesnt do VT so I can hardly hold his ideas up about chi-sao , what does he say about it ? :D When he has to fight 12 rounds instead of 4-5? many of those rounds on his back out of cardio requirements then we can ask him again :D:D

BTW Tae Bo came from ? yeah ...so GSP is doing cardio in MT training.

[Graham H]

I know why T fights as he does , no mystery. He doesnt know VT attack ideas using the fundamental striking ability developed from chi-sao drills. Or the tactics to apply them.



Excellent, and a very true point Kev!!!!;) Its written all over his posts.

GH

[t_niehoff]

you really don't understand ....you try to sound like u do....but your inability to see is understandable.
Your trying to make a 1:1 of chi-sao to fighting because you haven't had the fundamental techniques presented properly. Or used the drills 'systematically' to develop the simple idea.

Simple when you see past the drills to the actual GOAL.


See, this is precisely the problem. You can't develop X by doing Y. The "goal" of chi sao is to control the opponent while striking him. Everything is -- or should be -- directed toward that goal. The movement/actions of WCK are means to do just that. So by practicing trying to control an opponent in a very limited (unrealistic) scenario using the WCK tools, you learn how to do that.



trying to type your way ut of what you wrote won't change what we all se either. A guy who wants to be taken seriously as an authority of VT, sadly your making a fool of yourself.

I'm not typing my way out of anything. Everything I've written is completely consistent -- to people not too dense to see it.

BTW, why don't you explain who Gary Lam, one of WSL's top guys, ALSO talks about chi sao being "standing grappling" and that the object of the exercise is to control the opponent while striking him (as those links indicated)?

[t_niehoff]

We spar without pre contact,


I don't doubt that you do -- and probably do nothing but noncontact sparring. So what? You spar with your students who do the exact same things, and presto! what you do seems to work. This is true in every McDojo, every fantasy fu school, etc.

As I keep telling Victor, sparring only with your students and other poorly skilled people not only doesn't prove anything but it is self-limiting AND leads to failure. You need to spar with good, proven people that beat you. If they are not beating you, then you are not growing. You are only as good as your training/sparring partners.



we know what to do if guys try to stop us from hitting them from chi-sao drills. We can fight either side of an opponent seamlessly from chi-sao using either hand. The drills teach us not to retract our hands before striking/parrying and to generate force behind this premise, from our stances etc...against each other in DRILLS. For sparring from no pre-contact to a sudden clash ...? what to do in the sudden clash ? think ? wonder what to do ? what side to use what arm etc...or the guy moves away from us ? towards us with a right extended arm..what side tactically to go to ....you see my side ?


WCK's method is to control while striking the opponent. That includes getting in from noncontact and fighting on the inside. Clashing is inevitable.



I know why T fights as he does , no mystery. He doesnt know VT attack ideas using the fundamental striking ability developed from chi-sao drills. Or the tactics to apply them.


You have no clue as to what I am talking about. This is clear from your posts.

Tell me, what is the "fundamental striking ability developed from chi sao"? Do YOU know it. I'll tell you what it is: the ability to destroy the opponent's structure. And, you're not doing that, nor is Bayer in his videos. And the tactics of WCK are various ways of using the tools to control the opponent. Since you don't control the opponent, all your "tactics" are nonsense.



GSP doesnt do VT so I can hardly hold his ideas up about chi-sao , what does he say about it ? :D When he has to fight 12 rounds instead of 4-5? many of those rounds on his back out of cardio requirements then we can ask him again :D:D

You are an idiot, aren't you? What GSP and other FIGHTERS, not guys like you who fantasize about KOing people in bars, recognize is the mechanism for developing high levels of physical skill and performance (which is why they are world class fighters and can train very good fighters), and it is as 'couch' indicates. That you don't listen to them is just more proof that you live in a fantasy world of your own making.

[k gledhill]

I don't doubt that you do -- and probably do nothing but noncontact sparring. So what? You spar with your students who do the exact same things, and presto! what you do seems to work. This is true in every McDojo, every fantasy fu school, etc.

As I keep telling Victor, sparring only with your students and other poorly skilled people not only doesn't prove anything but it is self-limiting AND leads to failure. You need to spar with good, proven people that beat you. If they are not beating you, then you are not growing. You are only as good as your training/sparring partners.



WCK's method is to control while striking the opponent. That includes getting in from noncontact and fighting on the inside. Clashing is inevitable.



You have no clue as to what I am talking about. This is clear from your posts.

Tell me, what is the "fundamental striking ability developed from chi sao"? Do YOU know it. I'll tell you what it is: the ability to destroy the opponent's structure. And, you're not doing that, nor is Bayer in his videos. And the tactics of WCK are various ways of using the tools to control the opponent. Since you don't control the opponent, all your "tactics" are nonsense.



You are an idiot, aren't you? What GSP and other FIGHTERS, not guys like you who fantasize about KOing people in bars, recognize is the mechanism for developing high levels of physical skill and performance (which is why they are world class fighters and can train very good fighters), and it is as 'couch' indicates. That you don't listen to them is just more proof that you live in a fantasy world of your own making.


You will never learn....:D

I repeat...I know why T fights as he does , no mystery. He doesnt know VT attack ideas using the fundamental striking ability developed from chi-sao drills. Or the tactics to apply them.

[Yoshiyahu]

This underscores the problem with using English interpretations of Chinese terms. In this case, using "stick" for "chi". In English, "stick" has many meanings that the Chinese term "chi" doesn't. For example, "stick" in English can mean "to poke like with a pin."

The Chinese term "chi" denotes two grains of rice that cling (hence another interpretation of chi sao is "arm clinging") together, expressing the notion of a certain degree of attachment (not too solid and not too fragile).

What I do in chi sao is maintain a flexible attachment to my opponent's bridges while trying to control while striking my partner.

Thanks for the definition of the chinese term. That is very interesting informative I never knew that. Very interesting way yo look at chi sau. As clinging arms. Very good indeed.


.........is not what to do in Chi Sau!!!!!

Tell me Terence. How would you fight a person that is not stupid enough to give you their arms???? :confused::rolleyes:

GH


In fighting you have many opportunities to cling or stick to your opponent. A bridge is given when ever your opponent punches or intercepts your attack. If you punch and your opponent grabs your punching hand, obstructs it with his hand or blocks it or parry. That is a bridge. From the Bridge you can pull down his arm and strike, jerk it, press it, push or wedge while punching. This is the basis of sticking. The ideology is to limit your opponent ability to strike back or defend while you have clean crisp opening to abuse.



"You don't need an attached drill to learn to do unattached punching. ' terence

:D do you stick to the dummy arms too ?

Actually the dummy is all about attached techniques. If you look at the dummy form you will see Yip or Wong Shun leung being attached to the dummy as they strike with the other hand or kick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4rDLWIddaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqL9MdLj0k

Now there are transitions were non-contact occur but then contact is re-established when the strike comes. The Huen sau cycle is attached or sticking is it not? what about the neck grab in the beginning, now you have times where your connected and where your not. You have fighters who move in and out of posistion and fighters who brawl. But even when a fighter who floats like butterfly and stings like a bee. When he comes to sting he gives you connection and bridge to attach. Its your job to control him from the point of contact to break his structure so he can not evade or retreat out of you range. The entire Dummy form is not attached, nor is the entire dummy form unattached. So be it when you fight.


I don't do wing chun any more but to me attached fighting is a lot more than attaching to someone's arms. There's head and neck control, underhooks, overhooks, pushing, jamming and even grabbing clothes.

Why limit yourself to just the arms?

I have to agree with you. Very good theory. This is also very Wing Chun too. I don't know if you realize this. There is jamming, obstructing, neck control and head control in WC too!

[k gledhill]

Thanks for the definition of the chinese term. That is very interesting informative I never knew that. Very interesting way yo look at chi sau. As clinging arms. Very good indeed.




In fighting you have many opportunities to cling or stick to your opponent. A bridge is given when ever your opponent punches or intercepts your attack. If you punch and your opponent grabs your punching hand, obstructs it with his hand or blocks it or parry. That is a bridge. From the Bridge you can pull down his arm and strike, jerk it, press it, push or wedge while punching. This is the basis of sticking. The ideology is to limit your opponent ability to strike back or defend while you have clean crisp opening to abuse.




Actually the dummy is all about attached techniques. If you look at the dummy form you will see Yip or Wong Shun leung being attached to the dummy as they strike with the other hand or kick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4rDLWIddaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqL9MdLj0k

Now there are transitions were non-contact occur but then contact is re-established when the strike comes. The Huen sau cycle is attached or sticking is it not? what about the neck grab in the beginning, now you have times where your connected and where your not. You have fighters who move in and out of posistion and fighters who brawl. But even when a fighter who floats like butterfly and stings like a bee. When he comes to sting he gives you connection and bridge to attach. Its your job to control him from the point of contact to break his structure so he can not evade or retreat out of you range. The entire Dummy form is not attached, nor is the entire dummy form unattached. So be it when you fight.



I have to agree with you. Very good theory. This is also very Wing Chun too. I don't know if you realize this. There is jamming, obstructing, neck control and head control in WC too!


touching the dummy isnt development of 'sticking' :D the dummy isnt a man attacking you with two arms outstretched ;)

[t_niehoff]

touching the dummy isnt development of 'sticking' :D the dummy isnt a man attacking you with two arms outstretched ;)

Sticking isn't something you do only when a man is attacking your or facing you with two outstretched arms.

When you "stick" (chi) you are sticking to the opponent's center. That is the basis for chasing control (rather than chasing the hands). If I have contact with your arm, I am using that as a "handle" to your center; if I have contact with your head, I amusing that as a "handle" to your center; etc. IOWs, I stick to your center through whatever contact I have.

[Yoshiyahu]

Excellent Post...I like the way you re-worded that. Its all about controlling your opponents center line and attacking line. Outstreched arms don't always occur. So you cling to what you can be it a shoulder, wrist, elbow,neck, head, or body and strike deep with in their center.



Sticking isn't something you do only when a man is attacking your or facing you with two outstretched arms.

When you "stick" (chi) you are sticking to the opponent's center. That is the basis for chasing control (rather than chasing the hands). If I have contact with your arm, I am using that as a "handle" to your center; if I have contact with your head, I amusing that as a "handle" to your center; etc. IOWs, I stick to your center through whatever contact I have.

[k gledhill]

Terences replies reveal a comlete lack of understanding the dummy...he is still trying to work attached fighting into it...... ?
: )

[t_niehoff]

Terences replies reveal a comlete lack of understanding the dummy...he is still trying to work attached fighting into it...... ?
: )

I guess you don't have the kuit Muk Yan Jong Lien Ging Lik Gung?

WCK's method is to control while striking the opponent, and everything in the curriculum is directed toward that.

[shawchemical]

I don't doubt that you do -- and probably do nothing but noncontact sparring. So what? You spar with your students who do the exact same things, and presto! what you do seems to work. This is true in every McDojo, every fantasy fu school, etc.

As I keep telling Victor, sparring only with your students and other poorly skilled people not only doesn't prove anything but it is self-limiting AND leads to failure. You need to spar with good, proven people that beat you. If they are not beating you, then you are not growing. You are only as good as your training/sparring partners.



WCK's method is to control while striking the opponent. That includes getting in from noncontact and fighting on the inside. Clashing is inevitable.



You have no clue as to what I am talking about. This is clear from your posts.

Tell me, what is the "fundamental striking ability developed from chi sao"? Do YOU know it. I'll tell you what it is: the ability to destroy the opponent's structure. And, you're not doing that, nor is Bayer in his videos. And the tactics of WCK are various ways of using the tools to control the opponent. Since you don't control the opponent, all your "tactics" are nonsense.



You are an idiot, aren't you? What GSP and other FIGHTERS, not guys like you who fantasize about KOing people in bars, recognize is the mechanism for developing high levels of physical skill and performance (which is why they are world class fighters and can train very good fighters), and it is as 'couch' indicates. That you don't listen to them is just more proof that you live in a fantasy world of your own making.

you're clueless T.

That pretty much sums it up.

[t_niehoff]

you're clueless T.

That pretty much sums it up.

You continue to stalk me without providing any alternative views. It seems you and Victor can form a club. ;)

I guess to guys like you headed down fantasy road, reality sounds strange.

You apparently haven't learned that WCK's method is to control while striking. Or that chi sao is a drill/exercise to learn/practice doing that. This isn't new -- it is what our ancestors' developed. That's what you see in Gu Lao, in YKS/SN WCK, in Pan Nam, and even in some Yip lines (Hawkins, Moy, etc.). Even Lam and Wan teach it. Hell, even Sean says this is what Bayer really teaches.

Or, is it that you think that "sport specific" training that GSP (and all fighters) advocates is "clueless"?

Anyway, you, Victor, Goju, etc. make a fine team. I give Kevin credit for at least presenting his substantive views even if I strongly disagree with him. He doesn't seem cut from the same cloth as you guys.

[goju]

Anyway, you, Victor, Goju, etc. make a fine team. I give Kevin credit for at least presenting his substantive views even if I strongly disagree with him. He doesn't seem cut from the same cloth as you guys.


Yes i feel sorry for myself i've actually trained at a legitimate gym with actual fighters and accliamed coaches i can name openly and unlike you i have the common sense to realize immediately when a school or style isnt worth while so it doesnt take me decades to figure out the obvious.:p

Not to mention im in the prime of my youth and am on the up and up with my training while youre an out of shape 50 year old who "practice fights" at a rec center with god whos who. Lets not forget you aren't even a has been in martial arts you never were anything and due to your age its not possible for you to ever change that so you have to be content with the fact your just some crotchety old man who hangs around on forums spouting his rec center fu babble like some type of nutter religious convert.

Enjoy this while it lasts bub because your biggest claim to fame in Ma is going to be posting on here.:D:p

[shawchemical]

You continue to stalk me without providing any alternative views. It seems you and Victor can form a club. ;)

I guess to guys like you headed down fantasy road, reality sounds strange.

You apparently haven't learned that WCK's method is to control while striking. Or that chi sao is a drill/exercise to learn/practice doing that. This isn't new -- it is what our ancestors' developed. That's what you see in Gu Lao, in YKS/SN WCK, in Pan Nam, and even in some Yip lines (Hawkins, Moy, etc.). Even Lam and Wan teach it. Hell, even Sean says this is what Bayer really teaches.

Or, is it that you think that "sport specific" training that GSP (and all fighters) advocates is "clueless"?

Anyway, you, Victor, Goju, etc. make a fine team. I give Kevin credit for at least presenting his substantive views even if I strongly disagree with him. He doesn't seem cut from the same cloth as you guys.

If you made a worthwhile, sensible point, it might be worth having a discussion or debate about it with you. However, since you cannot do so, there is no point in engaging in debate because that gives the impression that there is some merit to the ideas which you have. Because there is not, We're left with pointing and laughing at you.

The situation is much like debating evolution with a creationist.

[t_niehoff]

If you made a worthwhile, sensible point, it might be worth having a discussion or debate about it with you. However, since you cannot do so, there is no point in engaging in debate because that gives the impression that there is some merit to the ideas which you have. Because there is not, We're left with pointing and laughing at you.

The situation is much like debating evolution with a creationist.

That's a very interesting perspective from someone who rarely presents any substantive posts himself.

And it is a great excuse when you are not able to present any reason or evidence to support your views -- oh, you could if you really wanted to, but you just don't want to since refuting my views would paint me in a favorable light! Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

And, btw, would you mind reminding me from whom you learned WCK? You have learned it, right?

[KPM]

If you made a worthwhile, sensible point, it might be worth having a discussion or debate about it with you. However, since you cannot do so, there is no point in engaging in debate because that gives the impression that there is some merit to the ideas which you have. Because there is not, We're left with pointing and laughing at you.

The situation is much like debating evolution with a creationist.


I gotta say that T has made many worthwhile and sensible points. And he is willing to discuss/debate those points when people respond in a rational manner. You don't think WCK is "attached fighting"? Ok...why not? You don't think Chi Sao is all about learning contact reflexes for attached fighting? Ok...why not? You don't think a main goal of WCK is to control while hitting? Ok...why not? You don't think pivoting on the K1 point is good biomechanics? Ok...why not? If people would simply argue the points without ego taking center stage maybe we could get somewhere. Your last comment is a good one. Trying to discuss things logically here is often like trying to talk logic with a religious fanatic. Too many people here seem to take things on faith because "sifu sez" and are unwilling to really examine things for themselves.

[k gledhill]

Excellent, and a very true point Kev!!!!;) Its written all over his posts.

GH

I am pretty sure the 'tactics' are lost on many....chi-sao is the only guide for some like T.
Without the striking techniques you dont have much choice but to attach fight, lop for control etc...been there, :o

[Ultimatewingchun]

"You don't think WCK is 'attached fighting'? Ok...why not? You don't think Chi Sao is all about learning contact reflexes for attached fighting? Ok...why not? You don't think a main goal of WCK is to control while hitting?" (KPM)

..................................

***HERE'S THE PROBLEM with Niehoff's assertions about these things. He's taking one element of "sticking hands" (chi sao) and tries to assert that this one element is what ALL of wing chun is about.

Remember, this all started with his thread entitled "WING CHUN IS ATTACHED FIGHTING."

Now of course chi sao (sticking hands) starts from four arms in engagement. And of course one of the benefits of this is learning and developing contact reflexes. And yes, part of this is learning how to control while hitting.

But wing chun is, first and foremost, about punching people out - whether there's an actual bridge or not.

Which means that wing chun also deals with fighting with NO BRIDGE....AND ALSO WITH CREATING ONE...which leads to striking with fists first and foremost, elbows, palms.

But having a bridge is usually momentary - and hence: YOU ARE NOT "ATTACHED"....but rather, you've positioned yourself (and manipulated him) by means of various moves - much of which will be the need to block, deflect, parry, and redirect the opponent's attempts at striking you.

Hence, skill is needed in wing chun in knowing how and when to use tan, bong, pak, lop, bil, garn, jut, garn, lan, huen, etc....ON YOUR WAY IN...or when the opponent IS ON HIS WAY IN....

From a place of no bridge at all - much less actual "ATTACHMENT".

So when people talk about not wanting to allow the opponent to feel their bridge - what's really being said, imo, is that they don't want any actual ATTACHMENT...they want their bridging to be momentary, and they want it to be manipulative of the other guy - without him being able to manipulate them - which is not the case in REAL attached fighting, ie. clinch, or close to it. In clinch mode both parties have the opportunity to manipulate the other until it's either broken off or one guy gets a clear manipulative advantage. In wing chun, you don't want that kind of engagement.

This is wing chun.

Now do I believe that real fighting requires knowledge and skill in clinch mode, such as what's done in MT, and especially in wrestling and grappling?

OF COURSE.

I was talking about the need for crosstraining long before Niehoff climbed up onto his high, arrogant, and very often inaccurate horse.

But when he talks as if wing chun is nothing but attached fighting - and tries to belittle what others can do with pak, lop, bong, tan, bil, garn, etc.....FROM A NON CONTACT - TO CONTACT RANGE...

then he has to be set straight.

[k gledhill]

Set Terence straight ? but He knows everything :D how can we possibly teach him ? ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good point, Kevin. The guy will never admit that he's wrong about anything. Although he has been known to disappear from the forum for six months at a time rather then face the music once he's been exposed.

But admit things? No.

I guess what I'm really saying is setting the record straight on this forum - so that his false ideas and claims, about himself, about others, and about wng chun - get exposed for the nonsense that they really are.

Some of what he says is true - but there's also a lot of crap.

[shawchemical]

That's a very interesting perspective from someone who rarely presents any substantive posts himself.

And it is a great excuse when you are not able to present any reason or evidence to support your views -- oh, you could if you really wanted to, but you just don't want to since refuting my views would paint me in a favorable light! Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

And, btw, would you mind reminding me from whom you learned WCK? You have learned it, right?

barry lee and bill dowding.

[shawchemical]

That's a very interesting perspective from someone who rarely presents any substantive posts himself.

And it is a great excuse when you are not able to present any reason or evidence to support your views -- oh, you could if you really wanted to, but you just don't want to since refuting my views would paint me in a favorable light! Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

And, btw, would you mind reminding me from whom you learned WCK? You have learned it, right?

Lol, debating skills 101 T-Bag. Your modus operandi is to state something as an absolute, when it is not the case, and then engage in petty little insults at people who have more of a clue than you who claim that you are missing massive pieces of the puzzle.

[bennyvt]

Ive said hundreds of times this is what happens when people rush into chi-sao. I spent months while learning the form doing progression drills. Ie start with a jab, slow to fast, add other techniques, add random, add combos. This was all done from a unattached position. We learnt to step in when needed to catch the person mid step or if needed step back. I did heaps of sparing with my friends etc but I found the opposite thing when I learnt chi sao. My teacher stopped me from attacking for a month (this is a WSL school so you need to understand this was a big thing) because I would just fight instead of chisao. Lots of taking shots to get a hit in etc, not recoverying using strikes just striking etc.
I didn't get that to improve mytechniques I needed to do mass repetion of them not just punch no matter what. I wasn't using it as a learning tool (like bjj rolling) I was just trying to fight with it.

[LoneTiger108]

***HERE'S THE PROBLEM[/B] with Niehoff's assertions about these things. He's taking one element of "sticking hands" (chi sao) and tries to assert that this one element is what ALL of wing chun is about.

... So when people talk about not wanting to allow the opponent to feel their bridge - what's really being said, imo, is that they don't want any actual ATTACHMENT...they want their bridging to be momentary, and they want it to be manipulative of the other guy - without him being able to manipulate them - which is not the case in REAL attached fighting, ie. clinch, or close to it. In clinch mode both parties have the opportunity to manipulate the other until it's either broken off or one guy gets a clear manipulative advantage. In wing chun, you don't want that kind of engagement.

This is wing chun.

Golf clap for you dude. For at least attempting to highlight T's inefficiencies.

I get insulted all the time by T, and sometimes it does make me wonder if he has any real interest in hearing anything from outside his own little bubble? And I was the one chastised by most for not getting out more, for learning from one sifu, for devoting my time to promoting Lee Shing!

You have put forward a very good unattached argument, so let's see what sort of reply you get.

[m1k3]

OK, my question to everyone is: Does WC contain an attached fighting component that is used in the clinch? :confused: Think dirty boxing and Jens 'Lil Evil' Pulver.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The closest move I've seen to that is from the Wooden Dummy, in the very first section: the pull at the back of the head with one hand. In terms of fighting application, this could be used while striking with the other hand.

And in TWC there are also some moves wherein you are pulling the head in with one arm, controlling (and pulling) one of his arms with your other arm (lop sao) - while throwing a knee to the body or groin.

Controlling and using lop sao on of his arms with one of yours while throwing an elbow strike with your other arm is also used.

[t_niehoff]

OK, my question to everyone is: Does WC contain an attached fighting component that is used in the clinch? :confused: Think dirty boxing and Jens 'Lil Evil' Pulver.

WCK's fighting range is on the inside, in "chi sao" range (that's how close you are to your opponent). That is where our tools work. They don't work on the outside.

And WCK's method is to control the opponent while striking him (like dirty boxing). I consider WCK a form of dirty boxing.

Chi sao teaches you and lets you practice controlling the opponent while striking him. You do that by pushing, pulling, wedging, lifting, pressing, jerking, etc. your opponent to keep him from being "set, to disrupt him, to break his structure, all the while striking him. Isn't that what dirty boxing does?

How we go about doing that is somewhat different than what Jens does (which combines boxing, greco,etc.).

[HumbleWCGuy]

OK, my question to everyone is: Does WC contain an attached fighting component that is used in the clinch? :confused: Think dirty boxing and Jens 'Lil Evil' Pulver.

It's not contained in the forms, but the forms don't represent the entire body of WC knowledge. Most WCers will learn to grab and knee and throw elbows. It just hasn't been real sophisticated in terms of the neck wrestling and Greco-type stuff until more recently.

Now how much of those types of things were in the art historically, it is hard to say. WC is so LARPed up to turn it into a money maker that it is difficult to say.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I consider WCK a form of dirty boxing." (Niehoff)
...............................

***IT IS very similar to dirty boxing. But it is NOT attached fighting, as you see in Greco, MT clinching fighting, wrestling/grappling, etc.

And there are wing chun strategies and techniques that can be used from non contact range to bridging into close range, (pak, lop, gum, chuen, tan, bong, garn, etc.) - and some moves from the outside to close range without hardly any bridging at all, ie.- punching while angling.

[t_niehoff]

"I consider WCK a form of dirty boxing." (Niehoff)
...............................

***IT IS very similar to dirty boxing. But it is NOT attached fighting, as you see in Greco, MT clinching fighting, wrestling/grappling, etc.

And there are wing chun strategies and techniques that can be used from non contact range to bridging into close range, (pak, lop, gum, chuen, tan, bong, garn, etc.) - and some moves from the outside to close range without hardly any bridging at all, ie.- punching while angling.

As I said, if you don't understand something, ask for clarification.

You obviously don't know what I mean by "attached." To clarify, I mean attached to his center -- having a fluid (changeable) connection to him so that I can control him. That can involve some of the things you see in greco, MT, and wrestling.

The movements that you listed, except for the pak sao, are not actions you can use to move from noncontact to "join". Lop means "pulling" - you can't pull without having contact. Gum means "pinning" - you can't pin something without contact. Tan means "spreading" - you can't spread something without contact. Etc. The names themselves tell you what the action is.

[Ultimatewingchun]

No, you obviously don't understand the difference between clinch fighting (which is "attached")...and close range striking and bridging that is not "attached" clinch fighting.

[t_niehoff]

No, you obviously don't understand the difference between clinch fighting (which is "attached")...and close range striking and bridging that is not "attached" clinch fighting.

A "bridge" (kiu) is a connection to the opponent. No connection, no bridge. Tan, bong, fook, pak, etc. are all bridge hands.

If you are connected to your opponent (bridged) then you are attached to him. Or, as Wang Kiu so aptly put it, "you want to be stuck to him like gum in his hair!"

The reason for bridging is so as to control your opponent. If you don't want to physically control him, then you don't need a bridge. That's why boxing doesn't have bridge hands!

When you are very close to your opponent (in the phone booth) if you are not controlling him, he will be (unless he is a complete scrub) trying to control you.

[m1k3]

I'm not sure I follow you Victor. I see dirty boxing as attached fighting. Kind of like this. (You have to go in a little to get past the BS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxh4a2r0sBw

[Ultimatewingchun]

Having contact via a bridge hand (pak, lop, gum, etc.) DOES NOT MEAN that you and the opponent are "attached."

It simply means that there is SOME limb-to-limb or limb-to-body contact.

I realize (as do many other people) that you are trying to impose your own made up definitions in order to compensate for the fact that YOU CAN'T use wing chun in any other manner, but this doesn't apply to quite a number of people - including myself.

Get over it.

[Wayfaring]

No, you obviously don't understand the difference between clinch fighting (which is "attached")...and close range striking and bridging that is not "attached" clinch fighting.

I think there is a difference between attached clinch fighting and unattached clinch fighting. To me the challenge for unattached clinch fighting, which is where WCK is lies in the range transition timing. All the better fighters tend to use athleticism and conditioning to wear you down on the outside and then traverse that range gap very quickly to clinch or takedown range. You have to develop skill to shut down the initial crash before you can work in unattached clinch range. Since I've been working a lot of grappling lately I'm sorting out for my game the timing and strategies for unattached clinch striking and simply going with wrestling clinch skills and takedowns. The best I have figured out so far is not rocket science but simply you take what they give you. I'm also learning to blend the two between some good solid strikes opening up takedowns and also striking in and out of the clinch.

[t_niehoff]

Having contact via a bridge hand (pak, lop, gum, etc.) DOES NOT MEAN that you and the opponent are "attached."

It simply means that there is SOME limb-to-limb or limb-to-body contact.


The attachment is to their center (you want to maintain that connection). The bridges are means to maintain it. The length (of time) connection with our bridges will vary, and shift (from one connection to another), etc.

Again, this is all part of what you learn in chi sao.



I realize (as do many other people) that you are trying to impose your own made up definitions in order to compensate for the fact that YOU CAN'T use wing chun in any other manner, but this doesn't apply to quite a number of people - including myself.

Get over it.

What made up definitions? Kiu (bridge)? You do know that there are other terms in WCK, things like mor (touch) that pertain to "some" contact. Kiu has very specific connotations, referring to a solid connection between to bodies (something that you could "cross).

I've seen your sparring clip -- and there was little to no WCK in it. You didn't even use the WCK punch.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"A 'bridge'" (kiu) is a connection to the opponent. No connection, no bridge. Tan, bong, fook, pak, etc. are all bridge hands.

If you are connected to your opponent (bridged) then you are attached to him." (Niehoff)
..................................

***THIS IS FALSE. Having some limb-to-limb or limb-to-body contact (ie.- a bridge) DOES NOT MEAN that you are "attached" to him.

Attached means that you and the opponent are completely connected (or close to it). As in a Greco clinch, for example. Or an MT clinch.

YOU'RE TRYING TO BLUR THE LINES - and you're using the wing chun elements that come nearest to what actual attached CLINCH fighting is - to say that this is ALL THERE IS within the wing chun arsenal.

Can one go very easily from a wing chun close quarter bridging technique into an actual clinch? OF COURSE.

Which is why I've been saying for years that one needs actual clinch fighting training (ie.- crosstraining, including ground) in order to be a more complete fighter.

But your agenda, to make up for the fact that YOU can't use wing chun in any other way, is to say (over-and-over again) that wing chun is simply "attached" fighting.

But attached means CLINCH, and there's just no getting around that. And wing chun is NOT clinch fighting.

It has some similar elements of that, but it also has other very important features that don't come even close to actual clinch fighting - and those features define what wing chun is.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm not sure I follow you Victor. I see dirty boxing as attached fighting. Kind of like this. (You have to go in a little to get past the BS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxh4a2r0sBw

***GOOD VID, m1k3. Jens has always been an excellent fighter. And what he shows on that vid is good punching to clinch strategy and technique. But pretty much all that's on that vid that overlaps with wing chun is when (from apx. 6:00-6:20) he had a neck tie with one hand and was punching with the other.

What I mentioned earlier from the Wooden Dummy set.

And some of the clinch & knee strikes that he did briefly. (Again, what I mentioned earlier about TWC).

Now don't get me wrong: I like what he does and wouldn't hesitate to use it as part of what I do. But what I won't do is take it and then label it as "WING CHUN".

[t_niehoff]

"A 'bridge'" (kiu) is a connection to the opponent. No connection, no bridge. Tan, bong, fook, pak, etc. are all bridge hands.

If you are connected to your opponent (bridged) then you are attached to him." (Niehoff)
..................................

***THIS IS FALSE. Having some limb-to-limb or limb-to-body contact (ie.- a bridge) DOES NOT MEAN that you are "attached" to him.


Of course it doesn't. You miss the point. The reason I want a "bridge" is to have an attachment to his center. You can touch the guy in all kinds of ways and not have that. But by having a center-to-center attachment, I can control my opponent.



Attached means that you and the opponent are completely connected (or close to it). As in a Greco clinch, for example. Or an MT clinch.


Yes, that is ONE way of having an attachment -- a body lock is an attachment. But I can have an attachment to your center by just pressing you too.

Go back are read what I wrote:

The attachment is to their center (you want to maintain that connection). The bridges are means to maintain it. The length (of time) connection with our bridges will vary, and shift (from one connection to another), etc.

Again, this is all part of what you learn in chi sao.



YOU'RE TRYING TO BLUR THE LINES - and you're using the wing chun elements that come nearest to what actual attached CLINCH fighting is - to say that this is ALL THERE IS within the wing chun arsenal.


I'm not trying to blur anything, I cam trying to clarify.

Look, I want to be in the phonebooth, the WCK operative range, the inside, in "chi sao" range (not to do chi sao but to be that close to the opponent). That is where ALL the WCK tools function. That's because they are all "designed" for that range, for controlling the opponent while striking him.

Chi sao is a clinch. Not a realistic clinch, but a clinch nonetheless.



Can one go very easily from a wing chun close quarter bridging technique into an actual clinch? OF COURSE.

Which is why I've been saying for years that one needs actual clinch fighting training (ie.- crosstraining, including ground) in order to be a more complete fighter.


I agree with you that having a larger clinch game makes you a more well-rounded fighter. Even if you are a MT fighter, learning greco only helps you. But WCK has a clinch game, its a fluid clinch as opposed to what you typically think of (a more fixed clinch). You push, pull, wedge, lift, press, jerk, twist, etc. your opponent to keep him from being "set", to keep him off-balance, to keep his structure broken, etc. while you pound him. How is that not dirty clinch?



But your agenda, to make up for the fact that YOU can't use wing chun in any other way, is to say (over-and-over again) that wing chun is simply "attached" fighting.


WCK's method comes from our ancestors, it isn't my agenda. That method is to control the opponent while striking him.

To control the opponent requires that you keep control of his center, and that requires you stay "attached" to his center. As I explained, this attachment isn't necessarily, though it can be, fixed, but tends to me fluid, adaptable, changing. IOWs, you may move from handle to handle, staying with one handle varying lengths of time, but in all of that your attachment to his center remains intact.

As I said, you learn this from chi sao. When you meet someone with good chi sao (that Wan clip is a good example), you will be tossed around like a rag doll but not as a MT fighter would or a wrestler would but by using WCK tools.



But attached means CLINCH, and there's just no getting around that. And wing chun is NOT clinch fighting.

It has some similar elements of that, but it also has other very important features that don't come even close to actual clinch fighting - and those features define what wing chun is.

Your problem is that you see clinch only as grego/MT. WCK has its own clinch, its own way of using sustained contact to control an opponent. You may not have learned it but it is there. Chi sao teaches it to you. But only if your focus when doing chi sao is to control your opponent while striking him.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I agree with you that having a larger clinch game makes you a more well-rounded fighter. Even if you are a MT fighter, learning greco only helps you. But WCK has a clinch game, its a fluid clinch as opposed to what you typically think of (a more fixed clinch). You push, pull, wedge, lift, press, jerk, twist, etc. your opponent to keep him from being "set", to keep him off-balance, to keep his structure broken, etc. while you pound him. How is that not dirty clinch?" (Niehoff)
.........................

***THIS IS Alan's, and presumably Robert's, interpretation of how to use wing chun. And that's fine. But this is NOT the wing chun that came from China - it is their interpretations and additions to what came from China.

But when people (and you are at the top of the list) start playing the labeling game: ie.- wing chun IS attached fighting, the wing chun "guillotine", and so on...then it's out-and-out marketing at best....and deliberate belittlement of what other wing chun people do at worst.

[YungChun]

But when people (and you are at the top of the list) start playing the labeling game: ie.- wing chun IS attached fighting, the wing chun "guillotine", and so on...then it's out-and-out marketing at best....and deliberate belittlement of what other wing chun people do at worst.

You're mixing up what Alan does in fighting, what Alan teaches about VT, what Robert said in one post and what T says in many, and making it all into one thing... It's not.

This is what I realized a while back.. Many are placing their own use of terms on what T is saying/using... If you look back to what he has just written you may see as I do that he is very simply talking about plain vanilla VT.. The fact that you don't like the word "attach" notwithstanding.

Attach now as I understand what he means makes perfect sense wrt what we are trying to do to the opponent..the VT method...

The "attach" is the COM energy issuing component that breaks structure...

The "attach" is not static, just like "structure" is not static...

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Your problem is that you see clinch only as grego/MT. WCK has its own clinch, its own way of using sustained contact to control an opponent. You may not have learned it but it is there. Chi sao teaches it to you. But only if your focus when doing chi sao is to control your opponent while striking him." (Niehoff)
.....................

***SURE I learned how to push, pull, unbalance, and control during chi sao. As well as how to use all of this as a means of setting up the opponent for strikes, including while the other hand is still controlling him.

But that's chi sao. And chi sao is a drill.

It is not fighting.

You need to be able to take these components out of chi sao and put them into an all out fighting setting - which MUST also include how to use wing chun from non contact range, and how to block the opponent's strikes that come from non contact range, how to redirect or deflect them, how to use your footwork to avoid them altogether, and how to punch (and kick) your way in.

Unfortunately, it is these things that you either never learned, or learned wrong. But that's not my problem, or anybody else's problem.

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's not that I don't like the word "attached", Jim.

What I don't like is the blurring of the lines that a guy like Niehoff does through the use of such words.

Wing chun bridging is one thing.

Being "attached" means that you are in clinch mode, or very close to it.

[YungChun]

It's not that I don't like the word "attached", Jim.

What I don't like is the blurring of the lines that a guy like Niehoff does through the use of such words.

Wing chun bridging is one thing.

Being "attached" means that you are in clinch mode, or very close to it.

You may mean that, but T doesn't..

He means attaching to their CORE... However you do that, via a bridge to their limb, to their neck, to their head with a punch.................................

And THAT is the key: What is meant here..

[Ultimatewingchun]

He can "mean" anything he wants.

But the correct use of the word "attached" is the issue here.

Do we need to go to a dictionary?

[t_niehoff]

"I agree with you that having a larger clinch game makes you a more well-rounded fighter. Even if you are a MT fighter, learning greco only helps you. But WCK has a clinch game, its a fluid clinch as opposed to what you typically think of (a more fixed clinch). You push, pull, wedge, lift, press, jerk, twist, etc. your opponent to keep him from being "set", to keep him off-balance, to keep his structure broken, etc. while you pound him. How is that not dirty clinch?" (Niehoff)
.........................

***THIS IS Alan's, and presumably Robert's, interpretation of how to use wing chun. And that's fine. But this is NOT the wing chun that came from China - it is their interpretations and additions to what came from China.


And mine too. ;)

But I am describing the WCK method as it came from our ancestors. Look at the SN/YKS method (YKS was a generation senior to Yip) - first daap (join), then jeet (cut-off his offense), then chum (destroy his structure), then biu (deliver your weapons), all the while chi (sticking to him). Same in Gu Lao (which comes from Leung Jan). Same in Pan Nam (who learned from Yip's sihing). Same in Yik Kam. You even see some Yip people (WSL, Ho Kam Ming, Moy Yat, Hawkins, etc.) who seem to have learned it. They just use different terms for the same things.

It is in the kuit.

Why do we have chi gerk? Not the drill but the various elements? To learn to use our horses/steps/kicks to control the guy on the inside (by destroying his base with our legs).

It's all there. And it's not a Robert/Hawkins invention.



But when people (and you are at the top of the list) start playing the labeling game: ie.- wing chun IS attached fighting, the wing chun "guillotine", and so on...then it's out-and-out marketing at best....and deliberate belittlement of what other wing chun people do at worst.

I use words like "attached" to express ideas. I'm not marketing since I don't have anything for sale. I've never charged anyone for WCK.

I'm sorry but I think a lot of WCK being taught is out right bad. And I'm not going to sugar-coat it. WCK was "defined" by our ancestors. How "good" our WCK is depends on how well we can use their method in fighting. Their method was to control the opponent while striking him and an organized strategic approach for doing that. Now, if someone is successful in using limited elements of WCK, like by charging in with chain punches, that's great. They are using WCK since they are using WCK tools.

[YungChun]

He can "mean" anything he wants.

But the correct use of the word "attached" is the issue here.

Do we need to go to a dictionary?

You're climbing the wrong tree.. It's correct.

We do want to stay attached to his core, what you miss is that the connection or attachment to the core is dynamic in its point of attachment..

[t_niehoff]

He can "mean" anything he wants.

But the correct use of the word "attached" is the issue here.

Do we need to go to a dictionary?

Sure, go to a dictionary. Attach means to have a permanent connection. And that's what I am saying -- I want a permanent connection to my opponent's center (so that I can control him). The means of connection isn't fixed or permanent, as it can change -- for example, I can press into your chest to connect to your center and then switch hands to maintain my attachment to your center.

But I use the word "attached" because I want to convey that my connection to your center isn't fleeting or interrupted.

[t_niehoff]

You're mixing up what Alan does in fighting, what Alan teaches about VT, what Robert said in one post and what T says in many, and making it all into one thing... It's not.

This is what I realized a while back.. Many are placing their own use of terms on what T is saying/using... If you look back to what he has just written you may see as I do that he is very simply talking about plain vanilla VT.. The fact that you don't like the word "attach" notwithstanding.

Attach now as I understand what he means makes perfect sense wrt what we are trying to do to the opponent..the VT method...

The "attach" is the COM energy issuing component that breaks structure...

The "attach" is not static, just like "structure" is not static...

Exactly right.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I think a lot of WCK being taught is out right bad. And I'm not going to sugar-coat it. WCK was 'defined' by our ancestors. How 'good' our WCK is depends on how well we can use their method in fighting. Their method was to control the opponent while striking him and an organized strategic approach for doing that. Now, if someone is successful in using limited elements of WCK, like by charging in with chain punches, that's great. They are using WCK since they are using WCK tools." (Niehoff)
......................................

***TRUE. But what is false is the notion that "controlling the opponent while striking him" means only one thing: you have to be in some sort of clinch mode in order to make it work.

This is a very limited view of what is possible with wing chun.

Using moves like pak, lop, chuen, gum, jut, garn, bil, bong, tan, huen, lan, fuk, and various combinations there of - in conjunction with solid punching technique, good footwork, angling, and strategy (of which the TWC parallel leg blindside fight strategy is one very good one)...as a means of coming in - and as a means of blocking the opponent's strikes, redirecting or deflecting them, and yes, creating bridges from these techniques - including bridges that can be used while striking with the other hand, and unbalancing and possibly even sweeping him off his feet...

all of these things can fall under the category of "controlling the opponent while striking him."

[t_niehoff]

"Your problem is that you see clinch only as grego/MT. WCK has its own clinch, its own way of using sustained contact to control an opponent. You may not have learned it but it is there. Chi sao teaches it to you. But only if your focus when doing chi sao is to control your opponent while striking him." (Niehoff)
.....................

***SURE I learned how to push, pull, unbalance, and control during chi sao. As well as how to use all of this as a means of setting up the opponent for strikes, including while the other hand is still controlling him.

But that's chi sao. And chi sao is a drill.

It is not fighting.


Exactly! After chi sao the next step is putting what you have learned in that drill (how to control while striking) into fighting. That is, fighting on the inside using WCK tools (what you have learned in chi sao).



You need to be able to take these components out of chi sao and put them into an all out fighting setting - which MUST also include how to use wing chun from non contact range, and how to block the opponent's strikes that come from non contact range, how to redirect or deflect them, how to use your footwork to avoid them altogether, and how to punch (and kick) your way in.

Unfortunately, it is these things that you either never learned, or learned wrong. But that's not my problem, or anybody else's problem.

What you do is take CONTACT actions and try to make them work at noncontact and on the outside. And that's why they hardly ever work. The tools of WCK that you practice in chi sao work IN chi sao range, not outside it. That's our operative range, where we want to fight from, what we"enter" to, etc.

WCK has a separate method for the outside, for entry. That is separate and distinct from what you do in contact or on the inside.

But before you can learn that, you must first learn how to control your opponent on the inside (if you don't know the how's and why's of the inside, you won't know what to do, what not to do, etc. when you enter -- since you want your entry to set up or go into control).

[t_niehoff]

"I think a lot of WCK being taught is out right bad. And I'm not going to sugar-coat it. WCK was 'defined' by our ancestors. How 'good' our WCK is depends on how well we can use their method in fighting. Their method was to control the opponent while striking him and an organized strategic approach for doing that. Now, if someone is successful in using limited elements of WCK, like by charging in with chain punches, that's great. They are using WCK since they are using WCK tools." (Niehoff)
......................................

***TRUE. But what is false is the notion that "controlling the opponent while striking him" means only one thing: you have to be in some sort of clinch mode in order to make it work.


To control an opponent you must be in contact with him.



This is a very limited view of what is possible with wing chun.


No, it is just recognizing that I can't physically control you without contact.



Using moves like pak, lop, chuen, gum, jut, garn, bil, bong, tan, huen, lan, fuk, and various combinations there of - in conjunction with solid punching technique, good footwork, angling, and strategy (of which the TWC parallel leg blindside fight strategy is one very good one)...as a means of coming in - and as a means of blocking the opponent's strikes, redirecting or deflecting them, and yes, creating bridges from these techniques - including bridges that can be used while striking with the other hand, and unbalancing and possibly even sweeping him off his feet...


Getting the opponent's flank (the blindside) is not unique to TWC. It's called pien san in Gu Lao and YKS WCK. But to get the opponent's flank, you need to first control his center.

To control his center, you need bridges. By controlling the opponent, you automatically cut off (jeet) his striking. The focus needs to be in control, not just dealing with strikes.

How you control depends on what the opponent is doing. Sometimes I use both may arms/hands to push, pull, twist, lift, etc., sometimes I use one to do that while the other strikes, sometimes I just strike, etc. And your horse plays a critical role, your legs cutting into his stance, etc.



all of these things can fall under the category of "controlling the opponent while striking him."

They may all be tools for doing that, but people often use the tools without that intention/objective. Controlling the opponent while striking him is what you are DOING,what you are accomplishing.

[m1k3]

A comment on grappling and mt clinching being "fixed". I just want to make sure that no one reading this views a grappling or mt clinch as being static. It too is a very dynamic and fluid envoironment with both players working for control by pushing, pulling, lifting, pressing and splitting as well as leg movement, circling, trips, knees and sweeps all happening at the same time.

It isn't 2 people hanging on each others necks and pushing and pulling like a couple of bulls, although that can be fun also. :p

[m1k3]

Getting the opponent's flank (the blindside) is not unique to TWC. It's called pien san in Gu Lao and YKS WCK. But to get the opponent's flank, you need to first control his center.



In wrestling it's called turning the corner.

[t_niehoff]

In wrestling it's called turning the corner.

Yes, exactly.

And it brings up a worthwhile point: you won't be able to take an opponent's flank from the outside or without contact. It just won't happen as your opponent will automatically track you -- that is, keep facing by turning as you try to step around him -- unlike what you see when demo'ed when the stooge stands there facing straight ahead, arm extended, while an instructor steps around him.

What sorts of fighters get and control from the flank? Grapplers.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"To control an opponent you must be in contact with him." (Niehoff)
.............................

***NO 5HIT, SHERLOCK. But this is where the false assumptions in the way you try to REDEFINE words begins.

Because to be in contact with the opponent doesn't necessarily mean that you are ATTACHED to him.

The word "contact" could mean "attached" - AS IN FULL CLINCH.

But to be "in contact" CAN ALSO MEAN just a simple pak sao on his incoming punch, for example.

But this is NOT BEING "ATTACHED". God, you're clueless.

Yes, I realize that even a full Greco clinch, or an MT clinch...are DYNAMIC. But that dynamic element is within the parameters of all hands and quite often the entire upper body of one or both parties being engaged with the limbs and the body and possibly the head of the opponent.

And once you go there, you're leaving the realm of wing chun kung fu.

If you weren't so intent on nuthugging and selling the Robert/Alan product/approach to wing chun as the one and only way to do wing chun...

you would realize that your definitions play fast and loose with the facts - not to mention a not-so-subtle attempt to try and make all other approaches to wing chun look inferior by comparison.

Which, of course, like so much of what you write, is bull5hit.

Just show us a vid of what you do, okay. Instead of dancing all around and trying to redefine words to suit your convenience.

[t_niehoff]

"To control an opponent you must be in contact with him." (Niehoff)
.............................

***AND THEREIN lies your false assumptions in the way you try to REDEFINE words.

Because to be in contact with the opponent doesn't necessarily mean that you are ATTACHED to him.

The word "contact" could mean "attached" - AS IN FULL CLINCH.


Try to follow -- I can't control you without contact. Yes, that doesn't mean I am attached to you. But to attach, I need contact. I attach to your center as I have explained. I CAN attach to your center in what you call "a full clinch", like in greco, or in the WCK way.



But to be "in contact" CAN ALSO MEAN just a simple pak sao on his incoming punch, for example. But this is NOT BEING "ATTACHED". God, you're clueless.


You are mixing up things because you don't understand and aren't doing them.

A pak sao makes contact, and I need contact to control. But simply slapping your opponent's arm, while contact, doesn't give you control. To have control, your contact needs to be a bridge, a solid connection to your opponent's center. That's what your pak sao is supposed to do: make a connection to his center.

Once I have a connection to your center, I can control YOU. NOT just your arm, but your whole structure. I do that by using the connection to your center to break your structure and keep it broken. But to keep it broken, I need to remain attached -- keep a continual connection to your center. If I lose that attachment, I lose control and then you can regain your structure.



Yes, I realize that even a full Greco clinch, or an MT clinch...are DYNAMIC. But that dynamic element is within the parameters of all hands (and quite often the entire upper body) of one or both parties being engaged with the limbs and/or body of the other guy.

Once you go there, you're outside the realm of wing chun kung fu.


Not exactly.



If you weren't so intent on nuthugging and selling the Robert/Alan product/approach to wing chun as the one and only way to do wing chun...

you would realize that your definitions play fast and loose with the facts - not to mention a not-so-subtle attempt to try and make all other approaches to wing chun look inferior by comparison.

Which, of course, like so much of what you write....is bull5hit.

Sorry, Victor, but I am only describing WCK's approach. As I indicated, this is the approach taught in YKS/SN, in Pan Nam, in Yik Kam, in Gu Lao, in all the older legit branches of WCK. It's not Robert's approach -- it is WCK's approach. He just teaches it. But so do others.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Not exactly."

Did you just say...."Not exactly" !!!!??? :rolleyes:

You know what? I've given your double-talking lawyer speak enough attention for one day.

So for now I'll leave it to the forum to read this thread and the FACING thread's latest posts and then decide who's who and what's what.

[Yoshiyahu]

The problem is people dont understand the purpose of WC techniques. Receive what comes, follow what leaves, rush in when their is an opening. Paraphrase of course. But what that means is your oppent strikes you. You receive the strike by tan sau, bong sau, pak sau or gum sau or wu sau. The opponent draws back his arm you thus strike deep in his center. The opponent is inactive or is staying out of range then you gain contact and attack.

Wing chun is all about touching your opponents limbs, body, or head to feel his next move and counter and control. Most of you guys are in the kickboxing mind set where you just react or defend instead of controlling your opponent. If you work on the controlling aspect of wing chun it will make your chun alot better. Remember WC is an aggressive art. Whats the best way to attack an opponent while being left untouched. By trapping his tools so he can't mount another attack.

What do the trap hands in chi sau teach you, what do the two man drills teach you. Its teaching you how to stick, feel, read your opponents energy and control his force. Whats the purpose of sticking? To read, control and redirect your foes force or energy. Whats the purpose of the wooden man. To drill techniques, harden your arms and condition them to take impact and to get use to sliding around a person limbs. The Wooden man is a static training tool. Thats why you must take the form and make them into two man drills that you can later incorporate into full contact sparrring, light sparring, free flow sparring etc. Then the wooden man can become alive in away where you can actually use the form in real life!

But ne way if you dont see the sticking in wooden man form. Why is it that yip man arms are constantly sliding, and touching the dummy from move to move?

[YungChun]

What does a PakSao do?

Does it make contact? Yes.

Does it clear the line? Yes.

Does it break structure? If you use it that way.

Does it create an attachment/connection to their COM? Yes if you use it to break their structure...

I once sent a guy flying with a PakSao... Was that a block?

It all depends on what we do with the tools....

[k gledhill]

The problem is people dont understand the purpose of WC techniques. Receive what comes, follow what leaves, rush in when their is an opening. Paraphrase of course. But what that means is your oppent strikes you. You receive the strike by tan sau, bong sau, pak sau or gum sau or wu sau. The opponent draws back his arm you thus strike deep in his center. The opponent is inactive or is staying out of range then you gain contact and attack.

Wing chun is all about touching your opponents limbs, body, or head to feel his next move and counter and control. Most of you guys are in the kickboxing mind set where you just react or defend instead of controlling your opponent. If you work on the controlling aspect of wing chun it will make your chun alot better. Remember WC is an aggressive art. Whats the best way to attack an opponent while being left untouched. By trapping his tools so he can't mount another attack.

What do the trap hands in chi sau teach you, what do the two man drills teach you. Its teaching you how to stick, feel, read your opponents energy and control his force. Whats the purpose of sticking? To read, control and redirect your foes force or energy. Whats the purpose of the wooden man. To drill techniques, harden your arms and condition them to take impact and to get use to sliding around a person limbs. The Wooden man is a static training tool. Thats why you must take the form and make them into two man drills that you can later incorporate into full contact sparrring, light sparring, free flow sparring etc. Then the wooden man can become alive in away where you can actually use the form in real life!

But ne way if you dont see the sticking in wooden man form. Why is it that yip man arms are constantly sliding, and touching the dummy from move to move?

no no no no no [ had to write it several times , too short once :D ]

[t_niehoff]

"Not exactly."

Did you just say...."Not exactly" !!!!??? :rolleyes:

You know what? I've given your double-talking lawyer speak enough attention for one day.

So for now I'll leave it to the forum to read this thread and the FACING thread's latest posts and then decide who's who and what's what.

Yip Man was known for when playing chi sao, of not striking but only controlling his partner. He'd keep them on their toes and heels. That's the highest level of chi sao. What was he doing, how did he do that? By attaching to their center through his bridge hands and using that attachment to prevent his opponent from ever regaining his structure/balance. There is a lesson there. And it's not that this is only for chi sao, but is something that you want to put into your fighting. Chi sao is a teaching/learning platform.

You can't control someone -- like what Yip was doing -- without contact. And you need to use that contact, even if the contact point, means, etc. is constantly changing (like it does in chi sao), to keep/maintain your connection to your opponent's center. IOWs, have a permanent connection to it. That is what I mean by "attached".

If when we play chi sao or when we fight we are trying to block punches or deflect them, etc. we are only dealing with the punch, and the opponent is free to do the next thing. That is low-level WCK. There is no control. Good chi sao and good WCK fighting takes away the opponent's opportunity to strike.

[m1k3]

What does a PakSao do?

Does it make contact? Yes.

Does it clear the line? Yes.

Does it break structure? If you use it that way.

Does it create an attachment/connection to their COM? Yes if you use it to break their structure...

I once sent a guy flying with a PakSao... Was that a block?

It all depends on what we do with the tools....

LOL.

I played football a long time ago. Defensive line and linebacker. I often used a Pak Sao to move some big offensive lineman out of the way. :eek:

When I wrestled the Pak Sao was often used to clear a line to set up a shot.

Watch Sumo, they are very effective at controlling someone's structure using a Pak Sao.

:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Yip Man was known for when playing chi sao, of not striking but only controlling his partner. He'd keep them on their toes and heels. That's the highest level of chi sao. What was he doing, how did he do that? By attaching to their center through his bridge hands and using that attachment to prevent his opponent from ever regaining his structure/balance. There is a lesson there. And it's not that this is only for chi sao, but is something that you want to put into your fighting. Chi sao is a teaching/learning platform.

You can't control someone -- like what Yip was doing -- without contact. And you need to use that contact, even if the contact point, means, etc. is constantly changing (like it does in chi sao), to keep/maintain your connection to your opponent's center. IOWs, have a permanent connection to it. That is what I mean by "attached".

If when we play chi sao or when we fight we are trying to block punches or deflect them, etc. we are only dealing with the punch, and the opponent is free to do the next thing. That is low-level WCK. There is no control. Good chi sao and good WCK fighting takes away the opponent's opportunity to strike.

***THIS IS really a wonderful turn of events, Terence. You are now a fan of Yip Man. In the past he was in your mind (and in your posts) just another over-glorified theoretical non fighter.

It's really wonderful.

[m1k3]

***THIS IS really a wonderful turn of events, Terence. You are now a fan of Yip Man. In the past he was in your mind (and in your posts) just another over-glorified theoretical non fighter.

It's really wonderful.

Sorry Victor, but I still haven't read anything from T where he says Yip Man was a good fighter. What I read is T said he was good a playing Chi Sao.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I know. But we all know from Niehoff's posts in the past that good chi sao doesn't mean anything at all, it's what you can do with your chi sao skills when sparring/fighting highly skilled, resisting opponents that matters. And according to Niehoff, Yip Man never fought anybody of that stature - so he's over rated and over glorifed.

But yet, now Niehoff wants to praise Yip Man's skills in chi sao.

You don't see a hypocritical contradiction here?

According to Niehoff's own analysis, what difference would it make that Yip Man had high level chi sao skills? He's still just a theoretical non fighter.

[t_niehoff]

I know. But we all know from Niehoff's posts in the past that good chi sao doesn't mean anything at all,


You constantly mis-characterize what I've said, and then you rail against it!

I never said good chi sao doesn't mean anything at all. I've said it is only unrealistic practice, it can only be used as a teaching/learning exercise, not to develop fighting skill.



it's what you can do with your chi sao skills when sparring/fighting highly skilled, resisting opponents that matters.


Yes, exactly.

Chi sao is the classical way to learn the tools/method of WCK. It's only step #1.



And according to Niehoff, Yip Man never fought anybody of that stature - so he's over rated and over glorifed.


As a fighter. Not as a teacher. There is no doubt that he knew the curriculum of WCK and was proficient with it.

How many fights did Yip have his whole life? And what was the level of his opponents? How can you be considered at good fighter if they rarely fight and never beat anyone good?

The other aspect is that to even develop into a "good" or even competent fighter you have to do certain things, regardless of your style or art. Since fighting skill only comes from fighting, that means you have to practice fighting (spar) a lot (hundreds of hours minimum), and with good people, to develop to their level. You can see this is every combative sport.

When did Yip do that NECESSARY work? He didn't.



But yet, now Niehoff wants to praise Yip Man's skills in chi sao.

You don't see a hypocritical contradiction here?


No, there is no contradiction. I praise him as a teacher and having very good facility with the curriculum (including the drills). That doesn't mean he is a good fighter -- that is evaluated differently.



According to Niehoff's own analysis, what difference would it make that Yip Man had high level chi sao skills? He's still just a theoretical non fighter.

The point is that Yip Man knew the curriculum of WCK, and that includes its method, controlling the opponent while striking him. He knew that chi sao was a drill/exercise to learn how to and practice doing that using the WCK tools. And that's why Yip practiced how he did -- he focused on controlling his partner in chi sao.

That doesn't make him some great fighter.

[Yoshiyahu]

no no no no no [ had to write it several times , too short once :D ]

why r u saying no?

[bennyvt]

Again plaese name all the good guys that robert and alan have fought. Please show me the hundred hours of fights that they have been in. Taking away your usual attempt to make sparing fighting, They would not be good by your standards. Just using your own ideas, Alan looks like he can fight to me but if you think differently maybe you should see him.
Oh by your standards then helio wouldn't be a good fighter either. Show me all his hours of fighting good people, well except for kimura that snapped his arm.
Your standards only apply when you want to make a point.
Each person fought anyone that would fight him. No they didn't travel the world to fight everyone. But to say they aren't good fighter because you don't know any of the people that they thought or they didn't fight MMA guys is the usual terrence crap.:rolleyes:
The ultimate sign of chisao or VT is a person knocked out or incapacitated. While control is important just controlling them while not striking in chi sao is more as a nicety (like WSL playing with Robert, why beat the snot out of him when he can just control and throw him around). Using that control to attack is the ideal, remember yip man was like 80 something so he would be chasing someone punching them several times. Just let them know that he could have.

[k gledhill]

You constantly mis-characterize what I've said, and then you rail against it!

I never said good chi sao doesn't mean anything at all. I've said it is only unrealistic practice, it can only be used as a teaching/learning exercise, not to develop fighting skill.



Yes, exactly.

Chi sao is the classical way to learn the tools/method of WCK. It's only step #1.



As a fighter. Not as a teacher. There is no doubt that he knew the curriculum of WCK and was proficient with it.

How many fights did Yip have his whole life? And what was the level of his opponents? How can you be considered at good fighter if they rarely fight and never beat anyone good?

The other aspect is that to even develop into a "good" or even competent fighter you have to do certain things, regardless of your style or art. Since fighting skill only comes from fighting, that means you have to practice fighting (spar) a lot (hundreds of hours minimum), and with good people, to develop to their level. You can see this is every combative sport.

When did Yip do that NECESSARY work? He didn't.



No, there is no contradiction. I praise him as a teacher and having very good facility with the curriculum (including the drills). That doesn't mean he is a good fighter -- that is evaluated differently.



The point is that Yip Man knew the curriculum of WCK, and that includes its method, controlling the opponent while striking him. He knew that chi sao was a drill/exercise to learn how to and practice doing that using the WCK tools. And that's why Yip practiced how he did -- he focused on controlling his partner in chi sao.

That doesn't make him some great fighter.

terence your guessing and trying to assume what YM was doing was what YOU think...your wrong. Sad but true....controlling in mutual drills doesnt require attachment at all but the opposite, not being there for the attempted attachment..;)
YM no doubt played guys like yourself who TRIED to attach themselves to him....

[k gledhill]

why r u saying no?

all you wrote, no.

[Yoshiyahu]

terence your guessing and trying to assume what YM was doing was what YOU think...your wrong. Sad but true....controlling in mutual drills doesnt require attachment at all but the opposite, not being there for the attempted attachment..;)
YM no doubt played guys like yourself who TRIED to attach themselves to him....

Do you understand the concept of Sticking to your opponent, feeling his intent and redirecting his energy. Thus controlling your opponent?

Do you do this when you chi sao, practice drills and or spar?

[shawchemical]

Again plaese name all the good guys that robert and alan have fought. Please show me the hundred hours of fights that they have been in. Taking away your usual attempt to make sparing fighting, They would not be good by your standards. Just using your own ideas, Alan looks like he can fight to me but if you think differently maybe you should see him.
Oh by your standards then helio wouldn't be a good fighter either. Show me all his hours of fighting good people, well except for kimura that snapped his arm.
Your standards only apply when you want to make a point.
Each person fought anyone that would fight him. No they didn't travel the world to fight everyone. But to say they aren't good fighter because you don't know any of the people that they thought or they didn't fight MMA guys is the usual terrence crap.:rolleyes:
The ultimate sign of chisao or VT is a person knocked out or incapacitated. While control is important just controlling them while not striking in chi sao is more as a nicety (like WSL playing with Robert, why beat the snot out of him when he can just control and throw him around). Using that control to attack is the ideal, remember yip man was like 80 something so he would be chasing someone punching them several times. Just let them know that he could have.

Uhoh, now you've gone and done it benny. You've made his head explode with logic. Watch for his circular logic and argumentation to come to the front, his attempts to change the subject, and lastly but most importantly, the personal attacks to try to make himself feel better.

I reckon rob would be better than T, what do you reckon?

[YungChun]

controlling in mutual drills doesnt require attachment at all but the opposite, not being there for the attempted attachment..;)


Ah, so in a drill where you are "attached" and remain that way as per how Yip played you control by "not being there" for an "attempted attachment"...

"Well I was about to play ChiSao with Sifu Yip, when suddenly he disappeared and someone told me he was in the teahouse and I just fell the f#ck over.."

Just f-ing brilliant.... Is there a neuron in the house?

[Graham H]

Ah, so in a drill where you are "attached" and remain that way as per how Yip played you control by "not being there"...

Just f-ing brilliant.... Is there a neuron in the house?


YOOOOUUUUUU remain that way Jim!!!! We don't!! Over touching men's arms is gay!!

GH

[YungChun]

YOOOOUUUUUU remain that way Jim!!!! We don't!! Over touching men's arms is gay!!

GH

Have you ever tried reading what you read?

Yip Man would always be in contact with his students not hitting them, but he would control them... (kind of takes the zap out of your--we only ChiSao to strike 'idea'.)

If you think he controlled them by not being in contact with them then either you've lost even more brain matter or you simply don't know how the drill works...

[KPM]

[QUOTE=k gledhill;1064079]....controlling in mutual drills doesnt require attachment at all but the opposite, not being there for the attempted attachment..;)
QUOTE]

That makes no fricking sense at all! :eek:

[YungChun]

It makes the same sense as forcing square pegs into round holes does..

IOW Kevin must try to apply his template of pure "un-attachment" to something than is inherently attached... This in order to justify the "idea" that the only thing of any consequence in ChiSao is the striking.. And while part of the traditional drill does certainly involve striking, the core of the drill--what all the tools do--including the strikes, is control....

[shawchemical]

Do you understand the concept of Sticking to your opponent, feeling his intent and redirecting his energy. Thus controlling your opponent?

Do you do this when you chi sao, practice drills and or spar?

The goal is not to stick to the opponent's hands, but to make them stick to you using better positioning, mechanical advantage (aka leverage) and friction.

If you are trying to stick to them, all you will do is end up chasing hands.

[k gledhill]

Do you understand the concept of Sticking to your opponent, feeling his intent and redirecting his energy. Thus controlling your opponent?

Do you do this when you chi sao, practice drills and or spar?

no.........

[k gledhill]

[QUOTE=k gledhill;1064079]....controlling in mutual drills doesnt require attachment at all but the opposite, not being there for the attempted attachment..;)
QUOTE]

That makes no fricking sense at all! :eek:

your a chi-sao head ..must touch, must touch , must control....:D

[k gledhill]

It makes the same sense as forcing square pegs into round holes does..

IOW Kevin must try to apply his template of pure "un-attachment" to something than is inherently attached... This in order to justify the "idea" that the only thing of any consequence in ChiSao is the striking.. And while part of the traditional drill does certainly involve striking, the core of the drill--what all the tools do--including the strikes, is control....


attachment is a possibility we face as we attack people...we deal with sudden and efficient regaining of striking, ergo PB and his punching ..you dont understand what he is doign so assume a lot...;)

[YungChun]

attachment is a possibility we face as we attack people...we deal with sudden and efficient regaining of striking, ergo PB and his punching ..you dont understand what he is doign so assume a lot...;)

Anyone can "understand" what he is doing, what he isn't doing--and why--simply by watching him...

If that wasn't enough there is your 15 hundred posts explaining it over and over and over again to assist one's "understanding"..

This stuff isn't brain surgery after all it is simply a part of what VT is...in fact a simplified version of VT and what many beginners do.....it's also missing some basics... IOW your "new idea" should have been a part of what you had all along..now it's all you've got and you have denied yourself the rest of the art as is shown by PB's seniors.

You have to keep telling yourself that others don't "understand" to protect your ego...

Talking about others being unteachable is a laugh with that tallboy teacup of yours filled to the brim with Kool Aid...

[Yoshiyahu]

The goal is not to stick to the opponent's hands, but to make them stick to you using better positioning, mechanical advantage (aka leverage) and friction.

If you are trying to stick to them, all you will do is end up chasing hands.

No if a person removes contact or moves their hands away you dont chase the hands at all. You hit the Face. Contact comes when your opponet strikes and you bong, Tan or pak. From there you have a bridge upon interception. Also sticking comes from when you punch or attack and their hands go up, they parry, or they cover up, or they grab your hand. From then you redirect their hands to posistion you can hit them. ie pull down the hand obstructing your punch so you can hit them at the same time. entry technique 101 i would think. But on the contrary if you chase someones hands your gonna get hit. Wing Chun is an striking art. So you should strike strike strike above all else. If your striking them and they have no defense then they just get hit alot. But if they good at intercepting a punch thats where sensitivity, control,trapping, directing energy comes in at. If your fighting another guy who is anxious to strike. Then you slow down his timing by tying his hands up an hit him repeately!

Do you understand what i am saying guys?


- Retain what comes in, send off what retreats. Rush in on loss of hand contact.

- The thrusting and fast attacks are well suited for closing in.

- Make the first move to have control. Attack according to timing.

- Do not collide with a strong opponent; with a weak opponent use a direct frontal assault.

- Persistent attacks will surely gain you entry. Staying on the defensive too long will surely get you into trouble.

- As long as you are sticking to your opponent, you are unlikely to lose. A well trained waist can prevent loss of balance.

- Rapid moves are hard to guard against. Go in when the opponent slows down.

[k gledhill]

Anyone can "understand" what he is doing, what he isn't doing--and why--simply by watching him...

If that wasn't enough there is your 15 hundred posts explaining it over and over and over again to assist one's "understanding"..

This stuff isn't brain surgery after all it is simply a part of what VT is...in fact a simplified version of VT and what many beginners do.....it's also missing some basics... IOW your "new idea" should have been a part of what you had all along..now it's all you've got and you have denied yourself the rest of the art as is shown by PB's seniors.

You have to keep telling yourself that others don't "understand" to protect your ego...

Talking about others being unteachable is a laugh with that tallboy teacup of yours filled to the brim with Kool Aid...


riiight....so your doing it already, but you cant see PB doing it ? :rolleyes:

You think you understand ....to protect who's ego....;) mine ..

i get it, its not rocket science and anyone can SEE whats going on, so why does T call it fantasy fu, you dont understand for a 100o posts, but NOW you do understand ...when was the epiphany ?

My ego left a long time ago matey....thats why I am here with the riff raff...;) My old sifu told me never to lower myself but here I am !! ;)

I could care less what YOU think anyway, so...whatever.

[YungChun]

riiight....so your doing it already, but you cant see PB doing it ? :rolleyes:

You think you understand ....to protect who's ego....;) mine ..

That made no sense..



i get it, its not rocket science and anyone can SEE whats going on, so why does T call it fantasy fu

Because that's what he terms $hit that works best against other people doing the same thing...



you dont understand for a 100o posts, but NOW you do understand ...when was the epiphany ?


No epiphany, I understood long ago and more so when you sent me the video...then the stills..

The same reason you don't post more video...............



My ego left a long time ago matey....thats why I am here with the riff raff...;) My old sifu told me never to lower myself but here I am !! ;)

That statement is proof of your ego.

A post you made a while back that got deleted even more so...

You don't care what people think but you post reams of text..making bombastic claims...that's really the issue..

[Graham H]

Have you ever tried reading what you read?

Yip Man would always be in contact with his students not hitting them, but he would control them... (kind of takes the zap out of your--we only ChiSao to strike 'idea'.)

If you think he controlled them by not being in contact with them then either you've lost even more brain matter or you simply don't know how the drill works...

Uh hum!!! Have you ever read what you write???? Utter ****1ing nonsense. You and Terence Niehoff must be the same person. Two people infecting the world with your WCKBS.

If you think your way is how VT is meant to function then I'm glad because it will keep you away from the good stuff!!!!

There are more stupid people in the world than there are windows and you my friend are a double glazed pr1ck!!! :p

I'm glad you write the things you do. I can print it off and show my students how bad VT has become and how not to do it.

You're the best!!!:D

GH

[k gledhill]

Ah, so in a drill where you are "attached" and remain that way as per how Yip played you control by "not being there" for an "attempted attachment"...

"Well I was about to play ChiSao with Sifu Yip, when suddenly he disappeared and someone told me he was in the teahouse and I just fell the f#ck over.."

Just f-ing brilliant.... Is there a neuron in the house?


tsk, tsk, you assume a lot, like you understand. now insults....

what you wrote about YM & the Tea House...good analogy. I may use it.

attempting to place incorrect force on arms in chi-sao doesnt have to be big 'visible' actions....if you try to use my arms to support your stance and I move them to mess you up , it can be seen as controlling your balance , sure, but only to improve yours .....not a fight, if you lose your balance I can show you the results WHILE doing the drill...BUT it doesnt mean the fight starts from that attached scenario ....drilling with a partner in a mutual exchange.
If you over turn I can control your mistake to show you the mistake....doesnt make it a 1:1 application.
A lot of chi-sao is redundant to actual VT fighting...words I know but you have seen PB and make sweeping statements that you see ...blah blah, so I am wasting time sadly ..but maybe somebody clicks...

BTW guys like GH understand the words that come out of my mouth...you don't, so I am neuron short of a synapse....sorry i am not so gifted to write it out clearly.

I deleted my own post because I realized it was a foolish thing to post. I never said I was Terence the perfect ; )

[Buddha_Fist]

The 17 pages of this thread remind me of this:

[YungChun]

attempting to place incorrect force on arms in chi-sao doesnt have to be big 'visible' actions....

No one said that is was...



if you try to use my arms to support your stance and I move them to mess you up , it can be seen as controlling your balance , sure, but only to improve yours .....not a fight

It is a fight--a fight for position with energy... For positional control and breaking their structure you need presence of your structure not absence as you suggested--which simply was a reach to try to justify your bass akward position on this stuff ..



BUT it doesnt mean the fight starts from that attached scenario....

No kidding...

The point is you need contact to break their structure not no contact..

There are many techniques in the art how many have you thrown away? Huh?

You know very well VT is not about chain punching--everything is a punch, this "we just keep punching" crap--that's the beginners method--there is much much more, there IS tactical control--a structure breaking core.. There are many moves that do this, the hands assist each other to do this there are leg moves that do this...all to assist our striking attacks, to make them possible.... The dummy is not a 108 chain punches....it might be if your way was the VT way...it's not..



BTW guys like GH understands..


LMAO.. He doesn't even "understand" that VT punches (are supposed to) break down their structure...... Do you? You better because your "special unknowable method" relies on it extra heavily..

Did you used to chase hands and to "wrist"? Did someone teach you to chase hands before PB?

Well they were wrong.. And not T or myself are advocating it either....

VT breaks them down so they can't fight back... We use the centerline AND forward energy issuing and the tools, etc, to do that...not JUST "cycling and displacing their "attacks" with elbow power punches".. Which isn't "wrong" (unless you retract the hand on contact) it's simply not the whole VT picture...

There is more to it, there is more in the forms, in the tools and tactics of the art.. You can't deny it you know it.. We all can see it in the forms in the drills...both in action and intent.

So, you are left with a conundrum, a puzzle, that you have been wrestling with here in post after post, attempting to justify a disembodied part of the whole as the whole VT package. But no matter how hard you try you know there is more (or should) and one day maybe you'll be ready to learn it, to use it..either way it is there......

[YungChun]

The 17 pages of this thread remind me of this:

Not to worry I am starting a new VT forum that will cover many different areas of the art of VT but will not allow any posting whatsoever.. I think this will cut down on much of what some folks seem to object to in this vein..

[Graham H]

No one said that is was...


It is a fight--a fight for position with energy... For positional control and breaking their structure you need presence of your structure not absence as you suggested--which simply was a reach to try to justify your bass akward position on this stuff ..


No kidding...

The point is you need contact to break their structure not no contact..

There are many techniques in the art how many have you thrown away? Huh?

You know very well VT is not about chain punching--everything is a punch, this "we just keep punching" crap--that's the beginners method--there is much much more, there IS tactical control--a structure breaking core.. There are many moves that do this, the hands assist each other to do this there are leg moves that do this...all to assist our striking attacks, to make them possible.... The dummy is not a 108 chain punches....it might be if your way was the VT way...it's not..



LMAO.. He doesn't even "understand" that VT punches (are supposed to) break down their structure...... Do you? You better because your "special unknowable method" relies on it extra heavily..

Did you used to chase hands and to "wrist"? Did someone teach you to chase hands before PB?

Well they were wrong.. And not T or myself are advocating it either....

VT breaks them down so they can't fight back... We use the centerline AND forward energy issuing and the tools, etc, to do that...not JUST "cycling and displacing their "attacks" with elbow power punches".. Which isn't "wrong" (unless you retract the hand on contact) it's simply not the whole VT picture...

There is more to it, there is more in the forms, in the tools and tactics of the art.. You can't deny it you know it.. We all can see it in the forms in the drills...both in action and intent.

So, you are left with a conundrum, a puzzle, that you have been wrestling with here in post after post, attempting to justify a disembodied part of the whole as the whole VT package. But no matter how hard you try you know there is more (or should) and one day maybe you'll be ready to learn it, to use it..either way it is there......

Yaaaayyyyyyy!!! More Terencesque BS from Jim Squalkins!!! Keep that sewage running Jim. LOL

[Graham H]

Not to worry I am starting a new VT forum that will cover many different areas of the art of VT but will not allow any posting whatsoever.. I think this will cut down on much of what some folks seem to object to in this vein..

A stupid forum that will only attract stupid people me thinks!!!!:p:D

GH

[Graham H]

The 17 pages of this thread remind me of this:

Ahhhhh thats what Terence looks like. Seems a bit skinny to me!! LOL

[k gledhill]

No one said that is was...


It is a fight--a fight for position with energy... For positional control and breaking their structure you need presence of your structure not absence as you suggested--which simply was a reach to try to justify your bass akward position on this stuff ..


No kidding...

The point is you need contact to break their structure not no contact..

There are many techniques in the art how many have you thrown away? Huh?

You know very well VT is not about chain punching--everything is a punch, this "we just keep punching" crap--that's the beginners method--there is much much more, there IS tactical control--a structure breaking core.. There are many moves that do this, the hands assist each other to do this there are leg moves that do this...all to assist our striking attacks, to make them possible.... The dummy is not a 108 chain punches....it might be if your way was the VT way...it's not..



LMAO.. He doesn't even "understand" that VT punches (are supposed to) break down their structure...... Do you? You better because your "special unknowable method" relies on it extra heavily..

Did you used to chase hands and to "wrist"? Did someone teach you to chase hands before PB?

Well they were wrong.. And not T or myself are advocating it either....

VT breaks them down so they can't fight back... We use the centerline AND forward energy issuing and the tools, etc, to do that...not JUST "cycling and displacing their "attacks" with elbow power punches".. Which isn't "wrong" (unless you retract the hand on contact) it's simply not the whole VT picture...

There is more to it, there is more in the forms, in the tools and tactics of the art.. You can't deny it you know it.. We all can see it in the forms in the drills...both in action and intent.

So, you are left with a conundrum, a puzzle, that you have been wrestling with here in post after post, attempting to justify a disembodied part of the whole as the whole VT package. But no matter how hard you try you know there is more (or should) and one day maybe you'll be ready to learn it, to use it..either way it is there......

I'm writing for guys who have an open mind Jim , reams of it ...repeating the idea...

VT is not an attached method. We dont dirty clinch guys :D maybe in bad chi-sao drilling ;)


you still dont understand from your responses and ideas...:D

you still see chi-sao drilling as a fight :D thats the problem Jim.....therefore you also equate the chi-sao as 1:1 'application' ....as does Terence and his teacher etc...

I mention the following so you know my point of view to follow one guy in Menden Germany :D

Remember I have also been around doing seminars with my old sifu doing chi-sao with many schools around the USA/EUROPE, Ive had lunch with Augustine Fong, Dinner with Hawkins Cheung, Chris Chan , Kenneth Cheung, met students of Ben Der..... met WSL 6-7 times done chi-sao with many other WSL lineage teachers and students. Done chi-sao with YM 2 sons, WT in German schools defecting, seminars, in Italy Belgium, Holland....Ive chi-saoed with a few guys here on this forum too...I speak with a first hand knowledge Jim. 25 years of VT....not stuck in a hole in St. Lois or Westchester ;) I actually was brought up in Westchester for 7 years..know it well.
Where is your school ?

YOU can try to see more in the system than anyone ...have more tools, use more shapes, turn and block with a tan as you punch while standing in front of guys ...
you can do double extended hands feeling guys arms and have all kinds of chi-sao games that work in chi-sao...even what I do with you in chi-sao wont give a good idea because we equalize and mutually exchange techniques...for fighting from no pre-contact later I wont let you make contact any longer than I can to hit you asap.



We use the by-products of the chi-sao training to enhance our fighting abilities. Sadly many use the chi-sao as the 'method' trying to use 2 hands to fight one in an attached controlling method that also sacrifices its upper body centerline for attachment....further, many also use the ends of their arms 'wrists' for the platform to transfer their controlling energy because they drilled the same in chi-sao...not hand chasing, but hand ATTACHMENT, force being transfered from the end of the 'lever' ...not a good way to make contact with a VT fighter.