Reaching Rules of Thumb

[t_niehoff]

Unless of course, you perform those drills by building up the techniques to the point where the opponent is "behaving realistically, genuinely resisting you (like he does in fighting) -- and that means realistic levels of force (like you have in fighting), realistic action (as opposed to limited, proscribed ones), etc" However, if your opponent is specifically resisting you, they are probably not trying to hit you. Thus, they become your plaything and you can do with them what you will.

You misunderstand. Chi sao is an unrealistic drill no matter how you do it. If you "built it up" to the point it was realistic, you'd be doing full power, attached fighting/sparring. Then it would no longer be the drill chi sao -- it would be sparring/fighting.

Chi sao is WCK with the training wheels on. If you take the training wheels off, then you are really trying to ride the bike.

It definitely matters what your understanding of the drills is. Because you clearly lack the fundamental level of understanding what the drills are for, but also how the drills should be performed.

Again, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that it isn't important -- critical, actually -- to know what the drills are for (to "understand" them). My point is that a person need not understand a drill to know whether or not it is a realistic drill.

[shawchemical]

You misunderstand. Chi sao is an unrealistic drill no matter how you do it. If you "built it up" to the point it was realistic, you'd be doing full power, attached fighting/sparring. Then it would no longer be the drill chi sao -- it would be sparring/fighting.

Chi sao is WCK with the training wheels on. If you take the training wheels off, then you are really trying to ride the bike.



Again, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that it isn't important -- critical, actually -- to know what the drills are for (to "understand" them). My point is that a person need not understand a drill to know whether or not it is a realistic drill.

No one misunderstands you terrence, we all understand what you're trying to say perfectly. Unfortunately, you're wrong so it matters little what you think about these drills. Chi Sao is NOT an unrealistic drill, and is an integral part of VTK. It is not the be all and end all, but without it we'd all be doing the **** that you think you understand. You actually DO need to understand a drill and how it fits in the context of what it teaches to be able to make the determination of its realism.

Back into your hole T, you have nothing of value to add.

[t_niehoff]

No one misunderstands you terrence, we all understand what you're trying to say perfectly. Unfortunately, you're wrong so it matters little what you think about these drills. Chi Sao is NOT an unrealistic drill, and is an integral part of VTK. It is not the be all and end all, but without it we'd all be doing the **** that you think you understand. You actually DO need to understand a drill and how it fits in the context of what it teaches to be able to make the determination of its realism.

Back into your hole T, you have nothing of value to add.

To determine whether something, including a drill, is realistic or not, all you have to do is look at the fight. Does what you are doing "look" like what you see in fighting? Not what you IMAGINE will happen or IMAGINE you will be able to do, but does it correspond to what happens in fighting?

Realisitic means corresponds to reality, right? So by looking at reality, we can know whether something is realistic or not. In terms of fighting, the fight itself is the reality.

BTW, I never said chi sao wasn't an integral part of the WCK curriculum. I said it wasn't realistic. Riding a bike with the training wheels on may be an integral part of learning to ride a bike. But it isn't realistic.

[Yoshiyahu]

To determine whether something, including a drill, is realistic or not, all you have to do is look at the fight. Does what you are doing "look" like what you see in fighting? Not what you IMAGINE will happen or IMAGINE you will be able to do, but does it correspond to what happens in fighting?

Realisitic means corresponds to reality, right? So by looking at reality, we can know whether something is realistic or not. In terms of fighting, the fight itself is the reality.

BTW, I never said chi sao wasn't an integral part of the WCK curriculum. I said it wasn't realistic. Riding a bike with the training wheels on may be an integral part of learning to ride a bike. But it isn't realistic.

So after one learns how to fight with wing chun? does that mean they can just forget about ci sao and never do it again?

[t_niehoff]

So after one learns how to fight with wing chun? does that mean they can just forget about ci sao and never do it again?

To borrow the old saying, it is a boat to take you across the river.

Or, to use my metaphor, after you learned how to ride a bike, did you go back and continue to ride with the training wheels on? Will that make you a better bike rider?

Chi sao will only get you to a certain point in your training.

[HumbleWCGuy]

We don't even really use chi sao. Every once in a while we make up an ad hoc drill to teach some thing that the students are struggling with, but it is a minuscule percentage of the training. As T. pointed out, If you can ride a bike then why put the training wheels back on.

That last time I made up a drill, I was showing how to slip the jab and hit. Seriously, if everyone is on the same page and good with doing something live, why go back to it in that unrealistic format?

Edit:
My instructor has actually been teaching more animal systems lately and he has been using more chi sao than he ever did for us in WC because the hand movements are more complex. And probably, his current crop of students isn't as dedicated.


Appropriately in this thread on reaching. Chi Sao, can turn into an exercise in chasing hands. IMO, you can't chase after every gut shot. Moreover, chi sao does not lend itself to using the appropriate blocks to stop most body shots. Also, it isn't sound fighting to attempt to block every single body shot.

[k gledhill]

the low shots are simply to develop low elbow striking, in fighting we dont aim for the low shot. All the drills are giving us good fighting habits of VT.

the low tan, low fok, etc...of SLT , all to develop the elbows to stay in a pendulum action rather than a lifting hinge action.

its only chasing hands if you use your hands to chase off line....learning to use forearms as the alternate striking can change how you fight.

[YungChun]

Same BS arguments from all levels, the no chisao folks, the chisao is unrealistic but integral folks, the chisao is critical folks, centerline folks, etc...

I agree with Kevin in general.. Reaching (hand chasing) is about leaving the line, wasted movement and motion.. sticking to a hand when you could have buried your fist in their face.. Reaching past your effective range distance-wise (body power) is also reaching..

Wasted motion equals wasted time, which means wasted opportunity and more opportunity for the opponent.

"It doesn't look like how you really fight" Is so telling because people don't all fight the same it's a cultural thing.. This shows how we all create our own reality, how we also limit ourselves.. Chun did not come to be among western boxers... The founders IMO would have said simply use it as you can given the conditions and your abilities and continue to explore. The conditions that exist today, here, are not the same as they were then (when and where chun was founded) and chun will not look the same or use the same % of this or that given these changes.

Chun is not western boxing... A Chun sidekick (and other kicks) can't be used in a phone booth--most fights don't start in a phone booth.. There isn't a 'wrong way' to win a fight using chun tools and actions.

Terence maintains that no one applies chun correctly in fighting (except him).. Yet over the years I have yet to see one (1) single example of what he terms correct expression.. And as I said before if you can't show even one example (really there should be many) of actual chun being expressed "correctly" with clear examples (no squinting required) of chun tools and actions then this "correct" expression exists only in the mind of the person making the assertion.

There are many tools and actions in chun.. The fact that we don't see X,Y or Z has more to do with who we fight, how we train and our own belief systems than anything else.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Terence maintains that no one applies chun correctly in fighting (except him).. Yet over the years I have yet to see one (1) single example of what he terms correct expression.. And as I said before if you can't show even one example (really there should be many) of actual chun being expressed "correctly" with clear examples (no squinting required) of chun tools and actions then this "correct" expression exists only in the mind of the person making the assertion.

That's what kills me. People are on him about posting videos. To be honest, I would like for him to post just a few reasonable anecdotes about how to use WC effectively.

Although, I think that he is starting to realize that that is understanding of WC is a convoluted mess. His opinions are slowly evolving.

[t_niehoff]

Same BS arguments from all levels, the no chisao folks, the chisao is unrealistic but integral folks, the chisao is critical folks, centerline folks, etc...

I think the forms and drills, like chi sao, are unrealistic AND don't develop fighting skills. But, they do provide us with a textbook/reference of the movement/skills that our ancestors called WCK.

I agree with Kevin in general.. Reaching (hand chasing) is about leaving the line, wasted movement and motion.. sticking to a hand when you could have buried your fist in their face.. Reaching past your effective range distance-wise (body power) is also reaching..

Wasted motion equals wasted time, which means wasted opportunity and more opportunity for the opponent.

This is oversimplisitic.

To strike ONLY because you can strike (there is an opening so I must take it -- your "it is a mistake to stick when you can hit) is stupid, and that will easily be exploited by a good fighter (who can then easily bait you, can easily read you, etc.). Not only that, but it can leave you exposed to trading punches (yes, you can hit him but he can also hit you).

What I want to do is to hit my opponent only when he can't hit me, to keep his offense closed down while I hit him. That means to control him as I hit him. And to use that control to create opportunities to hit him while he is closed down.

What you and Kevin don't seem to appreciate is that the closing down of the opponent is MORE important than the striking as it is what sets up the striking and keeps you safe. That is lien siu die da: linking our defense (closing him down) to bring in hitting.

"It doesn't look like how you really fight" Is so telling because people don't all fight the same it's a cultural thing.. This shows how we all create our own reality, how we also limit ourselves.. Chun did not come to be among western boxers... The founders IMO would have said simply use it as you can given the conditions and your abilities and continue to explore. The conditions that exist today, here, are not the same as they were then (when and where chun was founded) and chun will not look the same or use the same % of this or that given these changes.

Yes, people do all fight the same way -- just like they all run the same way. It's natural.

If you train to move in a way you don't fight, then you are training to fail. You are practicing X to do Y.

Chun is not western boxing... A Chun sidekick (and other kicks) can't be used in a phone booth--most fights don't start in a phone booth..

Actually, many fights DO start very close. But just fights don't necessarily start on the ground doesn't mean that you can't take it there. And just as fights may not start in a phone booth doesn't mean you can't take it there.

A WCK sidekick does work in a phone booth, and in fact, that's how we learn and practice it (in the chum kiu form, in chi sao, in the dummy). WCK kicks are "meant" to be used while in contact.

There isn't a 'wrong way' to win a fight using chun tools and actions.

I agree. If -- IF -- you can use WCK movement/actions consistently and successfully, then no one can say that you are doing it wrong. Unfortunately, many people are not using WCK movement/actions but calling it WCK.

Terence maintains that no one applies chun correctly in fighting (except him).. Yet over the years I have yet to see one (1) single example of what he terms correct expression.. And as I said before if you can't show even one example (really there should be many) of actual chun being expressed "correctly" with clear examples (no squinting required) of chun tools and actions then this "correct" expression exists only in the mind of the person making the assertion.

Whether I can do it or not is immaterial. What is WCK movement, what is the WCK method (the faat mun), etc. is easily established and does not depend on me or my skill.

The test is very simple: can you consistently and successfully do in fighting (100%) what you train to do (use WCK movement) as you train to do it?

There are many tools and actions in chun.. The fact that we don't see X,Y or Z has more to do with who we fight, how we train and our own belief systems than anything else.

You make excuses for why you never see in fighting what you train to do. Yes, it is about "how we train." If you train to do X but can't make it work in fighting, and so do Y which is not what you train to do, this is very poor training (you are wasting your time practicing X).

Let me give you an example. Many WCK "instructors" teach using tan da, guan da, pak da, biu da, etc. with various footwork -- the so-called simultaneous blocks and punches -- on the outside. Right? Yet, it doesn't work (or, more accurately, is extremely low-percentage, high risk). In fighting, you can only pull that sort of thing off very rarely on the outside and only in certain situations (like against a very slow, telegraphed punch). So, why teach people to do that? Why practice doing that? Why train to fail? Why not instead train to use WCK movement that you can do on the outside, that you can consistently do, that works under high pressure, and is low-risk?

Next question -- why do people teach that crap? It doesn't work, so why do they teach it? Yes, it is WCK movement but it doesn't work IN THAT CONTEXT. So why teach it in that context? And not teach it in the context in which it does work?

The answer is -- because they don't know better, and they routinely teach nonsense (teach people to fail). And that gets passed on as WCK dogma. It's never questioned, never examined, but cited mindlessly by WCK sheeple (I will not chase hands, I will not chase hands, I will not . . . ).

Then when someone like me points this out, all the dogma followers get their noses out of joint. Then when I point out that you never see anyone making this work, they want me to show them what to do -- what really does work -- on the outside. "You say blocking and striking won't work but you won't show us what does work." Right. I won't.

Because: You have to do THE WORK yourself. You want the answers but don't want to do the work. It doesn't work that way. If you do the work, you'll see. If you don't, you never will.

[Knifefighter]

I think the forms and drills, like chi sao, are unrealistic AND don't develop fighting skills.

If anything, chi sao interferes with the ability to develop fighting skills. People who fight well after having done chi sao training fight well despite the training not because of it.

[t_niehoff]

If anything, chi sao interferes with the ability to develop fighting skills. People who fight well after having done chi sao training fight well despite the training not because of it.

IMO chi sao is FOR BEGINNERS to learn and practice the movements/actions of WCK (contact actions) in a non-threatening, unrealistic manner. While I don't think you need to learn them that way, and that the sport-model of training is loads better (and what you must do to develop significant skill), I think it's fine AS LONG as you recognize it for what it is.

It's like sumbrada.

It's first grade stuff. But when you never leave the first grade . . .

[Knifefighter]

IMO chi sao is FOR BEGINNERS to learn and practice the movements/actions of WCK (contact actions) in a non-threatening, unrealistic manner. While I don't think you need to learn them that way, and that the sport-model of training is loads better (and what you must do to develop significant skill), I think it's fine AS LONG as you recognize it for what it is.

It's like sumbrada.

It's first grade stuff. But when you never leave the first grade . . .

And sumbrada is almost as bad for teaching beginners to learn unrealistic skills that then have to be unlearned.

[k gledhill]

IMO chi sao is FOR BEGINNERS to learn and practice the movements/actions of WCK (contact actions) in a non-threatening, unrealistic manner. While I don't think you need to learn them that way, and that the sport-model of training is loads better (and what you must do to develop significant skill), I think it's fine AS LONG as you recognize it for what it is.

It's like sumbrada.

It's first grade stuff. But when you never leave the first grade . . .

or leave school like you and make up cr ap

chi-sao is directly involved with developing punching attacks with inbuilt defense angles. The problem , imo, is that many guys teaching are copying the 'external' side of the system. Meaning they dont see the energy of a jum sao elbow in doing chi-sao. They see a wrsits turning to a wu sao etc...so everyone uses a wu sao/jut sao to do dan chi-sao...and from that point on all is a mess...
Leading to sticking hands useless cr ap for fighting. Leadig to fighting like the drills with 2 hands in constant controlling strike/grab exchanges with over trapping being done, leading to chasing hands when making a entry attack, rather than striking with trained punches. And not egg beater from hell either

the drills simply offer a place to train the required co-ordination of the arms , the timing with distance etc...balance , moving the axis line as it shifts turns , creating force with hips and elbows unified in a facing tactical execution of the opponent.

You wont get this from sticky wrist feeling clinching ideas....ever ! simply because your training yourself to CREATE levers as they seek out a place to rest their 'sticky' feely energy all the way out at the wrists.
If you learn to fight the lever using the centerline as the reference point you begin to understand why people of small size can fight larger opponents...they are fighting levers and axis lines in motion, creating distances by staying with the opponents in a constant distance that allows us to work the scientific ideas...one finger can move the earth if the lever is long enough...

Further to that if the OPPONENT is chasing OUR hands to seek a place to rest their controlling energy WE can simply remove our arms from their intended path and strike into the space they make by letting them simply move and we fight in an opportunistic manner, no pre programmed actions .

the elbow creates a strong point to fight from because its controlled by the shoulder muscle girdle [lats/pecs] attached to you structure , trained in chi-sao etc..you also remove the urge to use the wrists to deflect or place your force on anothers bridge with, when they will simply deflect the lever with sharp displacing force..ie pak/jut/ bong .....we on the other hand fight the natural 'untrained' idea of using levers and wrists force...we fight beginners, every guy on the street is a virtual beginner. Why a skilled fighter wont deliver levers , boxers dont deliver levers, and we cant chase their arms seeking to make levers...SOOOooo we attack at the right timing and tactical idea along a centerline with strategic intent and only fight what stops us punching the guys head in.

You can train 30 + years and never see this way of using the drills....leaving you with a childs view of a seriously effective way of destroying an opponent in a few seconds.

Guys try to make a $ off us and we train with them thinking they know their stuff, only to find out they dont, so we blame the system , like some guys here.

[kung fu fighter]

There isn't a "WCK-take".

Sure there is, reaching in wck is basically when one sacrifices his own posture/alignment and body structure by leaning to make contact with something that is out of range/bountry of that specific technique instead of using his footwork and body unity.