Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 122

Thread: Is the modern Wck structure and chi sau a problem in reality?

  1. #1

    Is the modern Wck structure and chi sau a problem in reality?

    Is the modern Wck structure and chi sau platform evolution from ancient the circle chi sau platform is a problem in reality?

    What is your view?
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Hendrik; 04-20-2014 at 12:33 AM.

  2. #2
    This chi sau and Wck structure holding seems to tell the story of an evolution into a long fist art.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Hendrik; 04-20-2014 at 12:33 AM.

  3. #3
    IMHO, the above is the root of the issue of this thread.

    IMHO, this evolution of Wck as in the YouTube doesn't work facing western boxing .


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzzg2ZnTMc

    http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...50#post1265350

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Is the modern Wck structure and Luk sau chi sau platform evolution from ancient the circle chi sau platform is a problem in reality?
    In reality? It's for development. We don't actually fight in this position with both arms extended.

  5. #5
    General Modern Wck chi sau end up this way

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL9Z...=youtube_gdata

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    In reality? It's for development. We don't actually fight in this position with both arms extended.
    Then, why train it this way ? What skill does one develop beside programmed into stuck ness?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Then, why train it this way ? What skill does one develop beside programmed into stuck ness?
    It's not a 1on1 match. It's an exchange of force to develop various attributes. That's all. One will not be mal-programmed as long as they have the right idea and are free sparring.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    It's not a 1on1 match. It's an exchange of force to develop various attributes. That's all. One will not be mal-programmed as long as they have the right idea and are free sparring.
    IMHO,
    When the body is condition in a way that is not going to work in real life, what is the point?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    IMHO,
    When the body is condition in a way that is not going to work in real life, what is the point?
    No idea. This is a relevant question to those who take chi-sau as a fight simulation.

  10. #10
    I think Hendrik does have a point, though only to a certain extent. I am perhaps not the best person qualified to state such an extent. However, I do agree that speed and strength are overly used. In my experience accusations of 'your using too much speed' or 'you are using too much strength' were quite common from my previous Sifu but if you watched him and his instructors chi sau, almost all hits were obtained via speed beginning with a longer bridge; the case of not leading by example, 'do as I say not as I do!, Now, where is my money? What? You can't afford 8k for the one year fast track? Well f*** off then!' Sorry to digress a little at the end.

  11. #11
    IMO

    The first picture (of a typical Poon Sau position), is not a problem because it is a starting position for this type of partner training. It can be trained at this distance, or slightly further away or slightly closer in (I like to train different distances) as it is a contact point - a starting position that makes the assumption we've already reached a bridging range.

    The problem is more with the second picture. There the person's range is bad, as they are at almost full extension with their punch, yet the fist is only just reaching the target. IMO, not the best way to transfer force into the target.

    I think that once you break from the Poon Sau cycle (at your own initiative or because a gap appeared or you received pressure in a particular way), the gap needs to be shortened/reduced so both people are closer - a more optimal range for applying the system and issuing force.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    The question was if it is a problem "in reality". Do you guys actually fight like this, facing your opponent with two arms equally extended?

  13. #13
    No, both arms would probably not be equally extended in reality, but once you move out of the Poon Sau cycle and move in closer both arms will also not at that point be equally extended.

    But for Poon Sau it makes sense, IMO. You get to train both sides and so many options are available to work with/play with, left and right and inside and outside positions, as well as on top and under points of contact.

    So it's a good place to start a drill from, and a nice way to train the correct forward force, etc.

    In Lat Sau drills, you deal with (typically), one arm more extended than another, but quickly you see the connection between two training methods and how they relate to contact and striking and controlling (the way we - LTWT - train them).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Is the modern Wck structure and chi sau platform evolution from ancient the circle chi sau platform is a problem in reality?

    As maybe being one of the few here that have done Chi Sao from both platforms, I have formed some impressions of my own. To me, what Hendrik is calling the "modern" Chi Sao platform (meaning the one used in YMWCK and YKSWCK) is more structured and has more of an "up and down" energy....lift to Bong, drop to Tan. This "structured" quality ends up making it a game in and of itself for a lot of people. Because it is structured there are many things you can do in Chi Sao that don't work in a real exchange. I'm sure everyone has seen a student or instructor that looked great doing Chi Sao but couldn't spar worth anything! Or vice versa, the student that could kick everyone's butt in sparring but was lousy at Chi Sao. I think that for too many schools or lineages there is TOO much emphasis on Chi Sao. I think this is because it lends itself so well to being a "sparring game" of a sort in and of itself that ends up having little to do with reality. It tends to be too structured! The techniques that work within this platform are Wing Chun techniques. This version of Chi Sao is the height of development of Wing Chun guy fighting another Wing Chun guy. Is that what you are training for? How many thugs you might encounter on the street are going to be using Wing Chun techniques?

    On the other hand, the "ancient circle" platform that Hendrik mentions is the Chi Sao you typically see from the other mainland styles. Southern CMA's other than Wing Chun use it as well. It is more "generic." Heck, I had a friend years ago that was a 6th black belt in Kenpo before I ever trained KLPSWCK and learned this platform. But they use a version of it in Kenpo and he and I used to do Chi Sao together all the time using it. This platform is less structured and more "open-ended." It circles side to side rather than going up and down. The more refined version actually "coils" as much as it circles. I agree with Hendrik that it doesn't "hold structure" as much as the "modern" platform. Because it is less structured there is less "gamesmanship" involved in practicing from here. It is much more of just a carrier motion to put you into contact with the opponent and go from there. As Hendrik noted, the other platform creates more of a barrier that the partner has to penetrate. This in itself creates much of the Chi Sao-specific gamesmanship that we see with the "modern" platform. And therefore it also tends to keep each partner at a wider distance.

    Is one platform better than the other? I guess that depends on what your goal is for training. But I do think that the "ancient" platform potentially leads to more realistic technique application and attribute development than the "modern" platform, simply because it is less structured and more open-ended. Actually, you could grab a buddy that is a boxer show him the basics of the "ancient" platform in about 2 minutes and he could roll with you and actually attempt some boxing technique. Can you say the same about the "modern" platform?
    Last edited by KPM; 04-20-2014 at 05:21 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    Because it is less structured there is less "gamesmanship" involved in practicing from here.
    I don't know. I see a lot more people playing "tag" with that type. Doesn't appear to have a lot to do with practical development.

    The structure of pun-sau is exactly what should make it less open to "gamemanship" because it serves a specific developmental purpose. It turns into a game by those who don't understand that purpose and use it as a fight simulation.

    I could never do the circling thing because it's all wrists; exactly what we aim to train away from the beginning of the system, starting with SNT, bringing the mind back to the elbow.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •