No Chi Sau??

[anerlich]

TWC requires forms, including the dummy, and chi sao.

You could have an art with similar techniques and tactics, but IMO you should call it something else.

Question though, how do you view "pummeling" ?
All grapplers drill it and yes, I know it is not chi sao, but perhaps it is what chi sao is suppose to "become" ?

The view of the "self-appointed WC-realism intelligentsia" seems to be that the range in which chi sao is performed, "trapping range", is artificial and contrived, and in "real fights" appears only for split seconds, before either collapse through into clinch range, or break apart again. For this reason, the techniques you practice from here are allegedly a waste of time as the opportunity to employ them hardly ever appears in real fighting.

Hand fighting and grip fighting as wrestling drills are IMO more like chi sao than pummelling.

Not all wrestlers regard pummelling as valuable, same as not all WCers like chi sao ... apparently.

[k gledhill]

Ive met some lineages that just roll 3 times and do stuff , no development of ability in arms to strike , rather searching fo impact after 3 rolls....others roll to simply and very randomly do anything for no real reason other than 'sifu said'

[Liddel]

Personally i think you cant get the same level of VT without Chi Sao because certain VT habbits are so far from every day natural habbits which need to be drilled in isolation prior to sparring to become second nature.

Wing Chun without Chi Sao? According to Ip Chun, Ip Man focused on Chi Sao 90% of the time...Ip Man said Chi Sao was the genius of wing chun.

He may have said that back in those days, but they had better balance.

Chi Sao may have been done 90% of the time but it was very differnt than what is considered or how most people approach chi sao today IMO.

Mainly because once a student reached a stable level of application through Chi Dan and Poon Sao they did it with resistence, intent and it was full contact.

Not to mention it was supplimented outside of training with fighting other styles way more than today......

This was my Sifu's experience from mid 50's when he began learning untill he started his own school.

We cant compare without recognising the differences that have happened over time.

DREW

[Vajramusti]

Lots of generalizations on this thread about what some or all wcers do in chi sao.
Actually- there appears to be great variations in the details of chi sao across the wc spectrum
of schools, teachers and lines..

Despite Kevin's comments there are folks who dont just mechanically roll 3 times and then do "things".

Similarly there are folks who dont just mechanically roll on and on without knowing what they are doing..But not everyone is interested in being on YouTube or entertain forum folks.

Similarly paralleling one of Andrew's comments...if one is not doing forms and applications that arise from the forms, chi sao and gor sao- why call it wing chun.. why not call it Joe's xyz-perhaps it could be effective in the right hands. WC is not the only way to do things but why distort the use of the term beyond recognition and add to the noise?

Boxing is boxing, wrestling is wrestling, jj is jj and mma is mma and wc is wc.specially on a wc forum..

Some rectification of names and labels could help communication. And- less same old same old preaching...?

Several claims on this thread are by people who seem to think they know what every wcer is doing after good survey research.

joy chaudhuri

[Lee Chiang Po]

I have difficulty understanding sometimes, but from what I have read through this entire thread is that most seem to consider Chi Sao to be a form of sparing. It is not. It is merely a 2 man drill that lets each man practice his skills. It can be switched up and changed to give them both practice in all their skills. You can apply resistance and forward pressure against a partner that will help him in his development as well as your own, but it is not a form of sparring.
Chi Sao can develop a life of it's own if you let it.

[k gledhill]

A life of its own , you can say that again !!...

[sanjuro_ronin]

TWC requires forms, including the dummy, and chi sao.

You could have an art with similar techniques and tactics, but IMO you should call it something else.



The view of the "self-appointed WC-realism intelligentsia" seems to be that the range in which chi sao is performed, "trapping range", is artificial and contrived, and in "real fights" appears only for split seconds, before either collapse through into clinch range, or break apart again. For this reason, the techniques you practice from here are allegedly a waste of time as the opportunity to employ them hardly ever appears in real fighting.

Hand fighting and grip fighting as wrestling drills are IMO more like chi sao than pummelling.

Not all wrestlers regard pummelling as valuable, same as not all WCers like chi sao ... apparently.

Interesting, thanks.

[t_niehoff]

I agree with you in most of what you said.
Question though, how do you view "pummeling" ?
All grapplers drill it and yes, I know it is not chi sao, but perhaps it is what chi sao is suppose to "become" ?

Again, I don't think approaching this from a theoretical perspective is helpful. Instead, we should look at it from a practical, individual perspective based on experience. When you begin to actually fight from contact (attached fighting), you'll see very quickly what you need to be able to do, what works, what doesn't work, etc.

Pummeling is more than arm swimming, but is fighting for position while in close body contact. Do you need that in contact fighting? If you do some contact fighting the answer will be obvious. Is it chi sao? No.

[t_niehoff]

Lots of generalizations on this thread about what some or all wcers do in chi sao.
Actually- there appears to be great variations in the details of chi sao across the wc spectrum
of schools, teachers and lines..

Forms are forms, chi sao is chi sao -- you can generalize about those "things". Certainly different WCK teachers often have a different emphasis in what they "teach". But the nature of "exercise", whether form or chi sao, won't change.

Despite Kevin's comments there are folks who dont just mechanically roll 3 times and then do "things".

Similarly there are folks who dont just mechanically roll on and on without knowing what they are doing..But not everyone is interested in being on YouTube or entertain forum folks.

It doesn't matter how anyone performs an unrealistic, artifical drill like chi sao -- regardless of how anyone does it, it will not -- because it cannot by its very nature -- develop realistic (fighting) skills. And that's because realistic skills come from realistic practice. This is very easy to show.

Similarly paralleling one of Andrew's comments...if one is not doing forms and applications that arise from the forms, chi sao and gor sao- why call it wing chun.. why not call it Joe's xyz-perhaps it could be effective in the right hands. WC is not the only way to do things but why distort the use of the term beyond recognition and add to the noise?

Like most nonfighters, you approach this backwards. Certainly WCK has a technical repertoire (that is easily identifiable). You don't need a form to learn that repertoire, anymore than you need a form to learn the technical repetoire of boxing, wrestling, judo, BJJ, MT, etc. Moreover, when you learn that repetoire in a form and practice it in chi sao, you are NEVER learning the realistic application of that technical repertoire. You are only learning the artifical, unrealistic use of those movements. You can only learn the realisitic application through realsitic practice. Worse still, by learning that way, you are essentially learning fantasy fu because unrealistic, artificial practice develops an artificial, unrealsitic "understanding". This is why most "application" we see on the net, in magazines, in chi sao, etc. you'll never see them pull off in sparring. Put just about any WCK guy in a contact fighting situation and you'll see how all their "application" goes out the window.

Boxing is boxing, wrestling is wrestling, jj is jj and mma is mma and wc is wc.specially on a wc forum..

Very true, but we can learn useful things about training and fighting from fighters.

Some rectification of names and labels could help communication. And- less same
old same old preaching...?

Several claims on this thread are by people who seem to think they know what every wcer is doing after good survey research.

A person doesn't need to know what every WCKer is doing or do any surveys -- they can know what anyone, what any martial artisit, must do to develop fighting skills as that process is universal. By knowing that process, we can also tell whether or not any particular exercise, dril, etc. fits into that process (and so develops realistic skills) or not (and so doesn't develop skills).

[k gledhill]

Lots of generalizations on this thread about what some or all wcers do in chi sao.
Actually- there appears to be great variations in the details of chi sao across the wc spectrum
of schools, teachers and lines..

Despite Kevin's comments there are folks who dont just mechanically roll 3 times and then do "things".

Similarly there are folks who dont just mechanically roll on and on without knowing what they are doing..But not everyone is interested in being on YouTube or entertain forum folks.

Similarly paralleling one of Andrew's comments...if one is not doing forms and applications that arise from the forms, chi sao and gor sao- why call it wing chun.. why not call it Joe's xyz-perhaps it could be effective in the right hands. WC is not the only way to do things but why distort the use of the term beyond recognition and add to the noise?

Boxing is boxing, wrestling is wrestling, jj is jj and mma is mma and wc is wc.specially on a wc forum..

Some rectification of names and labels could help communication. And- less same old same old preaching...?

Several claims on this thread are by people who seem to think they know what every wcer is doing after good survey research.

joy chaudhuri

despite Kevins claims I wasn't claiming that everyone did this 3 rolls and 'must hit you ' . The implication being the chi-sao was simply a place to start wailing on each other in a 'lop fest' of 2 handed attacks after a 3 count .

[Vajramusti]

like most nonfighters, you approach this backwards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not worth a reply.

joy chaudhuri

[RGVWingChun]

Which one of his many many differently taught students did he say this to?

Since we do seem to be talkign exclusively about Yip Man's chun, then I would have to say that chi sao is a useful training tool... and a good starting point for teaching some points, but 90%? Sorry, but even if this is straight from one of the incarnations of Yip Man, I don't agree.

You can see the quote from Ip Chun in his book "Wing Chun" by Ip Chun with the late Danny Connor

[t_niehoff]

like most nonfighters, you approach this backwards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not worth a reply.

joy chaudhuri

There is no reply since that is just a fact, and one you can't deny. You aren't looking at WCK from a fighting perspective -- and for the simple reason that you are not fighting. You're not starting with the fight. You're starting from the other end -- hence my "backwards"comment -- and approaching it from a theoretical perspective (how you believe things should work in fighting) reinforced with unrealistic, artificial "practice", e.g., chi sao.

[Vajramusti]

Still not worth a reply-you dont know what I actually do, have done or will do.

joy chaudhuri

[Edmund]

Why would you not do chi sao when it's just about the only thing you're good at?