PDA

View Full Version : Dan Chi Sau - Ideas



BPWT
06-27-2013, 12:50 PM
On the Gary Lam Interview thread, Kevin made an interesting point about Dan Chi Sau:


The error of arm sensing bs starts at Dan chi sao with the simple words , now feel the opponents arm and block it, elbow ideas have been lost for " feel me , follow you, feeling me ..." : /

As most people learn Dan Chi Sau before moving onto Poon Sau/Chi Sau, it really is a good place to start thinking about how the aims/ideas of the system are taught.

When I studied with a Wing Chun group in the past, Dan Chi Sau was taught in the following way:

You started with one person connecting with a partner (both in YJKYM) using Tan and Fook. I was told that my elbow should not be too close to the centerline when in Tan, because it was easier for the guy in Fook to punch through. The Tan and Fook were joined, so to speak, but I was taught the arms should be light in the contact - no pushing forward or down, left or right, just bridged and relaxed.

I was also taught that for the opening movement, when the person in Tan attacks with a palm strike, the person in Fook sinks the elbow and arm down a little and converts to Jum Sau to stop/block the attack. You stuck to the opponent's limbs so you could feel where his attacking comes from.


Where I study now the emphasis is different.

We start the same way (YJKYM + Tan and Fook), but the elbows should be in and there should be forward force from the elbow. We are taught to try and keep the forearm and wrist relaxed, but to try and drive the limb forward from the elbow (at this stage of the training).

Essentially the Tan wants to go forward and convert into a punch, as does the other guy's Fook, but as both are doing the same thing (forward force from the elbow), on the same line, stick is created and neither can 'get through'.

When the person in Tan starts the cycle with the palm strike, the structure changes slightly with the strike, as does the direction of force. The person in Fook Sau doesn't convert it to Jum to block the palm strike, the Fook coverts to Jum because with the changing Tan (to palm strike), the Fook automatically moves forward to strike with the elbow down (as we would punch).

From there, the basic cycle moves through the next stages, punch and Bong, back to Tan and Fook, but the emphasis remains the same - the stick is created because you are trying to strike to center, and so too is the other guy. When there's no stick, your strike moves in.

(the bong sau is a little different in the sense that it is not trying to punch per se, but the forward force is there - the hand trying to spring into the center - using the same rattan-cane or springy force that Leung Ting writes about)

As a cooperative drill, you stay within the confines of cycle (unless you are working other ideas, and then things might free up/have variations).

The added benefit of the stick is that it can (once you move into Chi Sau proper with both arms), and if you are maintaining good position and structure, help you understand what your opponent's potential options are (by reflex, rather than trying to take the time to think about it :)).

So the approach I learned in the past is very different to the one I learn now. Perhaps the one I learn is also very different to Kevin's.

But basically, what I wanted to ask is:

How do you train Dan Chi Sau, what are the ideas within it (as these ideas probably carry over into the rest of your Chi Sau training)?

BPWT
06-27-2013, 02:02 PM
Thanks! So we do things a bit different (no surprise :)) but maybe a little the same too - as I agree with some points.


You don't have to be in contact or feel each others arms in dan chi sao.

Okay, in DCS (for us) we do need to be in contact. During the drill, we don't lose contact.



To start with you're both too far to hit each other anyway, intentional. Second you're BOTH ( mutually ) training VT punching methods tan is one aspect , Jum another, you work WITH each other.

Yes, the distance is not a true hitting distance - you would need to step in to make a good solid hit (we later incorporate stepping too - though this opens up different possible responses based on how the force comes in). And yes, we also see DCS as a cooperative drill (in a sense, all 'set motions' with a partner are cooperative). And yes, we see DCS as, at least in part, a way of training punching (punching position and the line of attack) for both people.


If your approach is put your arm here or he will hit you.... You have been told your partner is the opponent. So now you are going to stick to him and not let him in. And henceforth you will fight anyone in chi sao by contact and control pressure at the CONTACT POINT aka a .... Human condition :eek:

This make sense - though to me it might not all be a bad thing. For example, by training the punch, and the partner being the target (even if out of range) they are kinda the opponent. We are both looking to occupy the center (as the best way to launch the punch) so in that sense I position my arm in way that teaches me the best line of attack, and defense too, via my attack.

So yes again, in a way we are placing an emphasis on the contact point - though only because that contact point is on the best line of attack (the best in a WC/VT/WT sense). But the idea is to have that forward pressure - if the contact point is lost by the partner, or if their contact point deviates, then I should be getting in to strike via that initial contact point. Of course, if there is absolutely no contact point at all - I am just going in.


...while striking you will also defend. And not by trying to stick to another arm. You are introduced to the elbows previously trained in SLT.
CONDITIONING elbows.

Yes, if I understand you right, I think we mean the same thing. Maybe. :)

So some differences but maybe some similarities too in the methods.

Anyone else train DCS differently? With a different idea/set of ideas?

Grumblegeezer
06-27-2013, 02:52 PM
So the approach I learned in the past is very different to the one I learn now. Perhaps the one I learn is also very different to Kevin's.

But basically, what I wanted to ask is:

How do you train Dan Chi Sau, what are the ideas within it (as these ideas probably carry over into the rest of your Chi Sau training)?

BPWT --Kevin makes some valid points but I suspect that he comes to the conversation with the assumption that the way other groups practice is both different and wrong, even when we may in fact agree.

For example we also train dan-chi as a cooperative drill, at a distance that is a bit too far for actual hitting. Like him our objective is not to stick or chase hands but on the other hand, I don't see how you can continue doing dan chi if your partner abandons centerline and doesn't stick --your hand will spring forward (lat sau jik chung). As always, words fail us when describing WC/VT/WT. If I had the opportunity to practice the PB-WSL method of training dan chi, I'm sure I'd have a better understanding.

As for the LT lineage approach, the real key is for each training partner to maintain proper position and structure with each extending equal "forward spring. Then when one partner converts tan to front palm, the forward energy compresses his partner's fook-sau into a jum-sau. Similarly, when the jum-sau is converted into a low-elbow centerline punch, the punch rolls his partner's arm over into bong sau ...if each has good arm position and is sufficiently loose and springy.

-- In other words in LT WT (and it's offshoots) dan chi teaches you how to to let your partner's movement make your defense. The "jum" and "bong" are not "techniques" that you make yourself. They are each just a bowed rattan or bent spring formed by the energy received from your partner.

Now all this is somewhat different from the first version of dan chi I learned from an instructor in the Ho Kam Ming - Augustine Fong lineage. But I was a beginner at that time and I'm sure I missed much. More recently, I had an opportunity to observe Joy's class and once played a bit of dan chi with a student of his a park. They have a slightly different take on the drill. And dan-chi is just a drill, not a competition. For it to work, both partner's must be willing to do it the same way.

YouKnowWho
06-27-2013, 02:58 PM
In Dan Chi Shou, do you try to use your hand to grab on your opponent's wrist? When you use Fu Shou and your opponent used Tan Shou, your Fu Shou can be a perfect wrist grab if you open your "tiger mouth".

Vajramusti
06-27-2013, 04:57 PM
Oh Boy- I think that the dahn chi sao I do is quite different from KG's and WT's in the details.
Of course the elbow controlling the line is always important> But there is much more. A comprehensive essay would take too long to write and very likely not read carefully by the usual dogmatic suspects. The smoothness of the various transitions are important. Control of position, angle,distance contact points. Then one can smoothly walk around with it, break off and reconnect (lat), use not just the regular punch but also inside/outside punches, do some one handed gor sao
and more. Training each hand separately as well as two handed chi sao variations are important.

Grumblegeezer
06-27-2013, 05:24 PM
...the dahn chi sao I do is quite different from KG's and WT's in the details. ...A comprehensive essay would take too long to write and very likely not read carefully by the usual dogmatic suspects.

Ain't that the truth Joy. Even if you could express it all in words, most people wouldn't bother to read it with the necessary care. It's so much easier to share these things by actually crossing bridges with people with a genuine interest.

YouKnowWho
06-27-2013, 05:36 PM
No tiger mouth, but great name.

"虎口(Hu Kou) - tiger mouth" is to open your thumb and your 1st finger. You can't perform any grabbing if you don't open your tiger mouth.

http://imageshack.us/a/img819/2473/0e5c.jpg

Vajramusti
06-27-2013, 05:53 PM
"虎口(Hu Kou) - tiger mouth" is to open your thumb and your 1st finger. You can't perform any grabbing if you don't open your tiger mouth.

http://imageshack.us/a/img819/2473/0e5c.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True- but there is no "grabbing" in my dahn chi sao.

Eric_H
06-27-2013, 06:13 PM
In Dan Chi Shou, do you try to use your hand to grab on your opponent's wrist? When you use Fu Shou and your opponent used Tan Shou, your Fu Shou can be a perfect wrist grab if you open your "tiger mouth".

Yep, if you can't deny a grab you didn't get good leverage.

LFJ
06-27-2013, 08:04 PM
You can't perform any grabbing if you don't open your tiger mouth.

You've never heard of a thumbless grip?

YouKnowWho
06-27-2013, 08:13 PM
You've never heard of a thumbless grip?

That's a "temporary" grip. Most of the time you use it to pull and strike back right way. If your opponent can get away from your pull and strike, you will lose that contact. It's fast but not enough "fish hook" effect. You will not try to catch fish by using that principle.

LFJ
06-27-2013, 08:37 PM
Right, but the thumbless grip is what is used for that momentary purpose in laap-sau. We aren't looking to grab and catch fish in VT, because it can go both ways. Even when you grab someone, it can put you both "on the hook" so to speak.

YouKnowWho
06-27-2013, 09:27 PM
Right, but the thumbless grip is what is used for that momentary purpose in laap-sau. We aren't looking to grab and catch fish in VT, because it can go both ways. Even when you grab someone, it can put you both "on the hook" so to speak.

Agree! both bridge and fish hook are 2 ways street. You can sense your opponent. At the same time your opponent can sense you too. If your opponent can move back faster than your forward footwork, your chain punches won't be able to reach him. If you use your "fish hook" to pull your opponent into you, your chain punches will have better chance to land on his face. The "fish hook" is the only method (as far as I know) that you can prevent your opponent from moving away from you.

- The "fish hook" is used when your opponent wants to move away from you but you want to move in toward him.

- If both you and your opponent want to move in toward each other, since the person who applies the "fish hook" can release it anytime he wants to, he still has advantage.

- If both you and your opponent want to move away from each other, the "fish hook" will not be applied by either party anyway.

Vajramusti
06-27-2013, 09:30 PM
Agree! both bridge and fish hook are 2 ways street. You can sense your opponent. At the same time your opponent can sense you too. The "fish hook" is the only way to prevent your opponent from moving back away from you. If your opponent can move back faster than your forward footwork, your chain punches won't be able to reach him. If you use your "fish hook" to pull your opponent into you, your chain punches will have better chance to land on his face.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't chain punch.
Also-dahn chi sao is for development of key attributes. It is not fighting.

YouKnowWho
06-27-2013, 09:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't chain punch.
Also-dahn chi sao is for development of key attributes. It is not fighting.

The "grab" is a key attribute too and can also be developed in Dan Chi Shou (if you want to). When Fu Shou meets Tan Shou, the chance to train "grab" is already there. All you need is just to open your "tiger mouth".

wingchunIan
06-28-2013, 12:31 AM
The "grab" is a key attribute too and can also be developed in Dan Chi Shou (if you want to). When Fu Shou meets Tan Shou, the chance to train "grab" is already there. All you need is just to open your "tiger mouth".

Leaving aside that in the way I train not only is there no grabbing in dan chi sao, there is no thumb led grabbing full stop; if the position of the tarn sao and fook sao in dan chi sao are correct (according to the way I train only) and the energy applied is forward the contact point should be on the forearm not the hand meaning that if you "open your tiger mouth" you will simply have an open hand and both your thumb and your fingers will still be on the same side of the partners wrist making a grab impractical. From this position trying to grab the wrist would involve either a big movement or at minimum lifting of the elbow to invert the hand and either should result in the tarn sao hand simply firing forward in a strike. If you try to grab the biceps or higher forearm from the fook sao then by necessity the elbow will have to move off of the line again allowing the tarn sao to strike.

Obviously everyone has their own ways of training. I personally like to do the drill in a variety of ways focusing mainly on the way I was taught of course but also often practicing it the way other lineages do such as the WSL modification taught by DP. If you understand why something is different and what the purpose for the difference is it can often enhance your training.

Graham H
06-28-2013, 12:59 AM
Grabbing in DCS?? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::

Who said they could write an essay on it? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Even the most basic drill has been destroyed. Some of this stuff is kind of embarrassing to read :o

Graham H
06-28-2013, 01:02 AM
do such as the WSL modification taught by DP. If you understand why something is different and what the purpose for the difference is it can often enhance your training.

That would be a DP modification as taught by DP or did WSL actually do those varying DCS drills?

LFJ
06-28-2013, 02:03 AM
From this position trying to grab the wrist would involve either a big movement or at minimum lifting of the elbow to invert the hand and either should result in the tarn sao hand simply firing forward in a strike. If you try to grab the biceps or higher forearm from the fook sao then by necessity the elbow will have to move off of the line again allowing the tarn sao to strike.

Unless the grab is done from jam-sau position. The opponent's strike has already been extended. The elbow is in and the hand turned over. It just needs to clamp down with the tiger mouth.

LFJ
06-28-2013, 02:09 AM
That would be a DP modification as taught by DP or did WSL actually do those varying DCS drills?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iw1CYMbBBw

According to DP, he hasn't made modification to WSL's method as taught to him. And such videos are proof. Other WSL guys, like PB, probably not so much. ;)

LFJ
06-28-2013, 02:11 AM
Even the most basic drill has been destroyed. Some of this stuff is kind of embarrassing to read :o

Relax. I think that was suggested by a Shuaijiao guy who likes to mix things. You don't need to change the way you train. ;)

Graham H
06-28-2013, 02:20 AM
Other WSL guys, like PB, probably not so much. ;)

Meaning PB also hasn't changed things?

Graham H
06-28-2013, 02:22 AM
Relax. I think that was suggested by a Shuaijiao guy who likes to mix things. You don't need to change the way you train. ;)

Change the way I train? HA!

I think that adding grabbing into DCS is utter nonsense and it goes against the fundamental reason why the drill is in the system but I guess people can invent things if they like.

LFJ
06-28-2013, 02:28 AM
Meaning PB also hasn't changed things?

Meaning he has his own interpretation, which is fine and good. Whereas, DP doesn't seem to have made modifications, deliberately, as I think he said he didn't feel confident or that it was necessary, for him.


Change the way I train? HA!

I think that adding grabbing into DCS is utter nonsense and it goes against the fundamental reason why the drill is in the system but I guess people can invent things if they like.

Yes. That would be training outside the system. Of course adding grabbing wouldn't be VT.

Graham H
06-28-2013, 02:44 AM
Meaning he has his own interpretation

His interpretation is WSL's interpretation. Ask him. You can also ask Simo and Chen Kin Man. They told me the same. Oh dear I've dropped some names. Whoops. Frost and BPWT will be happy now. :rolleyes:

tc101
06-28-2013, 03:09 AM
I think people are giving this drill way way way too much significance and thought. My perspective is the drill is like playing catch with a ball, a useful way to learn and practice some simple skills no more no less. That is why I find it incredible when I hear things like we play catch the right way or as WSL played catch.

BPWT
06-28-2013, 03:17 AM
I think people are giving this drill way way way too much significance and thought. My perspective is the drill is like playing catch with a ball, a useful way to learn and practice some simple skills no more no less. That is why I find it incredible when I hear things like we play catch the right way or as WSL played catch.

Yes, in many ways DCS is your intro to Chi Sau proper. You are cycling through a very few movements - so nothing too complicated in DCS.

But it should (could/can) include the some of the basic ideas that you'll find elsewhere in the art - so I was interested to hear how other people interpret the drill, what ideas they focus on, etc.

BPWT
06-28-2013, 03:19 AM
His interpretation is WSL's interpretation. Ask him. You can also ask Simo and Chen Kin Man. They told me the same. Oh dear I've dropped some names. Whoops. Frost and BPWT will be happy now. :rolleyes:

Hey, those names mean nothing to me - I don't know who they are :D I'm guessing people that PB trained with in HK?

I wasn't aware that PB's method of doing DCS was different to DP's. How does it vary?

Graham H
06-28-2013, 03:24 AM
Hey, those names mean nothing to me - I don't know who they are :D I'm guessing people that PB trained with in HK?

I wasn't aware that PB's method of doing DCS was different to DP's. How does it vary?

Simo is WSL's wife and CKM his assistant a close friend.

PB's thinking is not the same as DP's. No point in going over it all. I respect both guys. Having trained with them both I prefer PB's thinking.

BPWT
06-28-2013, 03:29 AM
Simo is WSL's wife and CKM his assistant a close friend.

Ah, okay - no intentional slight towards anyone's wife on my part.



PB's thinking is not the same as DP's. No point in going over it all. I respect both guys. Having trained with them both I prefer PB's thinking.

That's a shame (regarding 'no point in going over it'), would have been interesting to understand the different approaches. Are those different approaches evident in DCS?

Graham H
06-28-2013, 03:47 AM
That's a shame (regarding 'no point in going over it'), would have been interesting to understand the different approaches. Are those different approaches evident in DCS?

Actually you are right. Why not talk about it? It's all Wing Chun after all.

From my experience I would say that DP's approach to Wing Chun is very application based where as PB's is not. This is the main difference throughout the system. DP uses the forms as possible fighting scenarios where as PB uses them to correct ones behaviour for fighting. There are no fighting applications inside and in fact the forms are completely abstract. There are also certain elements in the forms that are tools for developing the correct functions especially in the weapons. They are not fighting applications in PB's method but in DP's they are.

There is a massive shift in PB's approach to Wing Chun. One that I found very profound and (for me) it corrected all the mistakes that I had from training in previous versions of WSLVT. The fact that everybody WSL taught in Europe all share these ideas and that they haven't changed at all over the years tells me a lot.

WSL spent a lot of time in Europe. many more years than PB spent living in Hong Kong. In fact WSL was on the verge of moving to Germany before he passed away. PB was in the process of building an annexe for him and Simo above his school.

It's not only PB that WSL spent a lot of time with. There are others that also spent a lot of time socializing with WSL outside of Wing Chun training. All these guys share the same approach to Wing Chun and yet it seems that outside of that close knit group that things start to change.

I found it odd but that is the way it is.

Graham H
06-28-2013, 04:22 AM
@Graham,

Does PB teach the modification on DCS, i.e. the extended range, that WSL taught (as proven in the video above)? If not, their methods differed. If their methods differed, would that be a problem for you? PB's is obviously effective and suitable for you. Why would it matter?

Did I say it mattered? Of course it doesn't matter. People like what they like.


Also, I wouldn't say DP's method is application based. He's always stressing that it is not that, after all. He just teaches through examples of possibilities so that you can see the concept being explained in action. You should be able to see the concept expressed and use it freely. If you can't see beyond the example, that's your fault.

Why are you getting all defensive? I gave my opinion based on my experience.


DP teaches as WSL taught, as video evidence shows. I think PB has evolved much on his own and has clearly influenced a lot of people around him. He's very good, no doubt. I don't find it a problem for WSL to differ from YM, or PB to differ from WSL.

I don't care about video proof. I have sampled both methods. Have you?

BTW I was told that WSL always said he taught exactly what Yip Man taught him to everybody else. What differs is peoples thinking and how they cultivate what is being shown. I've no doubt in my mind that what PB teaches is from Yip Man via WSL. Why re-invent the wheel. You should go and try it and you will see for yourself. The other thing is that as fighters they are very different people. Bayer is in a different class to DP. That's not being derogatory towards DP. That's a fact and I think DP is the first to admit his standings as a fighter. In fact he starts his seminars telling you so.

DP is a top and humble guy. He deserves the utmost respect but we are talking Kung Fu here not friendships.

LoneTiger108
06-28-2013, 05:13 AM
How do you train Dan Chi Sau, what are the ideas within it (as these ideas probably carry over into the rest of your Chi Sau training)?

Looking through the comments, if this thread has yet again become a debate between WSL people I have nothing more to offer. I only have limited experience working with a WSL guy and we never trained together properly. Had a nice interaction in the kitchen though! Discussed many many differences too and we could both understand eachothers approach and agree to disagree with the finer details.

If there is any interest in other families ideas then I can highlight a few differences that I have experienced myself whilst learning with my Sifu. I have to stress though, my interactive training (empty hand) was minimal and precise. It takes less than an hour to teach a basic method of DCS, and from my experience the interactions built on a solid foundation are similar, but not exactly, like what everyone has posted here. I remember first learning DCS sitting down.

As an example, once a Jinsan (square body) interaction is completely taken in, we progressed into Pinsan (slant body) methods of DCS. Mobility is introduced here and we tended to use a 4 method approach rather than the common 3. We revolve the seed of bong, tan and fook both inside and outside the partners arms, separately and unified. FWIW I have never seen this amount of attention to detail transferred into the double arm practise, which I found very strange early on in my research.

The last thing my Sifu liked to see was people standing around in YJKYM, square on to eachother, going round in endless single handed cycles trying to hit eachother! And so, I am in total agreement with the guys that take this exercise as it is and have no competitive vibe whatsoever in its early stages. And I also agree that there doesn't need to be contact... BUT only as far as putting across the message that you are moving independently to your partner. The exercise is called DCS because that is what it is doing, I don't beleive you're sticking to eachothers aura ;)

k gledhill
06-28-2013, 05:33 AM
Change the way I train? HA!

I think that adding grabbing into DCS is utter nonsense and it goes against the fundamental reason why the drill is in the system but I guess people can invent things if they like.

Not sure why we are talking about grabbing in dcs ?

Graham H
06-28-2013, 05:42 AM
It sure seemed to matter, since you nitpicked on whether it was DP's modification or WSL actually taught it. Then you want to say PB made no changes, and WSL made no changes, so you have a pure YM lineage. Purity seems to matter something to you. However, we have it on video where WSL changed the method in the early 90's, and apparently PB differs. Uh oh!

So he changed it. So what? Yes it does matter to me because there is a lot of sh1t out there.


That's beside the point. I don't think we're talking about which method is better (or are you?), but just how things were/are taught.

No we weren't but my opinion............PB for sure.


I have nothing to defend. I'm just saying your opinion is incorrect, as DP even stresses all the time the importance of not interpreting it in the way you have. Have you read his book on WSL's method? It's a good read. I recommend it.

Ok so you disagree with my opinion but you cannot make judgement as you have only seen one side of the coin. Take a look at the other and tell me what you think afterwards or there is no point in continuing.

So I should look at the videos and read the book? No need. I have been practicing WSL's method for a long time and in recent years under one if not the best out there. I know what I am on about. I have experienced that best and worst.

LFJ
06-28-2013, 05:55 AM
So it doesn't matter, it does matter, it's unchanged, it's changed... That's why it's difficult to have a discussion with you. :)

There is no other side of the coin as to whether DP's method is application based or not. It either is or it isn't...

Graham H
06-28-2013, 06:17 AM
So it doesn't matter, it does matter, it's unchanged, it's changed... That's why it's difficult to have a discussion with you. :)

There is no other side of the coin as to whether DP's method is application based or not. It either is or it isn't...

The other side of the coin meaning WSLPBVT. I'm not dissing DP's VT. I'm merely saying that I prefer PB. There were some things I learnt from DP that contradicted what I have been taught by PB and in my opinion PB's ideas are better.....................for me.

So let me ask you a question. What is the reasons for training the three stepping Bong Sau's in Chum Kiu?

I believe DP refers to them as Paau Bong.

LoneTiger108
06-28-2013, 06:49 AM
So let me ask you a question. What is the reasons for training the three stepping Bong Sau's in Chum Kiu?

Here we go... :rolleyes:

I just knew i shouldn't have even tried to share another view! Let us watch yet another thread get derailed and sent to the depths of doom lol!

Graham H
06-28-2013, 07:47 AM
Here we go... :rolleyes:

I just knew i shouldn't have even tried to share another view! Let us watch yet another thread get derailed and sent to the depths of doom lol!

Button it Spencer! I was only using two examples to try and explain the differences in thinking between Bayer and Peterson. People seemed interested. If not then I won't bother. Maybe for another thread. I'm not trying to derail this one.

LoneTiger108
06-28-2013, 08:01 AM
Button it Spencer! I was only using two examples to try and explain the differences in thinking between Bayer and Peterson. People seemed interested. If not then I won't bother. Maybe for another thread. I'm not trying to derail this one.

Wah! Alright G!! Keep the hair on... but at least you responded to me so I don't feel so invisible!!

LFJ
06-28-2013, 08:20 AM
So let me ask you a question. What is the reasons for training the three stepping Bong Sau's in Chum Kiu?

I believe DP refers to them as Paau Bong.

I was only using two examples to try and explain the differences in thinking between Bayer and Peterson.

Well, I'm not DP, so I don't know why you're asking my interpretation.

As far as I understand their methods;

According to PB, it is ballistic force of the elbow together with the punch, effectively kwan-sau, a punching concept.

According to DP, I think the above would also apply, but he teaches it with an example of when such a concept would be used, as opposed to a simple punch; when the hands are down, unprepared, as represented in the form.

Certainly that is not the only time such a concept can be applied. It is an example of the concept being used. PB also shows similar examples for instruction; clearing obstruction when beneath an opponent's arms. Otherwise all instruction would just be talking. For some reason though, you can see the concept beyond the application only when he does it. Odd.

k gledhill
06-28-2013, 08:28 AM
Actually you are right. Why not talk about it? It's all Wing Chun after all.

From my experience I would say that DP's approach to Wing Chun is very application based where as PB's is not. This is the main difference throughout the system. DP uses the forms as possible fighting scenarios where as PB uses them to correct ones behaviour for fighting. There are no fighting applications inside and in fact the forms are completely abstract. There are also certain elements in the forms that are tools for developing the correct functions especially in the weapons. They are not fighting applications in PB's method but in DP's they are.

There is a massive shift in PB's approach to Wing Chun. One that I found very profound and (for me) it corrected all the mistakes that I had from training in previous versions of WSLVT. The fact that everybody WSL taught in Europe all share these ideas and that they haven't changed at all over the years tells me a lot.

WSL spent a lot of time in Europe. many more years than PB spent living in Hong Kong. In fact WSL was on the verge of moving to Germany before he passed away. PB was in the process of building an annexe for him and Simo above his school.

It's not only PB that WSL spent a lot of time with. There are others that also spent a lot of time socializing with WSL outside of Wing Chun training. All these guys share the same approach to Wing Chun and yet it seems that outside of that close knit group that things start to change.

I found it odd but that is the way it is.

That WSL spent so much time with PB in Europe is not well known.

Eric_H
06-28-2013, 03:09 PM
Change the way I train? HA!

I think that adding grabbing into DCS is utter nonsense and it goes against the fundamental reason why the drill is in the system but I guess people can invent things if they like.

In HFY we have to deal with grabs in our chi sao at every level. Doesn't matter if it's single, double, kiu sao or tahn/bong/fuk.

If you're not training for that... well, what is it you're training for exactly? My Moy Yat WC wasn't really big on Daan Chi sao, but that may have just been the preference of my teacher at the time. So I'm a bit in the dark on it from that perspective.

Grumblegeezer
06-28-2013, 06:38 PM
In HFY we have to deal with grabs in our chi sao at every level. Doesn't matter if it's single, double, kiu sao or tahn/bong/fuk.

Eric, I've never seen grabs used in dan chi. Strikes at differing heights, steps and turns, sure, but grabs? Unless you include playful "one-arm sparring" as dan chi. Any chance you have a clip you could share?

Graham H
06-29-2013, 01:21 AM
Well, I'm not DP, so I don't know why you're asking my interpretation.


So who is your Teacher?



According to PB, it is ballistic force of the elbow together with the punch, effectively kwan-sau, a punching concept.

Correct


According to DP, I think the above would also apply, but he teaches it with an example of when such a concept would be used, as opposed to a simple punch; when the hands are down, unprepared, as represented in the form.

I've never seen DP refer to this action as Kwan Sau. Maybe I missed that part. He calls it Paau Bong with no reference to how Wu Sau fuctions as the punch in this part.


Certainly that is not the only time such a concept can be applied. It is an example of the concept being used. PB also shows similar examples for instruction; clearing obstruction when beneath an opponent's arms. Otherwise all instruction would just be talking. For some reason though, you can see the concept beyond the application only when he does it. Odd.

This is my problem with that application. If your arms are down and somebody attacks you kicking and punching (because you don't know what they are going to do) to think you will have time to peform Bong Sau like that is absurd. It's easy to do if you know what's coming and you are training with somebody you know won't hurt you. It's impossible to give this action an application as it's leaned in the form because we don't actually complete the punch in the form. Were also stepping to the side in the form. Using Kwan Sau in sparring the step is relative to the opponents attack. In the form the action is not complete. It is a training tool to learn syncrozation of Bong/Punch/Step. As soon as you try to use a movement from the forms as it's performed in the forms you are missing the point. The Dummy is a perfect example of incomplete actions because of the static position of it but how many people try to execute the ations exactly the way they are performed.

No applications in the forms. The only time I have seen a punch used against this stepping bong/wu is a training drill to ensure the student is using elbow rotation correctly and not lifting the arm. Also the position wu sau is important.

The other problem is that I have seen video footage of WSL doing this action and I was confused so I asked and when you get the answer it's easy to understand why certain ideas were presented at seminars.

The other thing that is important to relaize is that PB was always sparring and fighting during his years with WSL. Not only with fists but also pole and knives. Not many other people got involved in all that and I was told that when WSL told the students that there was sparring on the list for the next lesson not many people would turn up.

Sparring in Ving Tsun is vital. If people are spending all the time doing what is commonly referred to as "free chi sau" nowadays their Ving Tsun will not be very good. FACT!

guy b.
06-29-2013, 06:05 AM
The other problem is that I have seen video footage of WSL doing this action and I was confused so I asked and when you get the answer it's easy to understand why certain ideas were presented at seminars.

What is the reason?

EternalSpring
06-30-2013, 10:42 PM
...In learning chi sao (single hand/double/etc), there was always at least some time spent on grabbing and defending against grabs for me, but not too much. The reason it's not seen a lot and is usually looked down upon is because, imho, most realize grabbing, at least in Ving Tsun, is usually not the best route to take. People who successfully do use grabs in chi sao are usually either overpowering their partner/opponent, a capable "grappler," or someone who is better when it comes to chi sao in the first place and is f'ing around.

LFJ
06-30-2013, 10:49 PM
Pulling in double chi-sau: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcCCgj0ew7U

Graham H
07-01-2013, 02:17 AM
Call it what you like, but the function is the same. The focus here is just on the elbow, hence referring to it as paau-bong to describe the action. He does indeed show how the elbow creates a new line for the wu-sau to punch through the elbow. You may use different terminology, but the same function is there.

For me it's not. The focus is on the syncronicity of the step, wu sau and bong together. That's why we train it in order to unify them all.



Think, you're already at close range, your eyes have detected a punch being launched, your hands are at your sides. If you can intercept it with just a punch of your own, first of all, you're amazing, but secondly there should be no reason paau-bong + punch (aka. kwan-sau) shouldn't work.

So you are close range, you've seen the punch but your hands are down by your sides? So your elbow is going to save you is it? Have you ever had a fight? Firstly if somebody is engaging then you will not have your hands down by your sides. We also don't wait to be punched and if we have been blindsided then it is probably go into land. In my lineage we have the hand lower than the elbow to reduce and flapping around with the wrist and so we can concentrate on developing the correct rotation. The hand being lower than the elbow is not simulating being stood next to a potential attacker with your arms down BUT id you were and you manage to pull it off then great but there are too many other factors that make this an uneffective idea and will only be beleived by foolish people. There is no time in fighting to think of such things and why we do not spend any time on trying to develop something that doesn't work.

Many Ving Tsun actions can only be made to work at certain speeds. Turn the ferocoity up and many things break down. This is why sparring os so important as it shows you what does not work. In fact no a lot does work. Balance, mobility, punching power, focus and a certain elelment of tactics are all that work. Sticky arms does not. Fighting from YJKYM does not. Chasing the arms does not.


The stepping with this bong-sau is trained from the stepping DCS stage. When the opponent tries to get in with a punch after your palm, you will leave your arm at the point of contact, step out and paau your elbow, ensuring you remain in range to punch through your elbow. The position you end up in will be just as in the CK form, although of course just as incomplete.

Stepping at DCS stage contradicts the whole reason behind why that drill is needed. It's not correct for me. I suppose others can do what they like with it.

You are also saying you step out with Bong Sau? Yes I remember. I asked Philipp, he said no way. I remember being told that "in application" this step is bacwards not forwards. :eek:

I'm not trying to start a flame war here but PB and DP have different ideas when it comes to Ving Tsun. All depepnding on what sort of person you are you will sway towards one or the other. I chose PB for his thinking and his way of fighting. I preferred his method. Really the ins and outs of why the two guys differ should not be important. What is important is the time and effort the students of either guys put in and ultimately how they can make it work for them. Although your Teacher can show you a method he is not stoof beside you whilst your are fighting. You are alone and like Bruce Lee said "you better be ready for it!":)

Eric_H
07-01-2013, 12:38 PM
Eric, I've never seen grabs used in dan chi. Strikes at differing heights, steps and turns, sure, but grabs? Unless you include playful "one-arm sparring" as dan chi. Any chance you have a clip you could share?

Hey Steve,

No clips as of yet. We were going to shoot some application video end of the year last year, but Sifu didn't feel we were up to it until we finished the Kiu Sao Chi Sao module. He's planning on shooting some end of this year as we're wrapping up that training module reasonably soon. I believe we might be taking some dummy footage too, but we'll see.

Anywho, the goal for us is not to grab, but to instead have leverage that denies the grab, so if your partner can grab your bridge... you effed up. We check that at every posture in our single bridge sticking drills.

Graham H
07-02-2013, 03:54 AM
Explain what you mean? I'm simply referring to moving off the opponent's attack line and diverting their punch with the bong-sau, but while still maintaining range and position to strike from the wu-sau. Similar to the seung-ma/ teui-ma drill, but with a bong-sau the angle must turn more, unlike jam-sau, taan-sau, jat-sau, etc. which are able to attack. If you use the same footwork with bong-sau you'll be run over.

We are falling into that trap of confusing each other and going around in cirlcles. We could express these ideas and have a clear understanding of it all if we could train in person. Unfortunately we can't so lets bail. :)

LFJ
07-02-2013, 06:53 AM
You train with PB in Germany? I've been studying the language and it's on my list of destinations. Currently living in China though.

Graham H
07-02-2013, 08:55 AM
You train with PB in Germany? I've been studying the language and it's on my list of destinations. Currently living in China though.

No I don't train in Germany.

YouKnowWho
07-02-2013, 02:28 PM
This clip may be able to add some new "idea" into DCS. Even you only stick one arm on your opponent's arm, you still have to watch his other arm that may punch you anytime he wants to. The nice part about this clip is you have to train how to stick to your opponent's striking arm that come from some distance away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XbwacKNlUd8#