# To stick or not to stick



## futsaowingchun (Oct 12, 2017)

To Stick or Not To Stick ?

The wrong application of Chi Sao is believing you can stick to your opponent while fighting.

Well, unless your opponent is playing the same game,it's not possible. While your trying to stick or stay connected to your opponent bridge he will be striking you..You will be at least a half a beat behind him at all times, however, having a high level of skill in Chi Sao, can gives you a big advantage. But IMO to apply it that way is a gross misunderstanding and a mistake..You should be hitting your opponent not trying to play a Chi Sao game. Use your skills to strike your opponent and don't waste anytime..Use the skills you've developed to assist you to control and interrupt your opponent's movement, but your primary focus should be on striking him. Don't look for a bridge to cross over,just hit your opponent.

I guess Wong Shun Leung said it best "don't chase the hands"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 12, 2017)

Leg stick = Detect where your opponent's leg is.
Arm stick = Detect where your opponent's arm is.

His right leg "stick" on his opponent's right leg.







His right hand "stick" on his opponent's right wrist.






His left arm "stick" on his opponent's right arm.


----------



## DanT (Oct 12, 2017)

I agree that the primary focus should be on the strike. The pin / trap only assists in achieving this. When you pin the opponents arm against their body (pak da), or pull their arm down (lap da), you are negating one of their limbs from striking you. Combine this with fighting on the outside gate, you stop both their arms from being able to strike you temporarily. I like to classify sticking into three different catergories:

The Reactionary Pin: the opponent throws a punch, you cover it with Pak Sao and side step to the outside, and at the same time strike them low with your free arm. As the opponent retracts their arm, you follow it in, pining it against their body, and striking them in the head with your free arm.

The Initiative Pin: while fighting the opponent, they leave their lead hand too far out, you do a lap da, pining their lead arm down, and punching them in the head with your free arm

The Pin By Default: as you square off with your opponent, you seize the opportunity and hit him with a jab in the mouth which stuns him (freezing and therefore pinning his arms by default), and follow this immediately with a cross to his mouth, which knocks his teeth out.

Striking is always the end goal, the question is how do we get there in a way that reduces the chance of us trading blows with the opponent? The Wing Chun I learned promotes 3 ways of doing this:

1. Fight on the outside gate
2. Pin the lead arm and leg
3. Strike to knockout or maim, not just to injure

By successfully doing these things, you:

1. Negate the opponents back leg and arm
2. Negate the opponents lead leg and arm
3. Fight Quicker (less chance to get hit)


----------



## hkreporting (Oct 13, 2017)

There is a WC maxim about stickiness that might be of interest: _“Yuen Kuen, Kan Jaang, Chi Sun Suet”_, roughly translated from the Cantonese as:
_Long range use punch
Middle range use elbow
Sticky body takedown_

I think in WC there is a difference between chi sao, which is a sensitivity drill, and the concept of stickiness, a fighting strategy whose aim is for you to stay in contact with (stick to) your opponent, preferably at close range (elbow striking, takedowns, leg sweeps -- all of these techniques are taught in the forms and wooden dummy set). The idea is that by feeling your opponent, you know what he's going to do and can better respond/counteract than if you were at a distance or not in contact. Without this close range fighting and stickiness, it's not really WC. While striking is one aim, I think the ultimate aim of WC is to destroy your opponent's structure, which requires other techniques carried out at a closer range. FYI, the new issue of WC Illustrated has an article about distancing that talks about this a little bit.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 13, 2017)

DanT said:


> When you pin the opponents arm against their body (pak da), or pull their arm down (lap da), you are negating one of their limbs from striking you. Combine this with fighting on the outside gate, you stop both their arms from being able to strike you temporarily.


Agree with you 100% there. To guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm may be the most difference between CMA and boxing. If you can use 1 arm to control both your opponent's arms, when you punch him with your free arm, he will have no free arm to block your punch.

In

- boxing, you try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you.
- CMA, you try to hit your opponent while he can't hit you.


----------



## geezer (Oct 13, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In
> - boxing, you try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you.
> - CMA, you try to hit your opponent while he can't hit you.



I disagree. I think_ both_ Western boxers and  traditional Chinese boxers want to (as you said above):

_-- hit their opponent while they can't hit you_ (the technical ideal)

...but they also realize that in an actual fight against a worthy opponent, the best you can realistically accomplish is to (again, your words):

_--hit your opponent more than he can hit you._

In WC, we have bare hands and can _sometimes_ use one arm to control two (yat fook yee) at least for an instant. In boxing, with gloves and no grabbing allowed, _position_ (range and angling) is stressed to achieve an advantage. And in CMA too.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 13, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In
> 
> - boxing, you try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you.
> - CMA, you try to hit your opponent while he can't hit you.


Not so much. The objective in boxing is to win the fight by hitting and not getting hit. However, in boxing there is the acceptance that you will get hit. If it were, as you say, to try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you boxers would simply faceoff and just punch rock' em - soc' em. Footwork would not be a priority.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2017)

If you understand that when you pull your opponent into your punch, that will be A + B > A. In order to "pull", you have to "stick" first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you understand that when you pull your opponent into your punch, that will be A + B > A. In order to "pull", you have to "stick" first.


Not always. Pulling while punching changes the mechanics of the punch, and can reduce the power delivered. the most powerful strikes tend to come from a rooted back foot. Pulling works best with a rooted front foot (which does need to be ahead of the other).


----------



## DanT (Oct 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not always. Pulling while punching changes the mechanics of the punch, and can reduce the power delivered. the most powerful strikes tend to come from a rooted back foot. Pulling works best with a rooted front foot (which does need to be ahead of the other).



I don't know about other styles, but in Wing Chun, we utilize the pull as a crank to help turn our hips. We try to keep the arm mechanic for the punch the same regardless of what the other arm is doing (with natural minor adjustments of course). You're right about the rooted front foot though. If you keep more of your weight on the back leg (like we do in Wing Chun), then it shouldn't be much of an issue.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 17, 2017)

futsaowingchun said:


> To Stick or Not To Stick ?
> 
> The wrong application of Chi Sao is believing you can stick to your opponent while fighting.
> 
> ...



I think a major problem with chi sao is how it's taught today. Chi sao is a sensitivity drill, it teaches you how to handle an opponent up close and knowing what to do at that range. Being able to feel your opponents movements and act accordingly, either offensively or defensively. 

I've been taught different versions of chi sao, but I don't think they all embody what it's *supposed* to be. I've seen chi sao where there is no concept of center line nor structure, yet they focus on striking. I've seen chi sao were everything is allowed from finger grabbing to sweeping. I think the more free play and techniques you add to chi sao the more it detracts from what it's supposed to be. Chi sao is a drill, yet people treat it like sparring, when it's treated like sparring neither partners develops the sensitivity that the drill is supposed to train.


----------



## Eric_H (Oct 20, 2017)

Anarax said:


> I think a major problem with chi sao is how it's taught today. Chi sao is a sensitivity drill,



No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 20, 2017)

Eric_H said:


> No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.



Could you elaborate? I've seen numerous kung fu schools that don't spar, they do chi sao *instead*. I think this approach produces students that don't know how to spar and are horrible at chi sao. They lack sensitivity, thus they look stiff and rigid. Just because a drill has combative elements or develops a fighting skill doesn't mean it's suppose to be sparring itself.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 20, 2017)

Eric_H said:


> No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.


 
I would have to disagree with you there. As Anarax said, chi sao sparring isn't really useful(in my experience anyway), although it can be fun to poke and tap when openings(holes in sensitivity) happen. Chi Sao builds the sensitivity needed for that place you want to be, moments in time, when you can trap an arm and get the angle.


----------



## geezer (Oct 21, 2017)

Eric_H said:


> No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.



I don't know how to respond to that. I mean, what do people mean by "sensitivity" anyway? Different groups seem to use that term in such different ways. Unless I know what they mean by "sensitivity, I can't agree or disagree. 

Guess I'm not exactly the sensitive type!


----------



## DanT (Oct 21, 2017)

geezer said:


> I don't know how to respond to that. I mean, what do people mean by "sensitivity" anyway? Different groups seem to use that term in such different ways. Unless I know what they mean by "sensitivity, I can't agree or disagree.
> 
> Guess I'm not exactly the sensitive type!



You develop sensitivity of:

1. Your centre of gravity and stance
2. Your opponents centre of gravity
3. The quality of your attacks
4. The quality of your defences
5. Your "Jian Dai Lik" (low elbow power)
6. Your arm position (proprioception)   
7. Your opponents arm position


----------



## geezer (Oct 21, 2017)

DanT said:


> You develop sensitivity of:
> 
> 1. Your centre of gravity and stance
> 2. Your opponents centre of gravity
> ...



Many of these characteristics are also trained in other fighting arts, especially (in my experience) in grappling exercises. I cannot see how one could discount the value of developing such skills in application.


----------



## DanT (Oct 21, 2017)

geezer said:


> Many of these characteristics are also trained in other fighting arts, especially (in my experience) in grappling exercises. I cannot see how one could discount the value of developing such skills in application.


They are of utmost value. In terms of Ip Man Wing Chun, Chi Sau is a fundamental element to develop these skills. In addition to Chi Sau, Sparring is also important as it teaches:

1. Distance Judgement
2. Footwork
3. Leg Work


----------



## KPM (Oct 21, 2017)

geezer said:


> Many of these characteristics are also trained in other fighting arts, especially (in my experience) in grappling exercises. I cannot see how one could discount the value of developing such skills in application.



I agree!  The area that I typically take issue with is when Wing Chun groups seem to view Chi Sau as their entire goal for training and a "thing" unto itself rather than just one more aspect of the training.   All of the things mentioned can be developed without learning complicated and involved choreographed Chi Sau exchanges.


----------



## geezer (Oct 21, 2017)

KPM said:


> ...All of the things mentioned can be developed without learning complicated and involved choreographed Chi Sau exchanges.



Yes, but complicated and involved chi-sau exchanges are especially good at keeping students paying for lessons year after year after year. 

At least it worked on me. I'm still continually learning, forgetting and re-learning the byzantine chi-sau curriculum of my lineage hoping to eventually get promoted and then, at last, get a certificate that will make me a genuine bad-hass! If anybody ever challenges me, I'll whip out that certificate and give them vicious paper-cuts until the acknowledge my absolute mastery.


----------



## geezer (Oct 21, 2017)

...or look at it and die laughing. God I'm hopeless...


----------



## Danny T (Oct 21, 2017)

Know of quite a few who are good at chi sao...nah, they are Very Good at chi sao.
Unfortunately for them their excellent chi sao skills having not transferred to their ability to fight.
Know quite a few who are good fighters...nah, they are Very Good fighters but their chi sao skills are poor.


----------



## Eric_H (Oct 26, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Could you elaborate? I've seen numerous kung fu schools that don't spar, they do chi sao *instead*. I think this approach produces students that don't know how to spar and are horrible at chi sao. They lack sensitivity, thus they look stiff and rigid. Just because a drill has combative elements or develops a fighting skill doesn't mean it's suppose to be sparring itself.



Sure! I don't know what you've seen, so I can't speak to that. I can see where if you're playing tag it builds bad habits (see point-fighting karate).

Chi Sao, at least as we do it in the line I study now, is all about reflex under the rules of the system. You can either force the opponent to stick to you, stick to him to neutralize what he's doing or jump the circuit and exit into free fighting technique. We teach sparring and chi sao as two halves of the same coin, you can't have one without the other. 

Sensitivity is the byproduct of training, not the end goal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Very Good fighters but their chi sao skills are poor.


When I just learned the WC system, I used the WC Tan Shou to "bounce" my opponent's punch arm away, I then used the same arm to punch on his face. I combined the block and punch by using the same arm.

IMO, if you can sense your opponent's intention, your opponent can sense your intention too. As soon as you have sensed your opponent's intention through your bridge, you destroy the bridge, enter, and finish your job.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 26, 2017)

Eric_H said:


> I don't know what you've seen, so I can't speak to that.


I've studied Kung Fu under 3 different instructors each had their own version of Chi Sao. Ironically the best Chi Sao training I've received is from Kali, my instructor taught us a Filipino variant of it, he also had the best sensitivity. 


Eric_H said:


> I can see where if you're playing tag it builds bad habits


I agree, that's why I said I think when you focus on the strike it detracts from the purpose of the drill. 


Eric_H said:


> Chi Sao, at least as we do it in the line I study now, is all about reflex under the rules of the system.


Sensitivity and reflexes go hand in hand. Chi Sao builds sensitivity thus you can react to your opponent because you sense through the connection where he will go and where you should go.    


Eric_H said:


> jump the circuit and exit into free fighting technique.


This is where I disagree. Good training comes from compartmentalizing your training. If I'm working on take down defense, them I'm *only *working on take down defense. If my training partner(not opponent) manages to take me down then we reset and we start again. What I don't do is revert to sparring when he manages to get his under hooks in and start blasting him. Same thing applies to a stick blocking drill, I'm not going to revert to sparring because my training partner gets a few strikes in. I'm doing the drill to improve my blocks, when I switch to something else mid drill to compensate for my lack of skill in that one area then I'm no longer doing the drill. This also prevents me from building confidence in my technique and teaches me not to rely on them.


Eric_H said:


> We teach sparring and chi sao as two halves of the same coin, you can't have one without the other.


I said schools that teach chi sao instead of sparring is a problem. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with that or not in you statement.


Eric_H said:


> Sensitivity is the byproduct of training, not the end goal.


Sensitivity to be applied in combat is the end goal. Applying chi sao/sensitivity in sparring is good, embedding sparring into chi sao detracts from the drill.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I just learned the WC system, I used the WC Tan Shou to "bounce" my opponent's punch arm away, I then used the same arm to punch on his face. I combined the block and punch by using the same arm.
> 
> IMO, if you can sense your opponent's intention, your opponent can sense your intention too. As soon as you have sensed your opponent's intention through your bridge, you destroy the bridge, enter, and finish your job.


Can certainly be utilized in that manner and is an excellent action. A higher level of usage would be to do so in the same motion vs deflect then punch. I should be the tan action is the punch. Think of a throwing a stone across water...the stone just skips along the water. Your punch is the deflection and just continues forward and strikes the opponent.


----------



## Eric_H (Oct 26, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Sensitivity and reflexes go hand in hand. Chi Sao builds sensitivity thus you can react to your opponent because you sense through the connection where he will go and where you should go.



They do not. If that's what you mean by sensitivity, then we've really got nothing to argue about. I've met people with great sensitivity, but could not apply their WC when given variations on what they expect.



Anarax said:


> This is where I disagree. Good training comes from compartmentalizing your training. If I'm working on take down defense, them I'm *only *working on take down defense. If my training partner(not opponent) manages to take me down then we reset and we start again. What I don't do is revert to sparring when he manages to get his under hooks in and start blasting him. Same thing applies to a stick blocking drill, I'm not going to revert to sparring because my training partner gets a few strikes in. I'm doing the drill to improve my blocks, when I switch to something else mid drill to compensate for my lack of skill in that one area then I'm no longer doing the drill. This also prevents me from building confidence in my technique and teaches me not to rely on them.



If they are doing chi sao in a way that opens the exit to sparring, I will take the exit depending on the level of the student. Showing "Hey there's an exit here because of what you're doing" is not adding something in to a drill, it's refining the motion/feeling, growing their awareness. That's not randomly doing whatever, as you seem to imply, it's a specific part of the chi sao.

I think perhaps you are also thinking Chi Sao is a specific drill, probably the double handed Tahn/Bong/Fook cycle. That's just one area of chi sao, one drill in dozens.



> Sensitivity to be applied in combat is the end goal. Applying chi sao/sensitivity in sparring is good, embedding sparring into chi sao detracts from the drill.



We agree on the first part and disagree on the second it seems. Take care.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 26, 2017)

Eric_H said:


> They do not. If that's what you mean by sensitivity, then we've really got nothing to argue about. I've met people with great sensitivity, but could not apply their WC when given variations on what they expect.


Sensitivity is not gained for the sake of sensitivity. You gain sensitivity to be able to sense movement and to be able to react to it both defensively and offensively . If they have good sensitivity and both people are doing actual chi sao, then he should be able to feel the movement and react. I didn't say they are the same thing, but one(sensitivity) is gained so they can react(reflexes).  


Eric_H said:


> If they are doing chi sao in a way that opens the exit to sparring, I will take the exit depending on the level of the student. Showing "Hey there's an exit here because of what you're doing" is not adding something in to a drill, it's refining the motion/feeling, growing their awareness. That's not randomly doing whatever, as you seem to imply, it's a specific part of the chi sao.


By exit do you mean opening? As they aren't protecting the center line or are open then you bridge into sparring? If so, that's exactly what I'm saying is detracting from chi sao.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Could you elaborate? I've seen numerous kung fu schools that don't spar, they do chi sao *instead*. I think this approach produces students that don't know how to spar and are horrible at chi sao. They lack sensitivity, thus they look stiff and rigid. Just because a drill has combative elements or develops a fighting skill doesn't mean it's suppose to be sparring itself.



We have had this debate before.  Often people who study WSLVT, in particular the Philipp Bayer version, doesn't see sensitivity as the purpose.  Instead they often see it as developing speed, distance assessment, strength, stability and timing pertaining to attack and defence at the correct moment.  Now personally I think it devolves to an argument over semantics, that most of these principles fall under the term "sensitivity" but it's how it's taught in some schools. /Shrug


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> speed, distance assessment, strength, stability and timing ...


When your arm touches on your opponent's arm, how much time do you need (1/10 sec, 1/2 sec, 1 sec, ...) to sense your opponent's intention whether his arm is moving to your

- left,
- right,
- up,
- down,
- forward,
- backward?

You don't need to stick on his arm forever and refuse to leave. The moment that you can sense your opponent's intention, your arm should

- move faster than his arm,
- borrow his force, and
- do your thing.

The WC sticky hand training may build up a bad habit and make you think that you should stick on your opponent's arm as long as you can. A simple arm grabbing can achieve that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2017)

Sometime you don't even need to make that arm contact.

For example.

- You punch,
- Your opponent blocks,
- The moment that you "see" your opponent's arm is moving, you pull your punching arm back.
- Wait for his arm to pass over your striking path.
- You then punch back through the same striking path.


----------



## KPM (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> We have had this debate before.  Often people who study WSLVT, in particular the Philipp Bayer version, doesn't see sensitivity as the purpose.  Instead they often see it as developing speed, distance assessment, strength, stability and timing pertaining to attack and defence at the correct moment.  Now personally I think it devolves to an argument over semantics, that most of these principles fall under the term "sensitivity" but it's how it's taught in some schools. /Shrug



I think they would say it is not about "sticking."  You can have sensitivity without trying to "stick" to the opponent's limbs.  That may be where the semantics make a difference.


----------



## Callen (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> We have had this debate before. Often people who study WSLVT, in particular the Philipp Bayer version, doesn't see sensitivity as the purpose. Instead they often see it as developing speed, distance assessment, strength, stability and timing pertaining to attack and defence at the correct moment. Now personally I think it devolves to an argument over semantics, that most of these principles fall under the term "sensitivity" but it's how it's taught in some schools. /Shrug





KPM said:


> I think they would say it is not about "sticking." You can have sensitivity without trying to "stick" to the opponent's limbs. That may be where the semantics make a difference.



I would say that these are accurate assessments.

Most WSLVT practitioners view Chi Sau as more than a sensitivity drill and it is trained into different parts of the curriculum. It is one of many training tools that eventually get strung together in support of the overall implementation of Wing Chun concepts, often being utilized as a gateway into Goh Sau.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Instead they often see it as developing speed, distance assessment, strength, stability and timing pertaining to attack and defence at the correct moment


I include those aspects under sensitivity, you can still train all those aspects when you approach it as a drill. 


Juany118 said:


> Now personally I think it devolves to an argument over semantics, that most of these principles fall under the term "sensitivity" but it's how it's taught in some schools


Though the definition of "sensitivity" varies from school to school, there is a fine line between a drill and sparring. Many schools have blurred the line between the two more and more. My point was the more you blur the line the less proficient the student becomes. Chi sao is *suppose *to help you develop those aspects so they can be applied in sparring/combat, but when you turn chi sao into sparring you're not developing those aspects.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

Callen said:


> I would say that these are accurate assessments.
> 
> Most WSLVT practitioners view Chi Sau as more than a sensitivity drill and it is trained into different parts of the curriculum. It is one of many training tools that eventually get strung together in support of the overall implementation of Wing Chun concepts, often being utilized as a gateway into Goh Sau.



I would only say that most see it as more than a sensitivity drill (at least using the narrow definition of "touch sensitivity".) What I have occassionaly encountered is the semantics issue.  The term sensitivity wasn't used when they learned chi-sau and so when someone from another lineage uses different lingo they instinctively say "wrong" when really you are largely talking about the same thing.


----------



## geezer (Oct 29, 2017)

It just occurred to me while looking at the title of this thread: 
_*
To stick or not to stick?
*_
That's what_ Hamlet _said when he was deciding whether or not to attend his_ Escrima_ class. 

...speaking of which, I need to gab my sticks and get going or I'll be late! 


_*
*_


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 30, 2017)

Let's look at what can happen in a fist fight.

1. You punch, your opponent block.
2. He punches, you block.
3. He is on guard. You open his guard and punch.
4. You are on guard. He opens your guard and punch.

IMO, all your sticky training should include these 4 situations. You should not try to stick on your opponent's arm and "refuse to leave".


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 31, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's look at what can happen in a fist fight.
> 
> 1. You punch, your opponent block.
> 2. He punches, you block.
> ...


Except......chi say is not a fight, but a partner drill.....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 31, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Except......chi say is not a fight, but a partner drill.....


If you start with "goal", you then find the correct "path" to get there, your training will be more realistic.

goal ------> path

This way, you will know what is the "most important" training that is required to be a good fighter.


----------



## Anarax (Nov 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you start with "goal", you then find the correct "path" to get there, your training will be more realistic.


The problem with this is you believe that drills must be "realistic", which is not the case. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> This way, you will know what is the "most important" training that is required to be a good fighter.


There is no "most important" training to be a good fighter. There are multiple areas a martial artist/fighter must work on to be skilled. For example; if you have great distance assessment but horrible attack speed what good is it? If you have great kicks but horrible guard and defense, then you're going to get lit up with counters. There is no end all and be all training drill to be a great fighter, it's compartmentalizing your training and drilling multiple things to a point that makes a great fighter.

Look at boxers, even though they have a limited amount of techniques they have a lot if drills. They have speed bag, heavy bag, sparring and numerous pad work drills. They compartmentalize they're training, that's why a lot of them have great hands. 

When you blend certain training regiments together you lose sight of what it's supposed to be and you're not accomplishing your goal. If you turn chi sao into some sort of half game half sparring match, that is the *only* thing you're going to be good at. Meaning, if you encounter someone on the street and they are trained in wing chun, learned that version of "chi sao" and are less skilled than you, then that's the only time it will come in handy. Personally, I think this is a big reason why a lot of Wing Chun guys are bad at closing the distance.

I've seen this before in some training partners, they want to turn every drill into a sparring match. When they do so they believe they are making it more "real", but in fact they are detracting from the purpose of the drill. For example; in Kali we practice moves on each other to get the mechanics down. While practicing takedowns on each other we don't just fall over, nor do we give maximum resistance. However; I've had a partner they wants to give maximum resistance, at the time he thinks he's accomplishing something. He fails to realize that drills are drills and sparring is sparring. Because of his belief in "realism", he doesn't develop the techniques nor does he understand the mechanics. When he spars, you can catch him with almost any technique, sweeps, takedowns, disarms, etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2017)

Anarax said:


> The problem with this is you believe that drills must be "realistic", which is not the case.


Between WC sticky hand training and sparring, there should be another training that can be "partner drill training".

sticky hand -> partner drill -> sparring

The

- sticky hand is to develop sensitive.
- partner drill is to develop technique.
- sparring is to test technique.

Example of "partner drill" can be as simple as groin kick, face punch combo.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2017)

^^^^^  This is exactly how it is done in Pin Sun Wing Chun!.......solo set....two man partner drill....chi sau....san sau


----------



## geezer (Nov 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^  This is exactly how it is done in Pin Sun Wing Chun!.......solo set....two man partner drill....chi sau....san sau



We do this in my lineage (WT derived) through our Lat Sau sets and Chi-sau "sections".

From what I can see, our "Lat Sau" is essentially san sik like what you demonstrated in Pin Sun WC.


----------



## DanT (Nov 2, 2017)

We too actively take combinations (or invent them for that matter), practice them in the air, on the pads, with a resisting partner, in Chi Sao, and then in sparring.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 2, 2017)

Yeah...we just call them drills.
Then work to pulloff the drill actions within Chi Sao. 
Then we freelance the attacks at about 20-30% (light technical sparring) and finally 70-75% sparring.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 3, 2017)

Anarax said:


> If you turn chi sao into some sort of half game half sparring match, that is the *only* thing you're going to be good at.



And if you leave it as sensitivity only, you will get to feel everything as you are repeatedly punched in the head.

Reading your posts, it's clear you don't view chi sao and sparring as a progression, where both sides give and take from each other. So - how do you get good at physical combat response?

Your story of the guy who believes he's being more real by not learning technique deeply before taking the training wheels off seems to be a personal problem, it's not part of the method.


----------



## Anarax (Nov 3, 2017)

Eric_H said:


> And if you leave it as sensitivity only, you will get to feel everything as you are repeatedly punched in the head


I stated in previous posts there are exchanges of techniques in chi sao, it's not just two students moving their arms without purpose. The purpose of Chi Sao is to gain sensitivity and learn to respond both defensively and offensively, that includes getting "punched in the head" as you put it. What I disagree with is when people turn in into full on sparring, use any techniques(sweeps, throws, locks, etc) and when they sacrifice form and structure for touches. I use the term touches because a lot of WC guys think all touches in Chi Sao would be valid strikes, which isn't the case. Some touches are at very awkward angles and are delivered with no alignment behind it. 



Eric_H said:


> Reading your posts, it's clear you don't view chi sao and sparring as a progression, where both sides give and take from each other. So - how do you get good at physical combat response?


I've stated incorporating Chi Sao into sparring is how you go about it, that's what drills are for. Being able to apply Chi Sao against a live opponent in sparring is the end goal, but this requires a lot of skill. If you're only good at Chi Sao but horrible at sparring then you're not bridging the gap. I think this is the reason why a lot of Wing Chun guys have a difficult time closing the distance.      



Eric_H said:


> Your story of the guy who believes he's being more real by not learning technique deeply before taking the training wheels off seems to be a personal problem, it's not part of the method.


Exactly, it's not suppose to be part of the method, but he thinks it is. Meaning if he had his own school he would teach it his way, not the way it's supposed to be. That's why a lot of Chi Sao looks so bad, no frame, structure nor technique.


----------

