Chi Sao Competition in Russia

[LFJ]

sometimes the stick is broken as you move the other guy's arm completely out of the way as you go forward (sometimes they might remove it themselves),

If the saying is about sticking, wouldn't "pursue what departs" mean to stick and follow?

If you stick and follow with one limb, you must use the other to strike. Then you no longer have the lin siu daai da function with one limb.

if you strike with a straight punch and I intercept your strike with a straight punch of my own, but I have/create a better angle and so my punch gets to its target as it deflects your own punch. In that example, there is still contact as the line of attack is cleared - or maybe it is better to say a new line of attack is created).

If a car speeds through an intersection and sideswipes another car we wouldn't say it was sticking to it. There is no sticking taking place there, just a collision that happens if the timing is right because of the intersecting paths.

[BPWT..]

If a car speeds through an intersection and sideswipes another car we wouldn't say it was sticking to it. There is no sticking taking place there, just a collision that happens if the timing is right because of the intersecting paths.

Sure - well, kinda , but I think it just comes back to us using a different definition of sticking. LT describes Chi Sau as 'clinging arm', which was a translation I hadn't heard before. Not too long ago a Chi Sau thread was resurrected and there was a post (from years and years ago), where someone else (Terrance) offered the same definition - so I found it interesting as before I'd only head this from the LT line.

Anyways, Terrance wrote: "The Chinese term "chi" denotes two grains of rice that cling (hence another interpretation of chi sao is "arm clinging") together, expressing the notion of a certain degree of attachment (not too solid and not too fragile)."

So yes, I wouldn't call a car collision "not too solid, not too fragile", but I would describe a punch intercepting another punch as having "a certain degree of attachment", which is also not too solid and not too fragile.

[BPWT..]

If the saying is about sticking, wouldn't "pursue what departs" mean to stick and follow? If you stick and follow with one limb, you must use the other to strike. Then you no longer have the lin siu daai da function with one limb.

I think the idea is always to strike the opponent - but to do so while limiting the other guy's options to do the same.

So you wouldn't want to stick and follow under any circumstances - I mean you wouldn't stick and follow if you had the opportunity to strike, and you wouldn't stick and follow if doing that required you to violate the WT positioning you want to keep (e.g. if someone moves their arms away from their center I would not want to follow that movement but rather move in to control the good line they'd given up).

So LLHS is a principle but it doesn't override the principle of LSJC - as striking the opponent (while not being struck ourselves) is always the goal.

LSDD is optimal too - but maybe not always possible. You'd want this function with one limb, but can you always have it? I'd say no, not always.

[LFJ]

Sure - well, kinda , but I think it just comes back to us using a different definition of sticking.

Well, in any case, chi-sau is just a visual description of the drills we do. In fact, right from the start in daan-chi-sau, the way we train it, there are parts that specifically train us not to stick. It stops us from thinking of sticking and following as these are seen as errors in what we do.

[BPWT..]

Well, in any case, chi-sau is just a visual description of the drills we do. In fact, right from the start in daan-chi-sau, the way we train it, there are parts that specifically train us not to stick. It stops us from thinking of sticking and following as these are seen as errors in what we do.

We also have drills that are teaching us to move forward and strike, to always fill (with a strike) gaps that appear. Actually, every drill we do in Wing Tsun should be teaching us how to use the LLHS, LSJC principles. Probably it is the same with WSLVT, we just maybe have slightly different interpretations.

[JPinAZ]

Well, in any case, chi-sau is just a visual description of the drills we do.

If I understood him correctly, I think this was the point Eric was initially trying to make when he said (and if I'm wrong, hopefully he can clarify):

Don't confuse the looping exercise called chi sao (tahn/bong/fook) for the skill of chi sao (being able to stick with the bridge).

IMO what you are talking about is the looping taan/bong/fook exercise definition of chi sau. There is also the 'skill' of chi sau for fighting (or 'chi' during a fight), which might not look like taan/bong/fook excersize chi sau at all.

[Eric_H]

I will not debate with you sir.but I will advise you to be more diligent on your search.nevertheless thank you for YOUR ANSWER

12 years in and I'm still searching, not above learning something if you have stuff to share. Send me a PM if you change your mind.

[Eric_H]

If I understood him correctly, I think this was the point Eric was initially trying to make when he said (and if I'm wrong, hopefully he can clarify):

IMO what you are talking about is the looping taan/bong/fook exercise definition of chi sau. There is also the 'skill' of chi sau for fighting (or 'chi' during a fight), which might not look like taan/bong/fook excersize chi sau at all.

Pretty much what I was saying. If you look across all the families all of our Chi Sao drills are different, but in the end we're chasing the same skill set (ideally).

[Cheito Ito]

If you're static you can't, but contact/stick has motion too (i.e. your arm driving forward from the elbow, and/or you body turning and/or you footwork shifting or stepping, etc). So for us, you're clearing a line of attack - sometimes the stick is broken as you move the other guy's arm completely out of the way as you go forward (sometimes they might remove it themselves), and sometimes you create a new line of attack and go forward while contact is still made (e.g. if you strike with a straight punch and I intercept your strike with a straight punch of my own, but I have/create a better angle and so my punch gets to its target as it deflects your own punch. In that example, there is still contact as the line of attack is cleared - or maybe it is better to say a new line of attack is created).

Erik said: "You have to be able to flip in and out of each mode instantly."

One of my teachers refers to this as "breaking in, breaking out," and it's about distance too. As your opponent does his best to play his game and not yours, the range constantly changes - so you're moving in and out of these ranges.

in chi sao, contact between you and your opp. is to feel your opp.force, his direction,his strenght, and his weakness.also his balance.feel his structure of his body and his limbs.always guarding your center, as you use your.receiving your opp. force,than neutralize his force.to me this is chi sao. anything else gor sao, or sparring. or fighting.again just my POV.

Cheito Ito.

[LFJ]

IMO what you are talking about is the looping taan/bong/fook exercise definition of chi sau. There is also the 'skill' of chi sau for fighting (or 'chi' during a fight), which might not look like taan/bong/fook excersize chi sau at all.

What I meant by saying that "chi-sau" is just a visual description of the drills we do, is that that's all it is. Even from basic DCS we're training to not stick, and we have no "chi during a fight".

[KPM]

What I meant by saying that "chi-sau" is just a visual description of the drills we do, is that that's all it is. Even from basic DCS we're training to not stick, and we have no "chi during a fight".

Why spend so much time training a drill that emphasizes "sticking" to the opponent to sense his intentions if you aren't going to "stick" during a fight?

I agree with JP here:
IMO what you are talking about is the looping taan/bong/fook exercise definition of chi sau. There is also the 'skill' of chi sau for fighting (or 'chi' during a fight), which might not look like taan/bong/fook excersize chi sau at all.

[LFJ]

Why spend so much time training a drill that emphasizes "sticking" to the opponent to sense his intentions if you aren't going to "stick" during a fight?

It doesn't, the way we train it. That was my point. It's stopping us from sticking.

We don't look at our partners* as opponents who we're trying to read, or trick, or score on. In DCS we're not sticking or trying to sense the partner's intentions. Each partner is learning to use the elbow to displace the other and recycle the limb for striking, requiring that we don't stick and follow.

[KPM]

we're not sticking or trying to sense the partner's intentions. Each partner is learning to use the elbow to displace the other and recycle the limb for striking, requiring that we don't stick and follow.

I haven't trained it that way, but I think I see what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are talking about the difference between sticking and following to control the opponent in order to trap and/or set up a strike through an opening..... versus avoiding the opponent sticking and controlling you so that you can strike into an available opening. I think it would be a subtle difference, but likely significant.

[LFJ]

it sounds like you are talking about the difference between sticking and following to control the opponent in order to trap and/or set up a strike through an opening..... versus avoiding the opponent sticking and controlling you so that you can strike into an available opening.

It's more about training the use of the elbow to avoid rolling and creating sticking ideas ourselves which won't develop our striking ability. The elbow will capture the line (taan/jam) or open it for striking (bong). Remember the interpretation of "When a bridge/line appears, cross it. When there is no bridge/line, create it yourself".

I think it would be a subtle difference, but likely significant.

It is subtle. From the outside it appears to be sticking, feeling, and rolling. That's why the drill is given the visually descriptive name. But the difference is indeed significant. It develops a different type of fighter.

[Cheito Ito]

It doesn't, the way we train it. That was my point. It's stopping us from sticking.

We don't look at our partners* as opponents who we're trying to read, or trick, or score on. In DCS we're not sticking or trying to sense the partner's intentions. Each partner is learning to use the elbow to displace the other and recycle the limb for striking, requiring that we don't stick and follow.

its not about trying to read your opp. their is NO TRICKS,or trying to SCORD on.and its not about STRIKING.its about CHI SAO.its about not letting your partner, or opp. entering on you. its not about FIGHTING.its about STICKING TO YOUR OPP.OR YOUR PARTNER.


Cheito Ito.