Is Chi Sau for fighting?

[jesper]

t_niehoff

Since your so keen on having us video taping our sparring with people outside our schools, could I ask to see some of your tapes. And dont give me some of that bs that your not trying to teach me anything. Your doing nothing but trying to convince me how great your training methods are.
put up or shut up.

All the time you say we should prove to you our training methods works, and yet you havent shown any prove how your methods are better.
Do good fighters use your methods.. Possible but that doesnt necessarily mean its the best way of training out there. It simply means that some fighters gets good result from training that way. Other good fighters gets good results by training more "traditionally", and btw training traditionally in no way means your not sparring.

As for not showing videos of us sparring, has it ever occured to your simple little mind that some people spar for developements, not to show off to a broad ordiance. Personally I couldnt give a rats ass if you think I can fight or not, and I really dont se any points in demonstrating it to a some simpleminded cyberwarriors on youtube or whatever.

As for finding out how good my teacher was at fighting when I joined the club. I simply told him to show why I should switch from MT to WT and he did by beating me up, and then telling me the pros and cons of doing WT versus doing MT. No boasting or bs, just a simple analyzis which convinced me it was the right style for me in the long run.

You know, criticism can be a good thing. Putting people down because they dont follow your religion is a whole other game.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"You know, criticism can be a good thing. Putting people down because they dont follow your religion is a whole other game." (jesper)


***EXACTLY.

Terence is trying to "sell" us the bull that his criticisms are a good thing - but what he's really saying (without ever admitting it) is that he's playing the same old "if it's not being done exactly the way I do it's no good" game that he's always accused TCMA (ie.- wing chun) people of doing.

And you make excellent points about how hypocritical it is for Terence to be asking people to provide visuals for him to inspect when nobody around here has ever seen anything from him.

I'm not even sure if he exists - given the fact that his posts are always regurgitating the same old, same old - sometimes practically word-for-word from what he said the day, or the week, or the month before.

Maybe it's just a sophisticated rigged-up answering machine hooked to a computer!!!

[Knifefighter]

Exactly like mighty mouse - who now says (because he wants to change the subject since the heat is getting a little too strong for him)...that he wants to talk technique...and is selectively picking something out (the single leg takedown) because he thinks he sees yet another angle to use as a means of continuing his childish attacks on other people..

Victor-
You are right. Instead of sticking to debating the issues of training, techniques, strategies, tactics and stylistic philosophies, I have have been guilty of making personal attacks.

Please accept my apologies.

[t_niehoff]

t_niehoff

Since your so keen on having us video taping our sparring with people outside our schools, could I ask to see some of your tapes. And dont give me some of that bs that your not trying to teach me anything. Your doing nothing but trying to convince me how great your training methods are.
put up or shut up.

You are another one that isn't bothering to read my posts.

I'm saying to look at what all good fighters and good fight trainers are doing as part of their training. Are you suggesting what they are doing doesn't work? Do you need proof? Then go fight with some good people and see for yourself: go to a MMA gym and have a go. Or look at some videos of any good, proven fighter. I am not saying, and I have never said, that anyone should follow my example or that I am some standard by which anyone should do anything. It's the same as if we were talking about how to train for groundfighting -- I'd say go see what the best groundfighters are doing, how they are training, and follow that. While I may be doing (or trying to do) that myself, I am not the model -- they are. Look to the proven experts.

All the time you say we should prove to you our training methods works, and yet you havent shown any prove how your methods are better.
Do good fighters use your methods.. Possible but that doesnt necessarily mean its the best way of training out there. It simply means that some fighters gets good result from training that way. Other good fighters gets good results by training more "traditionally", and btw training traditionally in no way means your not sparring.

Try and follow my reasoning here. First, we know that the modern training methods used not only work, but have produced all the really good *proven* fighters -regardless of their fighting method - that we see today. If you disagree, name the really good *proven* fighters that haven't used that model for training. Second, no one using the traditional training model of TMAs *without adopting the more modern training methods* have ever developed proven higher levels of skill. If you disagree, name the proven fighters that have done this. So where is the evidence that the traditional training model produces really good results? There is none.

When people like you say the traditional training works, I say prove that it does -- where are these good, proven traditioanlly trained fighters? And don't give me stories or legends or anecdotes.

And, I agree with you that traditional training can involve sparring, but the modern training method, and the mindset attached to it, is more than just doing some sparring.

As for not showing videos of us sparring, has it ever occured to your simple little mind that some people spar for developements, not to show off to a broad ordiance. Personally I couldnt give a rats ass if you think I can fight or not, and I really dont se any points in demonstrating it to a some simpleminded cyberwarriors on youtube or whatever.

I ask for videos since anyone can say "I have gone to MMA gyms and throw those guys around with my traditional training"; I'm asking for proof. The proof that the modern training model works is every NHB fight and fighter.

As for finding out how good my teacher was at fighting when I joined the club. I simply told him to show why I should switch from MT to WT and he did by beating me up, and then telling me the pros and cons of doing WT versus doing MT. No boasting or bs, just a simple analyzis which convinced me it was the right style for me in the long run.

The fact you, an unskilled guy, were beaten up is hardly evidence of anything. Go to a BJJ school and the white belts will give you a beating too.

The question here is about training methods. Today we know what sorts of training methods work, from looking at how good fighters, with proven results, do things to studies in motor skill and athletic enhancement. And what those things tell us is that much of what the traditional training methods do is not productive. The proof is in the ring, in the octagon, in the cages, in the MMA gyms.

You know, criticism can be a good thing. Putting people down because they dont follow your religion is a whole other game.

It's interesting that you use the word religion -- because that is exactly what I am talking about. The TMAs are a religion in the sense that they are belief structures that don't rely on evidence and aren't justified by results -- they rely on faith. I'm saying take the faith out of it, don't believe things because you are told them or because you want to believe them or because they comfort you. Instead, critically examine all the claims, see for yourself, require hard evidence, etc.

What's funny is that no one who disagees with me and believes the traditional model works, and can produce skill comparable say to a mid-level MMA fighter, can provide any evidence to back up that claim.

[jesper]

The fact you, an unskilled guy, were beaten up is hardly evidence of anything. Go to a BJJ school and the white belts will give you a beating too.

Uhm why do you pressume I was unskilled when I started WT. I had been training boxing and JJ for 1½ year and Thaiboxing for 3 years prior. And with 9 matchfights I would hardly call myself unskilled. The fact still stands that I was no match for Henning Daverne.

And as I said I didnt switch because I lost, I switched because I was convinced by arguments why WT would serve me better in the long run than thaiboxing would.

Another fact still stand that you claim your new training methods has made you a much better fighter, but yet you dont provide any evidence to that claim. All you do is hide behind other peoples results.

Just for the record, its not the fact you keep praising bjj and "modern training" that bothers me, its the fact you keep telling people to prove their training methods works without stepping up yourself and prove how much better you have gotten by using your new methods.
I know the methods bjj practioners train produce good results, all im saying is that there are many ways to produce results.

Oh and just for the record, if I want to spar with some good bjj practitioner all I have to do is visit the WT headquarters in Denmark

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Victor-
You are right. Instead of sticking to debating the issues of training, techniques, strategies, tactics and stylistic philosophies, I have have been guilty of making personal attacks.

Please accept my apologies." (Dale/Knifefighter)



***APOLOGIES ACCEPTED.

Another thing that Phil Redmond said about you is that, after meeting you in person...you turned out to be a good guy. He liked you.

Let's debate things in a civil manner going forward - because that benefits everyone.

And I'll even start: for all the put downs I occasionally make about the BJJ guard position/how I think catch as catch can is better, etc...

I have to admit that BJJ is one helluva fighting/grappling system - and can't be taken lightly without paying a stiff price. The Gracie's have made an ENORMOUS contribution to the evolution of martial arts in recent decades.

This is undeniable.

And your personal emphasis on boxing/Thai boxing/BJJ as a mixed martial art approach - along with the emphasis on lots of competitive sparring/rolling with various stylists/weapons training and competition...realistic training drills with partners, bag work, conditioning, etc...

is definitely an advanced high-level approach to fighting/martial arts.

I've come to see the importance of boxing moves, clinch work, use of knee and elbow strikes, using takedowns, defending them with REAL grappling moves (although like many others around here I do believe that some wing chun moves are perfectly suited to being part of that mix)...

And of course I've come to see the importance of being able to fight/grapple on the ground, although I still maintain that spending lots of training time learning how to keep the fight standing (or at least keeping yourself standing) is the way to go - in terms of real life fighting.

But getting back to the original intent of this post - I respect your achievements (and credentials) as a martial artist.

All I ask is that you don't sell the rest of us short on that same account. There are DEFINITELY some people around here who would really surprise you in terms of what they can actually do - with their wing chun - and as overall fighters.

[JPinAZ]

If you believe your traditional training works, take your camcorder down to the local MMA gym and spar with some guys -- show us. You'll see that every "traditional" guy that has significant skills is also doing modern fighting training..

I specifically asked of YOUR experience, and you immediately tell me to go down and see someone elses.

As I said, I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm trying to get people thinking, to get them examining the claims, etc. Look at what good proven fighters are doing to train, look at what good proven trainers are doing and stop listening to people who haven't done it. I'm not telling anyone to do anything because I say so -- and certainly don't do it because anyone calling themself master or grandmaster says so -- I'm saying do what the proven experts do.

Again, I asked you of YOUR experience. If YOU are fighting. If these 'methods' you brag about work for YOU.
Again, you point to something else. 'look over there' - I'm talking to YOU. Avoidance again. So I'll ask again, why should we listen to ANYTHING you say when you can't even prove these methods have worked for yourself?????

I'm saying listen to anyone that can do it -- do it, in fighting, against good quality opponents. If your "master" or sifu can't do it, and you can't know unless you've seen him do it with your own eyes, how can they teach you to do it? Can a white belt teach you good BJJ?

I'm asking though, again, why SHOULD we listen to YOU?
Can YOU do it? Does this method work for YOU?
If I am going to have any real conversationg with you, and since you pawn yourself ff as having 'seen' what is the best mothod, have you proven it to yourself? Or are you just theorizing that what works for one gour works across the board... Let first establish that you even know what you're talking about first from your own experience first ok?

What's funny is that you don't even care whether your instructor is qualified to teach. The only qualifications that matter is that they can do it -- in fighting, against decent opponents.

There you go again - pointing the finger somewhere else when someone ask you about YOUR experience. Why should anyone listen to YOU?

And don't talk about things you know nothing about. Now you're trying to drag my teacher into this again. Sorry, lets keep the subject on YOUR experience for a few more minutes - you've never once told us why YOU should be listened to. What are YOUR qualification?

You want to know about my teacher's 'qualifications', well that's something you'd just have to 'experience'. Who the hell are you to question my teacher? You have no qualifications to talk about my teacher OR his skill. Are YOU ready to experience that for yourself?
And I am sure you don't want me talking about YOUR teacher's skill, so let's leave it alone. It's safer that way. You should be very careful what your mouth gets you into!

My view is pretty simple -- I don't want to see any more WCK demos, I don't want to see any more chi sao or kiu sao, I don't want to see any more forms, I don't want to hear anymore about theory or principles, because none of that matters. People can talk a good game, they can demo all kinds of amazing stuff, they get good playing drills, etc. None of that shows anything about fighitng skills. Nothing. All I care about is whether a person can't make what they do work against quality opponents in fighting. It boils down to that. If they can do it, they will have no problem showing you that they can do it. If they can't do that, then they have nothing.

In any fighting art, a person's skill is directly related to the amount of quality sparring he's done. And his knowledge and understanding is at the level of his skill.

Great, thanks for your simple view.
If you don't want to see/hear anything else involving WC, then I guess you won't be coming to this forum anymore, because I am guessing people here won't stop practicing or talking about these things any time soon.

If all you care about is seeing results, and since you can't spar anyone else on a forum to see thier 'fighting skills' then you have no reason to be here then huh?

My final questions: can YOU do it? Are YOU willing to 'show it'?? If not then you have nothing too I guess huh?
So T, since you've foundseen all the answers, what is your 'knowledge and understanding at'? (what's YOUR skill level?)
Or is it all theory on your end too? Sure sounds like it to me.

[JPinAZ]

What evidence do you have of that happening?

What the hell are you even talking about?
Are you trying to say that 100's of years ago, when MA's were used for COMBAT/WAR/etc that they all shook hands after and went home? That's the same as saying no one died in WWII.
the MA's back then were used for life and death situations, not some game in a ring. You think this is some big mystery? I think you should take your head out of the sand.

[JPinAZ]

One problem with comparing athletic activities, is that all of them are not equal or the same. Throwing a ball, like your first example is a very simple physical action, as compared to dealing with someone your same, or more, weight, height and abilities, that is trying to cause you harm. How can you even compare the two? In regards to structure, what structure do you need to throw a ball or dribble one? Very little, since you are so much larger than the object that you are manipulating, why would you? Trying using little structure on someone who is hell bent on puttin some hurt on you? If you have no structure, you are not using your body the best way, or at least a better way. There are effective ways to use your body and ineffective ways to use your body to deal with force, give force, move, fight, etc.. If I stand on one leg, and raise up on my toe, this is not a very good position to be in while in a fight. A simple example.

I don't learn dynamic movement in forms, I express that when I spar. It gets better the more I spar. But if I start in a pure natural state, with no training behind me, I will move in a uneffective way (unless of course I am a freak and have the ability inborn within me). I therefore have to learn a method of movement to make it more effective for combat application. After awhile I use it naturally, without thought, which makes it more effective for me.

Gotta run, again...

James

I can agree with this. Comparing the mechanics for throwing a ball to fighting structures of WC is like comparing apples to pizza - they are 2 totally different things.

I agree with learning any body mechanic. You can isolate and prctice it out of the environment it is intended for and this will improve your skill once you apply it to the intended activity (figthing, playing baseball, etc) But if you don't do this first, you will be way less effective at that activity.
Once the skills have been drilled into the body and become second nature, that ultimately continues over to the activity.

I think this can be said for structures of wing chun. I am not just talking arm structure, but whole-body structures - which I think is the essence of any kind of 'structure' that exists in wing chun. And I don't believe this can be built 'while fighting/sparring. Improved, yes. But to 'learn' these structures whle sparing/fighting is going to take a very looonnnggg time, if possible at all.

This is one part of Chi Sau 'drills', as many view them, that I feel directly translates over to fighting. One of the focuses of Chi Sau IMO, is about difining and recognizing efficient structures (or lack there-of). If there is no structure, I strike. If a bridge is encountered, can I neutralize that bridge and then create an oportunity for another strike (destroy the structure and control the time & space or 'range')

this happens in fighting all the time.

Jonathan

[Liddel]

For example, they still do "form practice" even though it is totally unnecessary to skill development (so at a minimum a waste of training time) and, in fact, can arguably be detrimental to skill development.

Ok lets move foward with this cause im interested in your POV. (and im sick of the personal side bar in this thread)

I want to use an action thats quite foreign to every day life, something someone is less likely or would almost never come up with in fighting if not taught.

Lets use Bong Sao for instance -
If not for the fact a VT learner is shown first how to hold the action and how to apply it, or put it out if you will in a form...

How would you recommend one teach Bong Sao if not using a form platform to do so first ?

[Liddel]

I posted -
"One point id like to make though is that alot of CMA's have taken a step back from where they were."

Then your reply -

Yes, they have and that is a very good first step.

Just to reitterate - my point was there are way more "theoretical non fighters" today, than of older generations IMO. They tested thier $hit way more than many do today. Moreover -
Fighting for real and sparring was a core element of VT training.

I thought maybe you didnt get my point cause if you did, it surprises me you think "its a very good first step"

Anyway back to it.......

[Wayfaring]

I am not "parroting" anyone. I may - in somecases - sound like Thornton because we happen to share similar views, and when you share similar views, you say similar things.

You don't sound like Matt Thornton because you hold similar views. You directly parrot some of his phrases to try and give yourself some credibility. If I was in Oregon, I'd stop by SBG and train with Thornton. If I was in St. Louis, there is a list of about 10 places I'd stop by and train before I'd get to you.

And, I'm not saying "just fight and you'll get it" -- I'm saying that we should train wCK in the same way all good fighters train, whether in BJJ, boxing, wrestling, sambo, judo, etc.

You consistently put down any form of static drill. That is delusional.

And if you bother to read my posts, you'll see that I am saying that unrealsitic drills are how people learn skills, and that they need to be unrealistic to permit the focus for acquisition. So you may learn some skill in fixed drill, then put it into a more dynamic context (chi sao) -- all as a means of learning (becoming comfortable with performance) that skill. Then to put that skill into a realistic context, whether realistic drill or sparring. And then, you need to put it into sparring with quality opponents.

So in this paragraph you are agreeing with my assessment of the 3 step model of training I pulled out of the air as a baseline example.

No, there is more to it than that. The whole "traditional mindset" that goes along with the TMAs, including WCK, of which training is a part is the issue.

But in this one, you're not. Quit flip-flopping around. I don't think whether a school is laid back like Thorntons, or has a layer of tradition on top makes a d@mn bit of difference in the effectiveness of the training. The proof is in the pudding, the training.

Again, it is more than that. The skills you develop at #1 and #2 are not what you will be doing at #3 (it's not just do the same things with more pressure) -- when you step it up to a realistic environment, you'll find that you need to alter, modify, change, etc. what you have been previously doing, to develop something different. Walking is not running; they are entirely different motor programs. It's only when you begin actually sparring, that you are actually doing the activity. Only at that stage do we begin to develop real skill, and the corresponding knowledge and understanding of WCK. Moreover, you need to put it all together into your individual game (which can't be done at #1 and #2). Sparring/fighting is the game.

Says you. If skills you develop at #1 and #2 (static, and low resistance) aren't effective at high levels of pressure, then I say you're probably training the wrong things at static and low resistance pressures.

[Wayfaring]

My perspective is that this has nothing to do with "structure", but has to do with how you *use* your body. What is the "structure" to throwing a ball?

There is a very precise structure to a baseball pitch. There are very precise positions you need to move your body through, with exact angles and measurements, to get the maximum velocity on a baseball.

"Getting out there and pitching" in a game is not a good way to learn.

[anerlich]

You are another one that isn't bothering to read my posts.

Who can blame him? There's so frigging many of them all saying the same thing.

I am not "parroting" anyone. I may - in somecases - sound like Thornton because we happen to share similar views, and when you share similar views, you say similar things.

Very similar things, and where parrots are concerned there's a spot for you on Long John Thornton's shoulder, arrr matey.

Why don't you just put a link to the relevant articles on his website in your .sig? He's said it all before so much more succinctly.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"There is a very precise structure to a baseball pitch. There are very precise positions you need to move your body through, with exact angles and measurements, to get the maximum velocity on a baseball.

'Getting out there and pitching' in a game is not a good way to learn." (Wayfaring)


***EXACTLY RIGHT.

How can a musician improvise off a theme or a melody if he hasn't first learned all the notes,chords,scales, etc...in a step-by-step fashion?

Would he dare give a concert wherein improvisation was the advertised program (ie.- under "stress" conditions - like a 1,000 people in the audience)...if he didn't already know the basics mentioned above so well he could do them in his sleep?