Grappling/Takedown Chi sao

[monji112000]

I would still appreciate comments on what posters think of the CONCEPT OF GRAPPLING/CHI-NA CHI SAO as training tool for Wing Chun studies.

I would prefer answers from people who ahem, actually practice Wing Chun?

I did you never responded.
I mentioned incorporating arm drags, duck unders, body locks, leg trips, pummeling, 50/50 clinch, thai clinch, judo throws and just about anything else you think would work setup in a "chi sao" environment. I posted it without any inflammatory tones or comments.



or maybe my opinions arn't wanted? its not becouse I'm jewish is it?

[HardWork8]

You're wasting your time, Hardwork...I don't read his posts anymore but I read yours - so now I get the gist of your back-and-forth with the guy.

Unfortunately I have been wasting my time with a few of them in this Forum, recently. Terrence is a member of a "gang" of modern pseudo kung fu-ist kickboxers and masters of "mish mash".

That is no problem and if their MMA/Cross training makes them happy then that is fine. What we don't need is these people spewing their "advice" (specially to newbies who come to this Forum for genuine kung fu/Wing Chun info and advice).

Now whenever I come across a Wing Chun subject I half expect Mr Terrence to come in with his "Fantasy" monologue.

It is beyond me why someone who is so convinced of the attributes and the 'superiority' of the so called "Modern" and "Functional" martial arts and or MMA, keeps insisting in posting in a KUNG FU FORUM and denegrading TCMAs.

He'll NEVER go to some "traditional kung fu school" and do what you suggest.

Maybe just as well. If he did and if he didn't come out of that encounter with both his testicles or with only part of his wind pipe, then I would have had his blood on my hands.

Maybe he is just being sensible and knows the limitations of his fighting ability if not his "vocal" ones.

At least he managed to keep out of the ugly prank engineered by Ikfmdc (with support from Sanjuro,cjurakpt,unkokusai), that made me out to be a Nazi, satanist and anti semetic, which then continued on to suggest that I had been banished from my sifu's organization.

So not only do these non-kung fu exponents infest this forum they even go further and gang up on anyone who argues against their crosstraining,"modern" etc., doctrine.

No need to say that the prank collapsed around their collective ears and the empty spaces between those ears, but not before fooling some innocent parties who post here.

What did all these people have in common? They like Terence are cross-training modernists who had previously had disagreements with me on the issue of kung fu training.

What are they doing here in this forum? Who knows! All I know is that they aren't teaching anyone about kung fu, some individual MA techniques and approaches maybe, but not kung fu and that is because of the simple fact that they are not qualified.

Always quick to tell everybody else to go to some mma gym and do a challenge, though.

Well it is always easy to tell then do.

Don't waste your energy.

The only reason that I waste energy with him and his kidkboxers is that I want the third party readers and specially newbies to see the loop holes in their "kung fu" thinking.

Of course to tell the truth, I also like the sight of them running around the forum afterwards like headless chickens with their glowing Sore Butts.

[monji112000]

A student of the person in the second clip has said that they are aware the technique is being done wrong.... or, rather, they said "well, that is from 1994 so it is a bit old"

To me, this seems to say "we were trying to incorporate some stuff we didn't really understand very well into what we were doing"

CROSS TRAINING IS ADMIRABLE.... ie go out and find a BJJ, Judo, Sambo or wrestling coach and learn the techniques correctly

Do NOT try and "wing it", doing the technique incorrectly and then passing it on to students that way....

Or, worst of all, try and tell people it has been part of Wing Chun all along

look Dave, I told you before bjj really comes from Wing Chun. Well the story goes Yim muy later in life went to Japan and was Kano's first teacher. judo ... BJJ you can read between the lines..

Key lock -wing arm ,twister-gun sao rnc .- qwan sao , do you want me to name more moves that come from Wing Chun?

[HardWork8]

Grapplers and MMers have similar drills, except they generally do it from the pummelling drill, or as if they were sparring light. You can wrestle and add takedowns, throws and light striking, standing locks and chokes if they present themselves. I'm sure every WC guy who has done some form of grappling from whatever source has tried doing sometnig similar from the "steering wheel" position. This is neither revolutionary nor original.

I did not say that it was revolutionary nor original. Some Wing Chun schools do it and some don't. I want to know WC-ers take on this type of training.[/quote]

Careful. Youre starting to sound like your parroting the arguments of your enemies, the grapplers.

They are not my enemies. What I described is a holistic kung fu approach. The grapplers may have a different take on the same concepts and if so the good luck to them.

You posted the vids. They're the subject of the thread. "Everyone" is discussing the subject. What did you expect?

They discussed that particular technique and fair enough but I hope they are not going to beat it to death, LOL.

It is just that there are other aspects to this thread that are also relevant and can be explored to further the discussion.

[cjurakpt]

Like this technique; when I laid my hand over his with very little tension in the fingers, almost like a light press, or I would never have that continuation of flow to move on with control…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RZmOpCgV9o


Ali Rahim.

I was waiting for someone else to discuss this link - no one did, so I will ask a question: when he does the inside top deflection w/his left, he spears the attacker in the throat (no matter that the attackers left arm hangs limp at his side, but we'll just ignore that for the sake of argument...); anyway, he's got the guys midline, he's poked him in the throat for cryin' out loud, he's inside w/forward momentum and nothing stopping him - why not just continue in the absence of a response from the attacker ?

so, maybe it's just me, but I can't seem to find a rationale for not only backing off, but actually switching to the guys outside by going under the arm, stopping his attack for two beats to do it, so that he can pull the guy forwards at the wrist, and then reversing that momentum to strike to the throat; again, this was done with no impetus - it's not like the attacker created a situation requiring this, he just goes; now, I'm not saying that you might need to do that sometime, but it would have to be in response to a defense by the attacker necessitating a lengthy and relatively complex switch like that (meaning that you loose two beats that could be strikes and also run the risk of tying your own hands up that way...I can tell you that the bagua version of this is when you get there, you just drive forwards and take the guy down hard, no follin' around by backing off and switiching lines for no reason)

any thoughts?

[Edmund]

As I mentioned before the standing waki gatame is pretty solid. It is now banned in judo competitions but it used to be a regular thing. The problem was people kept getting their arms broken.

Shinya Aoki broke someone's arm in Shooto doing one.

I think I recall a Japanese woman fighter doing a lot of them as well: Megumi Something.

I've seen people tap to standing wrist locks and chokes in BJJ. Not often and not against advanced practitioners, but it does happen, Standing guillotines happen reasonably often as well. A friend choked out a pub agressor with a standing guillotine not long ago.

[Mr Punch]

First, for where I'm coming from:

Any WCers…

No, I haven't, and I've tried.

If everyone doesn’t know by now, I've trained in aikido and aiki-based koryu since 1990, and while I'm not claiming any mastery, I know the ins and outs of literally hundreds of variations of standing joint locks and those SJL that lead to takedowns. I've been taught many of these locks by LEOs and more importantly LEO trainers with years of front-line experience (a top riot squad trainer and top side handle baton and CQ trainer).

I should at this point point out also that in various lineages of wing chun I've been taught the (traditional) WC version of many of these moves from chi sao and 'SD' set-ups, and they were most weak and ineffective compared to the aiki-based arts.

I've regularly failed in my many attempts to use them in MMA FC. BTW, I should say, my default reflex action is often aiki: I don't 'try' to get these locks, but I naturally get them if there is an opportunity as part of a 'combo'. Of course, you can say I am crap or that aiki's crap (many do), but aiki's basics are still taught to LEOs world over.

The ones I have pulled off occasionally are the flying arm-bar and the wing-arm shihonage (ironically outlawed from scores of aiki dojo for being 'too dangerous' ).

I know of a few that have done it and I have done it VS untrained people (bouncing), but I never count those times

I agree, but you need to remember that many moves are stuck in some MA simply because that can work on an untrained individual.
Bouncers use standing locks "all the time", to varying degrees of effectiveness mind you.

… but that's a large part of the problem. You're doing something fundamentally unsound… That's just junk.

This is where I disagree. Of course I want to practise against the best available. But why should I 'not count' the two times I've used supposedly unfeasible techniques in street situations? I've had maybe twenty-odd altercations, and on two occasions (actually maybe more) I've tried and pulled off stuff that I've later read (on Bullshido etc) doesn't work. Well, I've used them about 10% of the time with a 100% success rate. One of the occasions I know my attacker was trained in various fighting styles.

In my 20-odd altercations maybe two have been against people with any training at all, and at least four have been against nasty pieces of work I can guarantee had plenty of street nastiness. Scrubs prevail. So yeah, while I can see the logic that training against the best is better than training for scrubs, it's an extreme: I want to train for whatever I'm up against.

Thus, it's situational smarts to include some of these low-percentage techs and principles. The other thing about SJLs is that if you're taught right and you **** them up, you can easily recover your position and you've disadvantaged your opponent. When I teach ikkyo (the aikido 'first principle') which is basically a flying arm bar, I don't teach it like a lot of aikido teachers: as a technique, but literally as a principle. The technique is to do the flying arm bar until they are 'taken down' on their faces. As I've stated, it doesn't work on the trained and works to some degree on scrubs. The principle is avoidance, keeping your centre, uprooting and getting kuzushi (crushing/unbalancing) at the point of musubi (first contact). And with that technique, if you fail you’ve lost nothing, and most times you succeed you will have disrupted your opponent’s balance, although the takedown comes under fantasy.

Why should I train something that only works on the untrained? Because on the untrained some of these techs/principles will make it easier for you to subdue them without inflicting serious damage than the overkill of many MMA techs vs the trained. Of course, in this day and age where everyone seems to be carrying a knife, and everybody trains something maybe you want the overkill… but wait, knife crime stats aren’t actually up, and there are still as many craply trained people (and drunken friends/relatives!) as ever: so the techs warrant some training, even if not a main emphasis.

Show me anyone who can consistently and regularly pull off standing joint locks in sparring/fighting against people their size or larger…

Next time I get into a street fight I’ll make sure I choose my attacker based on size and training. You know, I’ve heard this ‘argument’ many times, and while it often works against some people who bull**** about street experience, it’s still a crap argument.

As I’ve said on here before, in my MMA class I’ve often pulled off wristlocks when mounted: as in breaking the person’s balance and getting a submission/escape. Why? Because nobody trains for them. Now, I shouldn’t get it on a BJJer who doesn’t just do sport-oriented stuff, and after my coach saw me do them he soon easily taught my ‘victims’ how to counter (or more often the positional nuance that would have prevented them in the first place), but that doesn’t deny the fact that at first they worked on sometimes bigger and better trained people than I was.

BTW, from my observations, the bouncers here use a different strategy -- when things start to go violent they typically will have one guy wrap you (often falling to the ground) and then have several other bouncers come over and "escort" you out.

Agreed. Most of the SJL and related takedowns I’ve been taught seriously by bouncer-trainers and LEO trainers have been for those situations: for the ‘escort’.

Summary:
1) This tech usually won’t work on scrubs or trained people.
2) It’s bad for chi sao, it’s bad for live. It’s easy to counter, or just force through, it takes too much setting up and two hands on one for too long.
3) Enough SJLs work to make in various situations it worthwhile practicing the useful ones IMO.
4) Failed SJLs are easy to recover from, and even failed ones can provide openings.
5) Usual caveats about live training apply, as do those about position and structure coming first.
6) It’s always better to train with the best trained, but it’s still useful to train for scrubs.

Sorry, ****ing long post.

[Mr Punch]

I would still appreciate comments on what posters think of the CONCEPT OF GRAPPLING/CHI-NA CHI SAO as training tool for Wing Chun studies.

I would prefer answers from people who ahem, actually practice Wing Chun?

Most wing chun chin-na sucks. Plus, most supposedly wing chun chin-na is against the principles of wing chun:

two hands on one

chasing hands

wing chun's jing specialises in jerky break-out movements: that key lock should NEVER work on a chunner

etc...

Of course, IF the practioner does the chin-na to effect the opponent's centre and base from the point of contact, being mindful of his own structure and position first then you may have something. But, a good chunner should have sufficient body structure to negate the need for gripping techniques: your stance and positioning should be uprooting/crushing/overwhelming/leaking/stealing/cutting off before an opportunity to grab even comes up. And the second you start looking for a grip, a grab, a tweak, you've failed in your reflex and you're chasing hands and playing catch-up.

[Mr Punch]

As I mentioned before the standing waki gatame is pretty solid. ...

BTW, the takedowns from the first, second, third and especially fifth and sixth principles of aikido's SJLs are basically wakigatame finishes if practised live.

[Edmund]

Most wing chun chin-na sucks. Plus, most supposedly wing chun chin-na is against the principles of wing chun:

two hands on one

chasing hands

wing chun's jing specialises in jerky break-out movements: that key lock should NEVER work on a chunner

etc...

I think WC chin na is applied *with* the WC principles.

That's the whole point! i.e. you don't try to grab a hand with two hands to apply WC chin na:

You are bridged with the opponent. You want to strike them. They are protecting their centre and have good posture. You *sink the bridge* to attack them - attacking the arm without committing 2 hands to the arm. This breaks their posture and guard.

[cjurakpt]

BTW, all this talk of incorporating grappling / kahm-na into chi sao (or trapping as we used to call it); I don't get what the big deal about it is - I mean, when we trapped, it was always part of what we did - meaning that we would flow from striking (incliding hands, forearms, elbows and occasionally headbuts) to locking and back, moving to takedowns if possible; low line kicks were also a part of it - I mean, it wasn't ever a big deal, you just did what you needed to do at the right point; arms bars were big; two-on-one locks weren't

so it was always functional and moved on a continuum...

[HardWork8]

Most wing chun chin-na sucks.

Most Wing Chun striking sucks too. It is called the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenom.

Plus, most supposedly wing chun chin-na is against the principles of wing chun:

two hands on one

Not really. There are blocks in WC that use 2 hands on one and there is also a double punch and a double palm strike, which by your account would be against WC principles.

chasing hands

Again, not really. You are supposed to use chi-na when the opportunity presents itself.

Furthermore, you are not supposed to chase hands in any style of kung fu but most major styles have chi-na techniques as part of their arsenal.

wing chun's jing specialises in jerky break-out movements: that key lock should NEVER work on a chunner

Most styles that I am familiar with use jing and as far as I know, there are no un-jerky jings.

Also, even if what you say was true then it is good to remember that Wing chunners don't always necessarily fight Wing Chuners.

One more point is that Chi-na goes a lot deeper than people give it credit for.

But, a good chunner should have sufficient body structure to negate the need for gripping techniques:

I don't know about the other lineages but as far as Siu Lam Wing Chun is concerned then Chi-na plays a very important role in completing the Wing Chun arsenal and more so at the advanced levels where the Tiger elements manifest themselves and where anatomy is also studied.

And just like Wing Chun the other major kung fu styles use Chi-na techniques as a potent part of their arsenal as they do most of the following approaches:

your stance and positioning should be uprooting/crushing/overwhelming/leaking/stealing/cutting off

before an opportunity to grab even comes up.

The minute you make the bridge then you have to be ready for any "opportunity". No one is saying that WC is not primarily a striking art.

However it does have Chi-na elements for a REASON and that is because we do not always choose the opportunities that present themselves to us in combat.

It is just one more weapon in our arsenal and not just in Wing Chun, but all major kung fu styles (if they are practiced the way they were meant to).

And the second you start looking for a grip, a grab, a tweak, you've failed in your reflex and you're chasing hands and playing catch-up.

Again, in Wing Chun you are told to wait for the opponent to make his move and then you react! If he does not give you the opportunity to grab then you don't grab you strike.

Awareness of the Chi-na possibiliy can even make one finish a fight before it starts by for example, grabbing a threateningly pointed finger (with one hand and not two).

That was just an example and please I don't want ot see 20 posts telling me how you couldn't do that agains Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock or Tarzan..lol

I remember practicing this chi sao with sifu and once he even grabbed my hair(with one hand and not two), and took me down. Why? Because he saw the opportunity and had the training and ability to take that opportunity.

If the opportunity presents itself then take it. That is what WC is all about.

[Mr Punch]

I think WC chin na is applied *with* the WC principles.

That's the whole point! i.e. you don't try to grab a hand with two hands to apply WC chin na:

You are bridged with the opponent. You want to strike them. They are protecting their centre and have good posture. You *sink the bridge* to attack them - attacking the arm without committing 2 hands to the arm. This breaks their posture and guard.

OK OK, I see that point... but correct me if I'm wrong in saying that sinking your bridge is not chin na: if you take the 'chin' to mean trap you can say it is, but if you look at traditional chin na it's splitting tendons/muscles, joint breaks, pressure points and disrupting breathing patterns...

Maybe it's semantics and maybe I'm wrong - I'm no expert. But, to me those main elements of chin na are different to anything we have in chun with the exception of a couple of half-arsed joint attacks and minor pressure point stuff.

[Mr Punch]

BTW, all this talk of incorporating grappling / kahm-na into chi sao (or trapping as we used to call it); I don't get what the big deal about it is - I mean, when we trapped, it was always part of what we did - ...weren't

so it was always functional and moved on a continuum...

...I don't 'try' to get these locks, but I naturally get them if there is an opportunity ...And the second you start looking for a grip, a grab, a tweak, you've failed in your reflex and you're chasing hands and playing catch-up.

We agree.

.

[Mr Punch]

There are blocks in WC that use 2 hands on one and there is also a double punch and a double palm strike, which by your account would be against WC principles.

There is precisely one movement in my WC that has two hands on one. It's the double hand lop in biu jee. It's good. It works against things where you've already ****ed up your WC principles, and it works by directly and immediately destroying the person's balance by taking their centre... which fits in with what I was saying. But even then, it doesn't rely on actually getting both of the hands on one arm in any kind of 'right' position: if I miss with one hand it's already an elbow or palm strike. It's also immediately released and doesn't tie your hands up for any time. Of course there are exceptions: especially from BJ.

The double punch and the double palm are not chin na, and nor are they two hands on one, so they are irrlevant to your argument.

Again, not really. You are supposed to use chi-na when the opportunity presents itself.

Er, that's precisely my point! Any time you decide you're going to do chin na you've lost your principles! And IME most chunners who emphasize chin na chase hands. I'm not focusing on your example from the first clip that you don't want us to talk about any more (?!) but it's good example.

You say you've been taught to use that and others like it in chi sao - the thing that all your despised 'kickboxers' are ranting about about it being impossible to apply against full-speed opponents etc are the same as what I'm saying: it's chasing hands, against wing chun principles for the reason that it's unrealistic inapplicable flowery hands.

Furthermore, you are not supposed to chase hands in any style of kung fu but most major styles have chi-na techniques as part of their arsenal.

Your point being? I've played with mantis people who say they don't chase hands but they do things that definitely would fit the chun description of chasing hands, that my sifu would have punched me in the face for! It's hard enough to get two lines of wing chun to come close to agreeing on terminology; do you think other styles do too, or is it all part of your big lovey dovey 'we are kung fu' idea?!

Another reality news flash: it's not just most wing chun that sucks but most kung fu in general!

Most styles that I am familiar with use jing and as far as I know, there are no un-jerky jings.

...

Also, even if what you say was true... as a potent part of their arsenal as they do most of the following approaches...

None of which counters my point that good chun negates the need for grabbing techs. You can include them if you want, and if that's part of your lineage's tradition, fine, of course I'm not disagreeing with that.

However it does have Chi-na elements for a REASON and that is because we do not always choose the opportunities that present themselves to us in combat.

Wait, so first you said: "You are supposed to use chi-na when the opportunity presents itself." and now you're saying that chin na is some kind of back-up if you've missed an opportunity. So, to cut all the theoretical double-talk, what you're saying is, "If you missed the chance to beat down the swiftly advancing MMA kickboxer, you'll have a chance to grab him and grapple him"? It usually goes like this: if you miss the chance to beat down the swiftly advancing MMA kickboxer, he wipes the floor with your face, breaks your limbs, chokes you out and stamps on you. In my humble experience. YMMV.

The main reason for standing chin na type malarkey in a modern setting to me, is as I said for subdual and usually when you have a couple of big friends with you.

Again, in Wing Chun you are told to wait for the opponent to make his move and then you react! If he does not give you the opportunity to grab then you don't grab you strike.

The kuen kuit about 'Strike second, arrive first' isn't a command, it's a conditional! I've never been told to 'wait around', and I don't like playing a reactive game. The first serious street altercation I had taught me that when I waited for his move and got cracked on the head with a very fast moving chain.

Awareness of the Chi-na possibiliy can even make one finish a fight before it starts by for example, grabbing a threateningly pointed finger (with one hand and not two).

Are you saying you have 'finger grabs' as a set chin na move? If you're trying to say that only by 'having a chin na mindset' will I be able to de-escalate situations and subdue people meek as a lamb before the **** kicks off, I'm afraid I'll have to laugh and say I have common sense, thank you.

I remember practicing this chi sao with sifu and once he even grabbed my hair(with one hand and not two), and took me down. Why? Because he saw the opportunity and had the training and ability to take that opportunity.

If the opportunity presents itself then take it. That is what WC is all about.

I completely agree.

So, anyway, what was your point again in relation to the subject? You said:

The technique shown in that clip is just one example of a grappling technique that one can use off the chi sao. I believe that this type of chi sao training is useful as it familiarizes the practitioners with stand up grappling scenarios and the various techniques and possibilities involving the use of chi-na techniques.

It's bollocks. It familiarizes you with bad crappling techs with compliant people. Anyone thinking that shows any possibilities to do with stand-up grappling will soon get introduced rudely to lie-down grappling, followed by their own spine! Even if you try to tie up a scrub like that chances are you're so focused on the overcomplicated hand nonsense you'll get your legs tied up and he'll dump you on your arse.