Why chi sau?

[t_niehoff]

i do understand your argument, both above, and on the subject in general

i take it, by your analogy, once you start sparring in your wing chun training you no longer need to use any of the 'training wheels'... weapons practise, dummy practise, chi sau, gwoh sau, lap sau, forms etc etc?

You need to keep the objective in mind: developing your ability to fight with your WCK. That's what skill in WCK is.

The curriculum of WCK won't develop fighting skills. Only fighting (facing a genuinely resisiting opponent who is using high levels of phycical force against you) develops fighting skills. (And that includes "alive" drills where you take snippets of fighting and repeatedly practice those situations under realistic conditions). The curriculum teaches you the things you will need to fight with WCK. But the curriculum can't teach you how to fight with those things or develop them to a fighting level.

The dummy is the "heavy bag" of WCK. Not in the sense that you just pound it but that it is a training device to work on certain, specific contact elements.

also, by your analogy, if you can beat your SiFu in sparring/fighting (am i right in saying Robert Chu?) then he no longer has anything to teach you, because you have completed all the 'training wheel' sections before sparring? that is the part i dont buy

Your WCK sifu can't teach you to fight. He can teach you the currciulum of WCK. If he has certain skills, he can teach you those skills. But he can't teach you to fight, to apply your WCK. Only your opponent's can teach you that. Robert's motto is "let application -- fighting -- be your sifu".

PS - our gwoh sau is sparring - just without full contact headshots

No, it's not. And that's because your partners are doing gwoh sao when you are doing gwoh sao -- in other words, they are not genuinely resisting you, i.e., behaving as someone is who is really fighting you. You're both playing by artificial WCK rules. An easy way to see this is to get a nonWCK fighter, begin in a gwoh sao position, and then fight. You'll see that it looks and feels nothing like gwoh sao. Gwoh sao is an artificial, unrealistic exercise. It is not fighting.

[Vajramusti]

Some commentary-I see many differences- some similarities and many differences- in part due to how language is used and the terminologies. I don't try to impose my terminology -just express
some considered views.

Lee= the "chi" in chi sao is different from the "chi" as in chi gung.

On "duende"'s post- I have no comment because I don't know HFY terminology.

On sparring- wc folks can spar too- but if they don't have much chi sao experience they will miss
using wing chun skills. They just have to get used to using whatever equipment being used.When you have a good wing chun framework you adjust to circumstances and conditions.

Unlike Victor I dont think that wing chun is limited by range- an engagement is an engagement- you dont have to switch cars and engines...learning wing chun footwork does not mean that you can't walk or run or do what is necessary in an engagement.

Wing chun is not robotic---in the development stage in training lots of key skills are learned- if you learn them well- you develop the wing chun conceptions of intercepting if needed,attacking whenever possible, redirecting. moving, positioning, distance management, two handedness, line orientaiton, sensing the vectors and trajectories of incoming forces irrespective of the style that is being faced-Hendrik's post showed some insights on that apart from language issues that people may see.. Wing chun doesn't fight for you. Wing chun when well done .superbly trains the person- it's upto the
person to do what is best at any given moment.Issue is -can you do it and do you have the guts to do it.

I have no specific comment on TN's post.

Joy Chaudhuri

[Tom Kagan]

It's not 'sticky hands'. It's STICKING HANDS.

Sticky: adjective

1. having the property of adhering, as glue; adhesive.
2. covered with adhesive or viscid matter: sticky hands.
   ...

Sticking: verb (used with object) - to stick:

1. piercing or puncturing with something pointed
2. killing by this means: to stick a pig.
3. thrusting (something pointed) in, into, through, etc.
   ...

A profound difference.


"I don't know much English. This word, I happen to know." -- Moy Yat

[t_niehoff]

My understanding of the chinese character "chi" as used in "chi sao" is that it pertains to the characteristic of adhering -- like two pieces of rice "stuck" together.

[Hendrik]

that i believe you are saying the tan sau must be issued a certain way (to create the 'force vectors')

Nope. that is not what I said.

you go on to say its not about the tan sau being 'this' way,

but about the force it issues

it is not the fix shape of the Tan sau but the needed 3 D force vectors trajectory which is generated count.




BTW. There is a serious reason of why I am using the dyanamic 4 D force vectors trajectory space for WCK. We need that level of "language" for detail communication. reading your post, you still dont understand what I am presenting eventhough you thought it is the same with what you know.

with the 4 D force vectors space one is describing the Jin and Jin is not a single direction matter but a six directional matter.

and Chi Sau is for testing the handling of six directional force vectors; it is beyond shape and different part of limp.

[Hendrik]

For those who know chinese and curious where the heck I got into these 4 D stuffs

The following is a good reference which speaking in our modern language about the ancient TCMA.



“神动得自有象外，意存妙在无念中。”

这是王芗斋先生的诗文，它对于健身和技击的练习都有指导意义。

需将自己的意念与天空、大气、宇宙相呼应，而且这种呼应是从四维空间得到的。“有象”是三维空间。“有象外 ”是四维空间。

[AdrianK]

Best way to explain a point is to post it in a language barely anyone reading here, understands.

Next time someone challenges me in a discussion, I'm just going to spout some chinese, and then tell them that THAT is why my **** works.

[Hendrik]

Best way to explain a point is to post it in a language barely anyone reading here, understands.

Next time someone challenges me in a discussion, I'm just going to spout some chinese, and then tell them that THAT is why my **** works.

if you dont understand and dont know how to ask properly then that is your **** business not others.

[AdrianK]

If you want people to understand and discuss with you then you should put it in a language that people understand

It'd be different if you were writing an article, but this is a discussion board, c'mon now.

[Hendrik]

If you want people to understand and discuss with you then you should put it in a language that people understand

It'd be different if you were writing an article, but this is a discussion board, c'mon now.

if you notice, I do said "For those who know chinese "

So those who knows chinese can trace and track where it is from....etc.

as for English translation, put it this way, not even every chinese can understand this type of language.

[LSWCTN1]

Nope. that is not what I said.

it is not the fix shape of the Tan sau but the needed 3 D force vectors trajectory which is generated count.

BTW. There is a serious reason of why I am using the dyanamic 4 D force vectors trajectory space for WCK. We need that level of "language" for detail communication. reading your post, you still dont understand what I am presenting eventhough you thought it is the same with what you know.

with the 4 D force vectors space one is describing the Jin and Jin is not a single direction matter but a six directional matter.

and Chi Sau is for testing the handling of six directional force vectors; it is beyond shape and different part of limp.

ok, in all honesty i am not au fait with 'jin' as i see it described

however i know from hands on experience that certain shapes must, IMHO, be held in the correct manner to have the desired effect. the effect created by holding it in another shape is profoundly different

how about the other questions i asked previously? is it about taking your bridges through your opponents bridges for you?

also, why would it be known as 'sticky' hands to you? do you deliberatly stick? if so can i ask why?

regards

David

[LSWCTN1]

It's not 'sticky hands'. It's STICKING HANDS.

Sticky: adjective

1. having the property of adhering, as glue; adhesive.
2. covered with adhesive or viscid matter: sticky hands.
   ...

Sticking: verb (used with object) - to stick:

1. piercing or puncturing with something pointed
2. killing by this means: to stick a pig.
3. thrusting (something pointed) in, into, through, etc.
   ...

A profound difference.


"I don't know much English. This word, I happen to know." -- Moy Yat

excellent answer, that would pretty much answer my question, but i dont want the thread closed because it has raised so many interesting points!

[LSWCTN1]

You need to keep the objective in mind: developing your ability to fight with your WCK. That's what skill in WCK is.

The curriculum of WCK won't develop fighting skills. Only fighting (facing a genuinely resisiting opponent who is using high levels of phycical force against you) develops fighting skills. (And that includes "alive" drills where you take snippets of fighting and repeatedly practice those situations under realistic conditions). The curriculum teaches you the things you will need to fight with WCK. But the curriculum can't teach you how to fight with those things or develop them to a fighting level.

The dummy is the "heavy bag" of WCK. Not in the sense that you just pound it but that it is a training device to work on certain, specific contact elements.



Your WCK sifu can't teach you to fight. He can teach you the currciulum of WCK. If he has certain skills, he can teach you those skills. But he can't teach you to fight, to apply your WCK. Only your opponent's can teach you that. Robert's motto is "let application -- fighting -- be your sifu".



No, it's not. And that's because your partners are doing gwoh sao when you are doing gwoh sao -- in other words, they are not genuinely resisting you, i.e., behaving as someone is who is really fighting you. You're both playing by artificial WCK rules. An easy way to see this is to get a nonWCK fighter, begin in a gwoh sao position, and then fight. You'll see that it looks and feels nothing like gwoh sao. Gwoh sao is an artificial, unrealistic exercise. It is not fighting.

to me wck is a set of principles and actions to be used in combat. your SiFu will teach you the ways to use and not to use these in a setting outside full contact sparring... usually .

you say gwoh sau doesnt look like a real fight. of course it doesnt. it looks like a real fight between two wck practitioners. two practitioners that have been taught to adhere to wck principles of economy of motion and taking the shortest path, among other things.

therefore you arent going to see huge hooks or high kicks when you practice gwoh sau - because they dont adhere to wck principles. as someone mentioned earlier - for wck practitioners, gwoh sau means free hands. doing as you please

why would you kick someone in the head, for example, if you have never practised it in a trained environment, and have been specifically taught to avoid it?

it IS sparring, not sparring in a boxing or kickboxing sense. but it is sparring.

and i dont know what happens when you practice gwoh sau, but i think many people on here will agree that when they practice it - it is full of intent

[Pacman]

in chinese the 'chi' of chi sau means to stick.

not sticking. totally wrong

the point is to stick to the other person

[Mr Punch]

in chinese the 'chi' of chi sau means to stick.

not sticking. totally wrong

This is hilarious... farcical even! Perhaps your Chinese is better than your English? Would you like to explain the difference between the full infinitive in English and the present participle? And then tell us maybe how these are different in Chinese, a language which has neither?

Otherwise, this is a great discussion, but let's keep the pointless semantics out of it. Semantics has value but between two languages it then becomes a plainly linguistic argument and pointless.