what the difference?

[horserider]

T.Niehoff I see your point it does read that way. My point was that all wing chun I have ever seen contains all 3 stages of training and concepts even though forms may differ however for whatever reasons the focus has fallen onto just one aspect so much so that now chi sao seems to be the beginning and end all of wing chun. The knowledge is there open like a book for anyone to train but few do so. Instead I keep reading how our system does this or we don't do that in our system etc etc.

The attitude seems to be if your Sifu does not lead you to water you can not drink.

This leads to why i do not care to teach westeners. If I am racist by the way big deal. Don't think I am it is just in general westeners are difficult to teach due to cultural differences and I think better suited to boxing or arts created to suit them like Tae Kwon Do

Look at the Kuit how everyone claims they know them,follow them and then look at performance.

Wing Chun created by woman. What should this tell you. A 130 lb woman can not stand toe to toe with 200 man trade punches and expect to win. A woman must find another way must be mobile. What do we see in videos. People charging into each other with chain punches or standing in front of each other trading attacks. This is doing boxing with a wing chun cover. It is best to spend time actually learning how to box.

Look at chi sao videos, even those by experts.Llook at how often they move elbows back to the body or outside the plane of the body . This is not what wing chun says to do yet they do it. People should correct themselves but instead if Sifu does it or doesn't say anything they just go on not drinking the water.

Again look in chi sao. Do people ,even experts close in when attacking and break structure or do they stand at arms length trading attacks or throw fast hands from long range. Wing chun says to close ,step in ,break structure as you attack but this you seldom see.

And for benny my goal was always to bounce the back of head or face off the ground or a wall and try to leave as fast as possible. I did not fight looking to kill or to admire my handy work. If I was pulled to the ground I went there. I am not a fool nor was my father. I learned to wrestle both freestyle and greco-roman when I was young. I was grounding and pounding long before you and I dare say most on this forum knew what it was or were even born.
I am no ground expert but anyone that wants to be rounded should have a basic working knowledge of how to function when on ones back or on top of someone.

[bennyvt]

being a racist would be generalizing about people because of what race they are.

[stonecrusher69]

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn't have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn't have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.

How is chi sao limited in movement? IMO the only thing limited in chi is what you impose on it.

[shawchemical]

LOL... that's what all the theoretical, pretend, non-fighters say, yet you seem to feel the need to "prove" with words upon words in their posts.

These days, the web is just as much a video medium as it is a verbal medium. Video recorders are ubiquitous and it takes 5 minutes to download to UTube. Videos are worth a thousand words. Funny how you need to "prove" by posting, but you can't "prove" by showing a simple clip.

Video clips mean sweet fk all bi/.tch

[YungChun]

T.Niehoff I see your point it does read that way. My point was that all wing chun I have ever seen contains all 3 stages of training and concepts even though forms may differ however for whatever reasons the focus has fallen onto just one aspect so much so that now chi sao seems to be the beginning and end all of wing chun.

ChiSao is a platform and does not limit what one can learn or teach..

Many schools work the leg techniques as well as the hand techniques from the same platform.. I am sure there are schools that work throws from it as well, KumNa is also seen and nothing to stop them from incorporating all elements into their ChiSao. Incorporation of many things into the drill is one of the advantages of the platform..however more rarely means better... And, not all schools have 'patty cake' ChiSao and I'll assume yours doesn't despite any evidence that you offer anything of any value...

If a lineage does not have an emphasis on throws it certainly does not preclude them from having the bulk of the art intact..

So far the comments you've made show that you are an ill-mannered, racist, elitist who thinks you are the only one with the real Chun. You offer little and certainly don't contribute anything positive to the art here..so one must wonder if you do so anywhere...

[t_niehoff]

ChiSao is a platform and does not limit what one can learn or teach..

I don't agree. I think chi sao is an exercise to teach using the WCK tools while attached not anything we want to learn.

Moreover, chi sao cannot be used to learn/teach the entry.

Many schools work the leg techniques as well as the hand techniques from the same platform.. I am sure there are schools that work throws from it as well, KumNa is also seen and nothing to stop them from incorporating all elements into their ChiSao. Incorporation of many things into the drill is one of the advantages of the platform..however more rarely means better... And, not all schools have 'patty cake' ChiSao and I'll assume yours doesn't despite any evidence that you offer anything of any value...

If a lineage does not have an emphasis on throws it certainly does not preclude them from having the bulk of the art intact..

I agree that different teachers/branches emphasize different things. But I do agree with horserider that many/most seem to be missing large parts of the curriculum of WCK and many/most teaching don't have basic skills (which depend a great deal on how you perform the drills/exercises). As I recall, you were saying the same thing . . . albeit more diplomatically.

[YungChun]

I don't agree. I think chi sao is an exercise to teach using the WCK tools while attached not anything we want to learn.

Moreover, chi sao cannot be used to learn/teach the entry.

Too wrapped up in words.. No I don't mean you can learn baseball using the ChiSao platform, I mean that you can work on more than just the Chun hands, as I wrote, the legs and throws, etc can also be worked...

[YungChun]

I agree that different teachers/branches emphasize different things. But I do agree with horserider that many/most seem to be missing large parts of the curriculum of WCK and many/most teaching don't have basic skills (which depend a great deal on how you perform the drills/exercises). As I recall, you were saying the same thing . . . albeit more diplomatically.

Sure but I don't agree that just because throws are not taught that that has to mean the rest has to be flawed.

[t_niehoff]

T.Niehoff I see your point it does read that way. My point was that all wing chun I have ever seen contains all 3 stages of training and concepts even though forms may differ however for whatever reasons the focus has fallen onto just one aspect so much so that now chi sao seems to be the beginning and end all of wing chun. The knowledge is there open like a book for anyone to train but few do so. Instead I keep reading how our system does this or we don't do that in our system etc etc.

I understand. The problem is that most people who "practice" WCK have little to no significant exposure to the "greater" art and so have extremely narrow views, then add sifu worship (he was after all the true inheritor or greatest fighter or etc.), etc.

The attitude seems to be if your Sifu does not lead you to water you can not drink.

Yup.

This leads to why i do not care to teach westeners. If I am racist by the way big deal. Don't think I am it is just in general westeners are difficult to teach due to cultural differences and I think better suited to boxing or arts created to suit them like Tae Kwon Do

I can see that an understanding of the Chinese culture could make it easier to learn a TCMA (to put things into context), and I do think think that we westerners, growing up as we do with sport -- which is a functional way of learning/developing skill -- can easily confuse the TCMA way of teaching (separating curriculum from application) with the sport way of teaching (curriculum is application), coming to think, like many do, that in WCK learning the WCK curriculum they are learning application.

But, that can be dealt with.

Look at the Kuit how everyone claims they know them,follow them and then look at performance.

Actually, I think most people don't even have the kuit!

Wing Chun created by woman. What should this tell you. A 130 lb woman can not stand toe to toe with 200 man trade punches and expect to win. A woman must find another way must be mobile. What do we see in videos. People charging into each other with chain punches or standing in front of each other trading attacks. This is doing boxing with a wing chun cover. It is best to spend time actually learning how to box.

Yes, I think the creation ALLEGORY has a point, and that point is that our method is to not rely on brute strength, but instead to weaken our opponent (by breaking his structure), to use natural advantages, like reach, against him (by crowding him), and at all times to keep him under control so that we don't end up trading.

Look at chi sao videos, even those by experts.Llook at how often they move elbows back to the body or outside the plane of the body . This is not what wing chun says to do yet they do it. People should correct themselves but instead if Sifu does it or doesn't say anything they just go on not drinking the water.

Again look in chi sao. Do people ,even experts close in when attacking and break structure or do they stand at arms length trading attacks or throw fast hands from long range. Wing chun says to close ,step in ,break structure as you attack but this you seldom see.

This is because you can have the drill/exercise (chi sao) but if you do not know what you are trying to do in the drill/exercise (and think, for instance, that just doing it will develop "sensitivity" or "contact reflexes"), you can't practice what the drill is trying to teach. To develop a skill you must always begin with the objective, and most people don't seem to know the objective of chi sao (to learn to use the tools of WCK to control an opponent while striking him).

[t_niehoff]

Sure but I don't agree that just because throws are not taught that that has to mean the rest has to be flawed.

I agree.

My view is that "the essentials" of WCK is the method (its approach and the strategic battle plan) and the fundamental tools of WCK -- in other words, those things you NEED to get in and control an opponent while striking him. Everything else is gravy.

[t_niehoff]

Too wrapped up in words.. No I don't mean you can learn baseball using the ChiSao platform, I mean that you can work on more than just the Chun hands, as I wrote, the legs and throws, etc can also be worked...

OK,I wasn't thinking baseball but how many people try to put in nonWCK things into their chi sao.

Yes, as WCK is a contact/close range method of fighting, it only follows that our exercise for learning/practicing our contact skills would also permit us to practice our contact skills, which include legs, throws, etc.

[k gledhill]

I don't agree. I think chi sao is an exercise to teach using the WCK tools while attached not anything we want to learn.

Moreover, chi sao cannot be used to learn/teach the entry.



I agree that different teachers/branches emphasize different things. But I do agree with horserider that many/most seem to be missing large parts of the curriculum of WCK and many/most teaching don't have basic skills (which depend a great deal on how you perform the drills/exercises). As I recall, you were saying the same thing . . . albeit more diplomatically.

attachment is to exchange force.....in a drill... you dont even know what your missing, cup full.

[Graham H]

attachment is to exchange force.....in a drill... you dont even know what your missing, cup full.

T if you don't see the attachment part of the Chi Sau drill as a way to improve force, structure and the punch, how do you increase and develop this in your system???

GH

[sihing]

Chi sau is a mutual cooperative exchange of pressure and force between two practitioners. It's a prolonged contact drill so that each participant can 1)develop the VT structure, 2)train it in various ways, 3)receive and give force/pressure. Similiar to how the body adapts to a weight lifting routine, it becomes stronger and bigger due to the stress of consistent lifting of weight (weight=pressure). Without an exchange of pressure (which is only accomplished when there's prolonged contact), one cannot develop and train the specific VT structure.

Now, why do we need structure/mechanics? Well in VT, our punch is powered from our legs/glutes. We bring the power up from the l/g into our hips and out our elbows. We need this type of power generation to be able to function in close. Inclose fighting allows us to shut down our opponents ability to hit us, while we are striking him (if you use the torque method of striking you lose the ability to apply pressure to your opponent while in close, your twisting in front of him, rather than moving into his center axis). This is the control aspect of VT striking. It's not about holding or grabbing, but controlling hitting. If you have no structure, you may be able to hit but your open to be hit as well, in VT we try not to allow that to happen.

For me, I think it is wise to learn how to master the striking aspect of this VT equation first. We don't need attachment in application, as we are just striking at our opponents center axis, but the chances of attachment happening while in our striking range is great, as most people cover up when being hit like this. But as one moves along in the system and gains experience (like Gary Lam has for e.g.) then one can explore the other ways of using the skills. IMO Gary has developed the standing grappling aspect of VT to a high degree. He mastered the striking aspect and choose to develop the control/feeling aspect, which is totally his choice. He is also a larger man and can get away with doing it this way since for the most part he out weights most people at 6'1" and 240+lbs.

James

[Frost]

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn't have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn't have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.

You mean apart from the obvious difference in that every BJJ player understands the goal of rolling whilst no one on this forum can seem to agree what chi sao is for and how it should be done

Or the other obvious difference in that there are thousands of clips of good rolling matches out there and no one can point to a single good chi sao clip….but there are hundreds people agree are terrible

Or how about the final obvious difference people can point to various MMA, vale tudo and street fights where the positions seen in rolling happen as soon as the fight hits the ground, but we are all still waiting for clips that look like chi sao in action