# An interesting article on Chi-Sau



## Juany118 (Apr 25, 2017)

Chi Sao, Ip Man and the Problem of “Dispersed Training” in Wing Chun


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2017)

Yes, interesting article.  He asks some of the same questions that I have asked over the years.  Particularly this part:

*In my personal experience that is the key to becoming really good at Chi Sao. It is not magic. I don’t think it takes any special genetic predisposition. You simply spend lots of hours a week practicing these skills with a really large pool of people, some of whom are a great deal better than you and few of whom are actually kind of scary. Under those conditions, it is amazing how fast you pick this stuff up. But is being good at Chi Sao the same thing as being good at Wing Chun? Or even being a good martial artist?

Yet Chi Sao is a problem. It is not that I no longer do it. I still spend some time on Chi Sao.  Yet working with a very small number of people, all junior to you, is not the same. Whatever it is, Chi Sao is not like riding a bike. The sorts of skills taught in sensitivity drills absolutely can be forgotten and will go dormant very fast if not continually used*.

But I found it curious that he didn't touch on the idea of Chi Sau being used as a substitute for sparring...both in Ip Man's Hong Kong school as well as many WIng Chun schools today. 

Just my opinion....but nowadays I think training time is better spent putting on the gear and actually sparring rather than spending the many many hours needed to get really good at Chi Sau that he mentions.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 25, 2017)

Actually, although I do not support this, Ip Man students got into a lot of fights out in the street so that is actually better, as far as application goes, than "putting on the gear and actually sparring"


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 25, 2017)

I guess I always thought chi sao is an exercise meant to develop certain skillls that are useful in fighting.  As such, it isn't something you try to get good at for it's own sake.  You don't strive to be "good at chi sao."  Chi sao is one of the tools in your training schedule that helps you become a skilled fighter.

Sparring can also have a place in your toolbox, but not to become "good at sparring" for its own sake.  It likewise should help you become a skilled fighter.


----------



## DanT (Apr 25, 2017)

I think that because Chi Sao is fun, a lot of people spend most of their time working on it instead of working on sparring, pad work, line drills etc. I try to do about 45 min of Chi Sao a day, but I make sure to incorporate as much of my other training as possible. Also because it's fun, people do too much loosey-goosey Chi Sao while talking about what they did that day instead of focusing on what they're doing. That's what I see when I watch a lot of other people at other clubs Chi Sao anyways.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 25, 2017)

The training that you try to build arm bridge in a fist flying environment is more important.

How to use your

- Tan Shou to separate your opponent arms away from his head,
- Fu shou to redirect your opponent's head punch and then punch back at his face,
- Bong Shou to redirect your opponent's hook (or hay-maker),

are far more important WC training than just the sticky hand training. In other words, the ability to be able to achieve a clinch in boxing is the training that you should develop.


----------



## Callen (Apr 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> You don't strive to be "good at chi sao."


Good post!

The system is mostly about striking the target using chained attacks. Anytime this is done, it is the implementation of a Wing Chun concept. Wing Chun training (including Chi Sau) should support this idea. Training reflexes, bio-mechanics and in recovering from a lost position or mistake etc... is all about the most universally significant act of self-protection.

When developing reflexes through Chi Sau, all of the training should be centered around the concepts and principles of the system. There is no aim at becoming "good" at only certain parts of Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually, although I do not support this, Ip Man students got into a lot of fights out in the street so that is actually better, as far as application goes, than "putting on the gear and actually sparring"



I agree!  But that wasn't true for the majority of his students.  And who knows, they may have been much more successful at those encounters had they been sparring in class rather than doing Chi Sau!


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> I agree!  But that wasn't true for the majority of his students.  And who knows, they may have been much more successful at those encounters had they been sparring in class rather than doing Chi Sau!


Yeah.  Or not.  Really, we will never know.


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah.  Or not.  Really, we will never know.


 True!  But what little footage I have seen from the "Beimo days" wasn't very impressive and didn't seem to make much use of Chi Sau skills.  But of course that was a very limited sampling!


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I always thought chi sao is an exercise meant to develop certain skillls that are useful in fighting.  As such, it isn't something you try to get good at for it's own sake.  You don't strive to be "good at chi sao."  Chi sao is one of the tools in your training schedule that helps you become a skilled fighter.
> 
> Sparring can also have a place in your toolbox, but not to become "good at sparring" for its own sake.  It likewise should help you become a skilled fighter.




I agree!  But I would posit that for people with limited training time, time spent actually sparring is going to be a higher yield use of time than time spent in Chi Sau...... when it comes down to developing a "skilled fighter."


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> True!  But what little footage I have seen from the "Beimo days" wasn't very impressive and didn't seem to make much use of Chi Sau skills.  But of course that was a very limited sampling!


Ok, so based on a small sample then, I guess? 
I just don't see much room to conclude that the would have done better if they had spent more time in free sparring vs. chi sau. We will simply never know.

And how do you know that they didn't make use of "chi sau skills"?  And how is that even defined?  The goal should not be to develop skills in chi sau.  The goal should be to use chi sau as a training tool to help build fighting skills.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> I agree!  But I would posit that for people with limited training time, time spent actually sparring is going to be a higher yield use of time than time spent in Chi Sau...... when it comes down to developing a "skilled fighter."


Well you can design an experiment and take a control group and an experimental group of brand new students, all with zero prior martial arts experience, and all with exactly the same physical attributes and natural ability, and train each group identically with the exception that one group does chi sau and the other spends an equal time doing free sparring, and make sure their training experience does not cross and is not otherwise contaminated.  If you can do that with a large enough sample size in each group and do it long enough to see some real results, then you might have an argument.  Otherwise, it is pure conjecture.

If you prefer sparring, then spar.  And don't worry about those who do chi sau.


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well you can design an experiment and take a control group and an experimental group of brand new students, all with zero prior martial arts experience, and all with exactly the same physical attributes and natural ability, and train each group identically with the exception that one group does chi sau and the other spends an equal time doing free sparring, and make sure their training experience does not cross and is not otherwise contaminated.  If you can do that with a large enough sample size in each group and do it long enough to see some real results, then you might have an argument.  Otherwise, it is pure conjecture.
> 
> If you prefer sparring, then spar.  And don't worry about those who do chi sau.



Who said I was "worrying about" anyone?  I'm just giving my opinion.   While the experiment you propose above would be unlikely to be done, something similar could more easily be done by looking at group of newbies in a typical Wing Chun school that emphasizes Chi Sau compared to a group of newbies at a boxing gym that emphasizes sparring and compare them at 6 months.  I think most people could predict the outcome.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Who said I was "worrying about" anyone?  I'm just giving my opinion.   While the experiment you propose above would be unlikely to be done, something similar could more easily be done by looking at group of newbies in a typical Wing Chun school that emphasizes Chi Sau compared to a group of newbies at a boxing gym that emphasizes sparring and compare them at 6 months.  I think most people could predict the outcome.


I don't think it's a valid comparison.


----------



## geezer (Apr 26, 2017)

How far can you take "sticking", flow, and "sensitivity"? And how applicable is it in fighting? It really depends. The guy below is better at _sticking_ than any WC guy I know. Can he fight? I have no idea.


----------



## KPM (Apr 26, 2017)

While Chi Sau certainly has its place, to me this kind of training is more important and more valuable:


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> While Chi Sau certainly has its place, to me this kind of training is more important and more valuable:


Oh, so you ARE worried about people who do chi sau...


----------



## Thunder Foot (Apr 26, 2017)

Chi sau in my opinion can and should be in relation to lut sau. I learned it as a progressive step towards lut sau and understanding options at those ranges; similar to the distances explored in the 3 hand forms. But more importantly chi sau develops the intuitive reflexes that are required to excel in a close range exchange as we know. Similar to Muay Thai, it takes good amounts of time to develop the intuitive sensitivity. My opinion is that a good WC man is proficient at long, mid, & close range and chi sau helps to bridge the gaps.
As for the article's standpoint, I respectively disagree. One who wants the prize will improvise. A judoka or jujutsuka doesn't simply quit their art on account of lack of partners. They find other ways hone their skills that don't involve abandonment. And perhaps that wasn't his intended point, but it's what I gathered. Just $0.02.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2017)

KPM said:


> I agree!  But I would posit that for people with limited training time, time spent actually sparring is going to be a higher yield use of time than time spent in Chi Sau...... when it comes down to developing a "skilled fighter."



I don't think so.

At least for the system I train, these are two different things with two different objectives, and one shouldn't look at one vs the other. Both are equally necessary. Two sides of the VT coin.

Sparring is a stressor like fighting, albeit artificial and able to be calibrated to one's level.

_Chi-sau_ on the other hand is where one constantly returns to drill out errors revealed under stress (in sparring/ fighting).

Of course, if you never pressure test, you will never discover such errors, and then _chi-sau_ just becomes a game without a clear objective, and you will suffer the consequences when faced with real pressure.

But by the same token, if you discard the error correction system, or don't make ample use of it, it's much more difficult and takes far longer to fix things.

If one is doing cross-style sparring / fighting outside of class, class time is actually best spent drilling to correct errors found in pressure testing, meaning most of one's training time with an instructor or training partners at class can be _chi-sau_ / _gwo-sau_, and sparring once a week or so.

Yes, other styles don't use _chi-sau_ at all and do just fine with sparring drills, but they don't function as VT does, so of course they don't need the same development system.



KPM said:


> While Chi Sau certainly has its place, to me this kind of training is more important and more valuable:



So, as I stated above, I don't think it's right to say which is more important or valuable, _chi-sau_ or sparring. Both are of course necessary. One without the other often results in poor VT fighting skills, and slow or no progression.

But what is shown in this clip is someone feeding one or two punches from out of range, then shelling up to allow the defender to unload chain punches while running around in a circle.

This is neither _chi-sau_ nor sparring, neither error correction nor a stressor, and not even a useful drill to me.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2017)

If the goal is to produce a good fighter, not to simply learn Wing Chun, then the drilling shown above is higher yield than Chi Sau.  Otherwise most other fighting systems would have something like Chi Sau and less drills like those above. 

As I already said, Chi Sau has its place.  I just think it is over-emphasized at times, and sparring not emphasized enough.  Of course, this is very school/instructor dependent, even within the same lineage.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2017)

Thunder Foot said:


> As for the article's standpoint, I respectively disagree. One who wants the prize will improvise. A judoka or jujutsuka doesn't simply quit their art on account of lack of partners. They find other ways hone their skills that don't involve abandonment. And perhaps that wasn't his intended point, but it's what I gathered. Just $0.02.



He didn't say he was going to quit his Wing Chun in that article, just that he was emphasizing Chi Sau less.  His actual point was that it is hard to maintain high level Chi Sau skills without high level people to Chi Sau with.

My extension of his point (though he didn't say this) was that those high level Chi Sau skills aren't as important as a lot of people seem to think and that "finding other ways to hone their skills" as you say....would be doing more sparring than Chi Sau.   And the nice thing is that you can find good guys from styles other than Wing Chun to spar with in order to do this when you can't find higher level people to Chi Sau with.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2017)

KPM said:


> If the goal is to produce a good fighter, not to simply learn Wing Chun, then the drilling shown above is higher yield than Chi Sau.



Doubt it. Nothing useful is being drilled there.



> Otherwise most other fighting systems would have something like Chi Sau and less drills like those above.



This does not follow.

To become a good VT fighter, _chi-sau_ is necessary.
This does not mean _chi-sau_ is necessary to become a good fighter.

Sparring drills are good for all styles, so long as they are drilling useful things in a useful way.



> As I already said, Chi Sau has its place.  I just think it is over-emphasized at times, and sparring not emphasized enough.



I agree here.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Doubt it. Nothing useful is being drilled there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Trying to start another argument?  No thanks.   And just so it is clear to people that are relatively new here....when LJF writes "VT" he is not referring to Wing Chun in general, he is referring specifically to WSLVT.


----------



## DanT (Apr 27, 2017)

Oh boy...


----------



## DanT (Apr 27, 2017)

Anyways, I think that Chi Sao is important to be a good WING CHUN fighter (so that you can learn to stick, trap, pin, etc.) but it's obviously not necessary to become a good fighter, although usually clinch work is taught as a sort of "Chi Sao" in most Boxing, MMA, Muay Thai gyms. Obviously without the Poon Sao and techniques.


----------



## DanT (Apr 27, 2017)

Quite a bit of work that resembles Chi Sao a little bit ^


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2017)

KPM said:


> Trying to start another argument?



Discussing things on a discussion forum is all.

I disagree that one side of a coin is higher yield than the other.

Some seem to think heads (_chi-sau_) is worth more, and you've come to say tails (sparring) is worth more.

I have agreed with your conclusion (more sparring needed), just not the premise (sparring higher yield).


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2017)

^^^^^  Fair enough!


----------



## geezer (Apr 27, 2017)

Dang! I think we all agree!  ....now that's weird.  But OK by me.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2017)

geezer said:


> Dang! I think we all agree!  ....now that's weird.  But OK by me.



Wait...what.... oh no...you're not getting off that easy...whatever is being discussed and whatever it is we agree on....I DISAGREE!!!!! 

There, that's better....now that is the MT I have come to know of late.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Apr 27, 2017)

KPM said:


> He didn't say he was going to quit his Wing Chun in that article, just that he was emphasizing Chi Sau less.  His actual point was that it is hard to maintain high level Chi Sau skills without high level people to Chi Sau with.
> 
> My extension of his point (though he didn't say this) was that those high level Chi Sau skills aren't as important as a lot of people seem to think and that "finding other ways to hone their skills" as you say....would be doing more sparring than Chi Sau.   And the nice thing is that you can find good guys from styles other than Wing Chun to spar with in order to do this when you can't find higher level people to Chi Sau with.


Fair enough. I am of the accord of LFJ in that i agree more sparring may be needed, but not that it's more important or higher yielding. In contrast to Muay Thai, most big gyms in Bangkok spend just as much time in clinch work as they do the sparring, which I would say is comparable to chi sau. Given that the skill does leave with lack of practice in both chi sau and clinch work, it's important to keep a healthy diet of them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 27, 2017)

Thunder Foot said:


> practice in both chi sau and clinch work,


Unfortunately WC is still just a pure striking art. The WC sticky hand just doesn't get into the clinch work. When was the last time that you have seen a WC guy applied "under hook", "over hook", "arm wrap", "head lock", "bear hug", "double neck tie", ...


----------



## DanT (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Unfortunately WC is still just a pure striking art. The WC sticky hand just doesn't get into the clinch work. When was the last time that you have seen a WC guy applied "under hook", "over hook", "arm wrap", "head lock", "bear hug", "double neck tie", ...


Actually we apply these in my chi Sao. I don't know about other schools. We use these positions to assist in dominating the opponents center of balance.


----------



## Nobody Important (Apr 27, 2017)

DanT said:


> Anyways, I think that Chi Sao is important to be a good WING CHUN fighter (so that you can learn to stick, trap, pin, etc.) but it's obviously not necessary to become a good fighter, although usually clinch work is taught as a sort of "Chi Sao" in most Boxing, MMA, Muay Thai gyms. Obviously without the Poon Sao and techniques.


To an extent I agree, where I diverge is in the belief in lack of techniques being employed. The "Chi Sau" like exercises employed by other styles, while less structured, still use style specific techniques when utilizing their method. The biggest difference in things like Chi Sau or Pummeling is in the platform used.

Wing Chun is very structured in its exercise, other styles using a similar concept, not so much. I'd argue that the restrictions and rules placed on the platform employed is more counter productive to practical usage than the action of the exercise itself.

Rolling Hands is a relatively new platform, having only been around for about 80 years, whereas the Double Circling Hands method of Chi Sau has been around for a couple hundred years. Rolling Hands was either introduced to Yip Man via Yuan  Kay  San or was a collaborated development of the two. There is no mention of its existence prior to these two lineages exposing it. Most southern TCMAs and older versions of Wing Chun use the Double Circling Hands method calling it Sticking Hands, Grinding Hands, Feeling Hands etc. Different permutations came into existence after Tai Chi was introduced to the south.


----------



## KPM (Apr 28, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> To an extent I agree, where I diverge is in the belief in lack of techniques being employed. The "Chi Sau" like exercises employed by other styles, while less structured, still use style specific techniques when utilizing their method. The biggest difference in things like Chi Sau or Pummeling is in the platform used.
> 
> .


 
That and the fact that clinching does show up when Boxers or Muay Thai guys fight, and pummeling does show up when wrestlers compete.  When was the last time you saw anything that looked like Chi Sau show up in a sparring match???  And I know!  I know!  The response is going to be "Chi Sau is not fighting.  Chi Sau is for developing attributes used in fighting.  Why would you expect fighting to look like Chi Sau?"   My answer......people have tried to make a direct comparison between Chi Sau and things done in other fighting systems.  However, as NI suggests, the platform used for clinch work is the clinch!  And the clinch is something that happens in Boxing, Kickboxing, and MMA.  The platform used for pummeling is the "tie up" position, which is something that happens in grappling.  The rolling Poon Sau platform for Chi Sau is very artificial and doesn't show up in sparring.  So it is not really directly comparable to clinch-work or pummeling as suggested. 

However, it can be trained more realistically.  DanT's school seems to do so.  I know Rick Spain's guys in Australia do so.  And using the Poon Sau rolling platform as a transition to these close-in grappling kinds of applications doesn't take a "high level" training in playing the Chi Sau game that so many work on.  It just serves as a good "jumping off point" when contact is made with the opponent. 

Another factor to consider, you can take it or leave it, is that JKD schools have never emphasized Chi Sau to the extent that Wing Chun schools do, and many of the JKD schools today don't seem to do much of it at all.  Some have dropped it completely.  Why is that? Because using a practical mindset they came to the conclusion that it isn't a high yield exercise to spend time on when it comes to being able to fight effectively.  And every JKD school I have seen seems to spend far more time on actually sparring than on doing Chi Sau.  Take that for what it's worth.  Just another data point in the discussion.


----------



## DanT (Apr 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> That and the fact that clinching does show up when Boxers or Muay Thai guys fight, and pummeling does show up when wrestlers compete.  When was the last time you saw anything that looked like Chi Sau show up in a sparring match???  And I know!  I know!  The response is going to be "Chi Sau is not fighting.  Chi Sau is for developing attributes used in fighting.  Why would you expect fighting to look like Chi Sau?"   My answer......people have tried to make a direct comparison between Chi Sau and things done in other fighting systems.  However, as NI suggests, the platform used for clinch work is the clinch!  And the clinch is something that happens in Boxing, Kickboxing, and MMA.  The platform used for pummeling is the "tie up" position, which is something that happens in grappling.  The rolling Poon Sau platform for Chi Sau is very artificial and doesn't show up in sparring.  So it is not really directly comparable to clinch-work or pummeling as suggested.
> 
> However, it can be trained more realistically.  DanT's school seems to do so.  I know Rick Spain's guys in Australia do so.  And using the Poon Sau rolling platform as a transition to these close-in grappling kinds of applications doesn't take a "high level" training in playing the Chi Sau game that so many work on.  It just serves as a good "jumping off point" when contact is made with the opponent.
> 
> Another factor to consider, you can take it or leave it, is that JKD schools have never emphasized Chi Sau to the extent that Wing Chun schools do, and many of the JKD schools today don't seem to do much of it at all.  Some have dropped it completely.  Why is that? Because using a practical mindset they came to the conclusion that it isn't a high yield exercise to spend time on when it comes to being able to fight effectively.  And every JKD school I have seen seems to spend far more time on actually sparring than on doing Chi Sau.  Take that for what it's worth.  Just another data point in the discussion.


I can't speak for any one else, but we apply the techniques we practice in both chi sao and two person drills into our sparring, such as lap da, tan da, gum da, etc. We use chi sao as a platform to build timing, speed, power, and proper execution of the technique. The poon sau is not there in sparring, but the moment you bridge, our chi sao techniques and reactions come into play.

Also our chi sao doesnt look like a lot of schools. We roll and excecute a single technique to pin or move to the outside while striking, and then use one or two follow up techniques to continue the pin and strike, or move in and work on the clinch to control. We don't usually continue after two or three exchanges of techniques because for us, the primary purpose is to make the first technique and the follow up perfect.

The poon sao for us also focuses more on developing both the heun sao skill (as we usually switch sides every two or three rolls), and to me the heun sao is a very effective combat technique.

I find in too many schools the emphasis is placed on poon sao, but in my school, the emphasis is on the execution of the first and second technique, and the switching with heun sao, and the clinch work with neck control, elbows, knees etc).

 At least thats what Im FORCED to work on, because I am 5 9' 170 LBS, while most of my training partners are over 6 2', 210 LBS, and are all mostly muscle. I love chi saoing people who are stronger than me tho, as it forces me to have perfect technique and timing.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> If the goal is to produce a good fighter, not to simply learn Wing Chun, then the drilling shown above is higher yield than Chi Sau.  Otherwise most other fighting systems would have something like Chi Sau and less drills like those above.
> 
> As I already said, Chi Sau has its place.  I just think it is over-emphasized at times, and sparring not emphasized enough.  Of course, this is very school/instructor dependent, even within the same lineage.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chi sau and good wing chun are completely interdependent.


----------



## KPM (Apr 28, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Chi sau and good wing chun are completely interdependent.



I didn't say they weren't!  Unfortunately, being "good Wing Chun" and being "good fighter" aren't always the same thing!   

And I would say that "high level" Chi Sau....as in the elaborate Chi Sau game people play that is a thing unto itself...is not necessary for "good Wing Chun."   As NI noted above, that level of Chi Sau hasn't really been part of Wing Chun except for the last 80 years or so.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 28, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well you can design an experiment and take a control group and an experimental group of brand new students, all with zero prior martial arts experience, and all with exactly the same physical attributes and natural ability, and train each group identically with the exception that one group does chi sau and the other spends an equal time doing free sparring, and make sure their training experience does not cross and is not otherwise contaminated.  If you can do that with a large enough sample size in each group and do it long enough to see some real results, then you might have an argument.  Otherwise, it is pure conjecture.
> 
> If you prefer sparring, then spar.  And don't worry about those who do chi sau.




I really don't think there is a comparison. Chi sau does indeed teach useful skills and provides a deeper understanding of how to move.  However it is controlled.  In chi sau I am never afraid of getting my bell rung, injured etc.  The heightened awareness of straight up sparring, the intensity of it, is already proven to be more useful.  Why do I say this?

Wing Chun is a fighting art.  We know from every other fighting art in history; whether empty hand, melee weapon or firearm, that pressure testing is the most efficient way to turn taught  technique into actual skill.

Because of this I think it is relatively safe to say that a WC practitioner who both spars and does chi sau a fair bit would be better than one who does only one or the other BUT the practitioner who spars would be better than the one who simply does chi sau.

I would also agree with KPM.  The better you chi sau the better, cleaner, more proper you will be at WC BUT in real combat, especially against different styles of combat, the actual tactical value of chi sau ends up being on a sliding scale.  The value of pressure testing however is far more consistent.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Apr 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> That and the fact that clinching does show up when Boxers or Muay Thai guys fight, and pummeling does show up when wrestlers compete.  When was the last time you saw anything that looked like Chi Sau show up in a sparring match???  And I know!  I know!  The response is going to be "Chi Sau is not fighting.  Chi Sau is for developing attributes used in fighting.  Why would you expect fighting to look like Chi Sau?"   My answer......people have tried to make a direct comparison between Chi Sau and things done in other fighting systems.  However, as NI suggests, the platform used for clinch work is the clinch!  And the clinch is something that happens in Boxing, Kickboxing, and MMA.  The platform used for pummeling is the "tie up" position, which is something that happens in grappling.  The rolling Poon Sau platform for Chi Sau is very artificial and doesn't show up in sparring.  So it is not really directly comparable to clinch-work or pummeling as suggested.
> 
> However, it can be trained more realistically.  DanT's school seems to do so.  I know Rick Spain's guys in Australia do so.  And using the Poon Sau rolling platform as a transition to these close-in grappling kinds of applications doesn't take a "high level" training in playing the Chi Sau game that so many work on.  It just serves as a good "jumping off point" when contact is made with the opponent.
> 
> Another factor to consider, you can take it or leave it, is that JKD schools have never emphasized Chi Sau to the extent that Wing Chun schools do, and many of the JKD schools today don't seem to do much of it at all.  Some have dropped it completely.  Why is that? Because using a practical mindset they came to the conclusion that it isn't a high yield exercise to spend time on when it comes to being able to fight effectively.  And every JKD school I have seen seems to spend far more time on actually sparring than on doing Chi Sau.  Take that for what it's worth.  Just another data point in the discussion.



The same can really be said of clinch work, as not all clinch work is created equal. The objective of the plum is not to tie up and exchange, it's to strike dominating the center and  interior position, much like chi sau. So I would posit that it's directly comparable. There are multitudes of plum techs that don't require you to grab the guy and be tied up in a "clinch" to execute, so that is actually not the correct platform. What you and NI are referring to as "clinch" at least in relation to Muay Thai, is a by-product of not successfully controlling the center/interior position or having your attempt nullified. Plenty of examples of this in Seanchai, Pajunsuk, Samart, etc etc. And chi sau as I was taught is quite the same in that striking with control of center is a main objective, establishing the bridge. One problem that both of these mechanisms can develop if not trained properly is "chasing hands" or "chasing plum" where a person forgets why he's there in the first place. And perhaps that's what you're alluding to. But as a training mechanism, I position that they are comparable and valuable. To say that they are not is questioning a fundamental understanding that is at the basis of both of these training methods.

Regarding the data point of JKD's reduction of chi sau, its much more quantified than that. According to several who knew and trained with Lee, he personally continued training chi sau even after closing his schools, teaching privately, and up to his death so that closes the case on the speculation.  But since you referenced it observing that I practice, I'll extend the point. JKD at the heart of the reduction of chi sau, lies in refinement of the strike as an establishment of the bridge. So the attributes of chi sau are still present as a by-product when this isn't achieved, at least with places that do their homework.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> being "good Wing Chun" and being "good fighter" aren't always the same thing!


If we can all agree that

good fighter > good XYZ style fighter

then the XYZ style will not be able to put any restriction on us.

My major Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) is a standup grappling art. After the kicking/punching were added in, it became Combat Shuai Chiao (Chan Chiao). It evolved after that. Will WC evolve someday? I think it will.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I really don't think there is a comparison. Chi sau does indeed teach useful skills and provides a deeper understanding of how to move.  However it is controlled.  In chi sau I am never afraid of getting my bell rung, injured etc.  The heightened awareness of straight up sparring, the intensity of it, is already proven to be more useful.  Why do I say this?
> 
> Wing Chun is a fighting art.  We know from every other fighting art in history; whether empty hand, melee weapon or firearm, that pressure testing is the most efficient way to turn taught  technique into actual skill.
> 
> ...


Well let's be honest here, anyone advocating an "either/or" scenario is missing the point.  I believe I have commented in an earlier post that there is also room in the toolbox for sparring.  But I will qualify that point by saying that not all sparring is created equal, and some kinds of sparring are worthless.  I believe there was a video posted that showed some kind of "sparring" I guess, done by some wing chun people. I would not really have called that sparring.  To me, it was controlled drill.  That also has a place in the tool box.  But it wasn't sparring, in my opinion.

But my comment to which you replied, was the point that armchair quarterbacking this kind of thing is pretty pointless.  Trying to say that these guys who had these fights back in the 1920s to 1950s or whatever, that they would have had better "success" if they had sparred more...blah blah blah. No point in that discussion.


----------



## Nobody Important (Apr 28, 2017)

Thunder Foot said:


> The same can really be said of clinch work, as not all clinch work is created equal. The objective of the plum is not to tie up and exchange, it's to strike dominating the center and  interior position, much like chi sau. So I would posit that it's directly comparable. There are multitudes of plum techs that don't require you to grab the guy and be tied up in a "clinch" to execute, so that is actually not the correct platform. What you and NI are referring to as "clinch" at least in relation to Muay Thai, is a by-product of not successfully controlling the center/interior position or having your attempt nullified. Plenty of examples of this in Seanchai, Pajunsuk, Samart, etc etc. And chi sau as I was taught is quite the same in that striking with control of center is a main objective, establishing the bridge. One problem that both of these mechanisms can develop if not trained properly is "chasing hands" or "chasing plum" where a person forgets why he's there in the first place. And perhaps that's what you're alluding to. But as a training mechanism, I position that they are comparable and valuable. To say that they are not is questioning a fundamental understanding that is at the basis of both of these training methods.
> 
> Regarding the data point of JKD's reduction of chi sau, its much more quantified than that. According to several who knew and trained with Lee, he personally continued training chi sau even after closing his schools, teaching privately, and up to his death so that closes the case on the speculation.  But since you referenced it observing that I practice, I'll extend the point. JKD at the heart of the reduction of chi sau, lies in refinement of the strike as an establishment of the bridge. So the attributes of chi sau are still present as a by-product when this isn't achieved, at least with places that do their homework.


Agree, I was speaking specifically to the Rolling Hands platform of Chi Sau. I feel it to be an inferior method from which to practice the exercise, because one person always starts off in a dominated inferior position. While this may be conducive to learning how to re- establish a dominant position, no one willingly enters a fight by assuming an inferior position. It lends itself directly to hand chasing, constantly being a step behind & excessive clinching when overwhelmed. This is where clinch work becomes necessary yet is often neglected in favor of using a structured platform with "rules" that don't allow for much deviation as found in other methods such as pummelling. IMO the platform is poor, not the exercise itself.


----------



## KPM (Apr 28, 2017)

Thunder Foot said:


> According to several who knew and trained with Lee, he personally continued training chi sau even after closing his schools, teaching privately, and up to his death so that closes the case on the speculation.  .



I think Ted Wong, for one, would have disagreed with your conclusion.  He is the one that has said that Lee de-emphasized Wing Chun more and more as time went on and, at least according to him, the version of JKD just before Lee's death much very much an "evolved" kickboxing style.  Of course, Inosanto and others disagreed with him, but it has also been said that Ted Wong remained Lee's closest student to the end.  So I'd say our "speculation" isn't a much of a "closed case" as you seem to think.  

I've been looking into the "Chinatown JKD" curriculum taught by Tim Tackett and his group, and I can tell you that they don't have a big emphasis on Chi Sau.


----------



## KPM (Apr 28, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well let's be honest here, anyone advocating an "either/or" scenario is missing the point.



I don't think we've been talking about an "either/or" scenario at all.  We've been talking about "relative value" and what is the biggest return on hours spent in training.  Everyone has said that both have their place.  No one has argued to get rid of Chi Sau completely.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Unfortunately, being "good Wing Chun" and being "good fighter" aren't always the same thing!



Isn't Wing Chun a fighting method??



> And I would say that "high level" Chi Sau....as in the elaborate Chi Sau game people play that is a thing unto itself...is not necessary for "good Wing Chun."



Because gaming with it has nothing to do with good Wing Chun, fighting, or fight training.



> As NI noted above, that level of Chi Sau hasn't really been part of Wing Chun except for the last 80 years or so.



Wasn't he just referring to the _pun-sau_ platform?

80 years as he surmises based on some vague and unsubstantiated claims/stories?


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> I think Ted Wong, for one, would have disagreed with your conclusion.  He is the one that has said that Lee de-emphasized Wing Chun more and more as time went on and, at least according to him, the version of JKD just before Lee's death much very much an "evolved" kickboxing style.  Of course, Inosanto and others disagreed with him, but it has also been said that Ted Wong remained Lee's closest student to the end.  So I'd say our "speculation" isn't a much of a "closed case" as you seem to think.
> 
> I've been looking into the "Chinatown JKD" curriculum taught by Tim Tackett and his group, and I can tell you that they don't have a big emphasis on Chi Sau.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what.Neither Ted Wong or Inosanto are wing chun folks. This is a wc forum I think.
Jumping from bits and pieces of system to other bits and pieces of systems does not seldom develops competence-
no matter how long one wanders around.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 30, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So what.Neither Ted Wong or Inosanto are wing chun folks. This is a wc forum I think.
> Jumping from bits and pieces of system to other bits and pieces of systems does not seldom develops competence-
> no matter how long one wanders around.



Ummm while Guro Dan doesn't personally teach Wing Chun, he does actually formally study Wing Chun and brings Wing Chun teachers into the Academy weekly.  He actually has come to believe that you can not understand JKD (as he was taught it) without understanding Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM (Apr 30, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So what.Neither Ted Wong or Inosanto are wing chun folks. This is a wc forum I think.
> Jumping from bits and pieces of system to other bits and pieces of systems does not seldom develops competence-
> no matter how long one wanders around.


 
Uh...did you bother to read the thread?  The discussion was about the relative value of Chi Sau training.   JKD also uses Chi Sau training, but more modern versions place much less emphasis on it than most Wing Chun lineages.  JKD was brought up in this discussion for that reason.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Uh...did you bother to read the thread?  The discussion was about the relative value of Chi Sau training.   JKD also uses Chi Sau training, but more modern versions place much less emphasis on it than most Wing Chun lineages.  JKD was brought up in this discussion for that reason.



Your point is more literal, I only added my response because of Guro Dan's comments on how he now see Wing Chun.  If I remember correctly he said (while he was saying that you can't really understand JKD without understanding Wing Chun) something to the effect of (paraphrase) "sometimes you step away from something but when you come back you look at it with new eyes." 

I actually found this almost inspiring.  Guro Dan's reputation was built on FMA and JKD.  These are the arts people recognize him as a "master" of yet he spoke of his current WC teachers (meaning he is not the master) publically and how to really understand the JKD he is associated with you need to know an art he is admittedly not a "master" of?  How many people are humble enough to do that?


----------



## Thunder Foot (May 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> I think Ted Wong, for one, would have disagreed with your conclusion.  He is the one that has said that Lee de-emphasized Wing Chun more and more as time went on and, at least according to him, the version of JKD just before Lee's death much very much an "evolved" kickboxing style.  Of course, Inosanto and others disagreed with him, but it has also been said that Ted Wong remained Lee's closest student to the end.  So I'd say our "speculation" isn't a much of a "closed case" as you seem to think.
> 
> I've been looking into the "Chinatown JKD" curriculum taught by Tim Tackett and his group, and I can tell you that they don't have a big emphasis on Chi Sau.



Interesting, because Lee was teaching and working chi sau with John Saxton and others on the set of  Enter the Dragon which was the early 70's just before his death. Why would that be if he had abandoned it as you say? Because he still saw value in it and trained it. As for Tackett's WNG, they train many things and chi sau is one of them and he stresses its importance. Whether you see importance in it is your right of opinion, but I can assure you that established teachers of it see more than an evolved form of Kickboxing. And even in that, the close range combat techs are highly effective.


----------



## KPM (May 1, 2017)

Thunder Foot said:


> Interesting, because Lee was teaching and working chi sau with John Saxton and others on the set of  Enter the Dragon which was the early 70's just before his death. Why would that be if he had abandoned it as you say? Because he still saw value in it and trained it. As for Tackett's WNG, they train many things and chi sau is one of them and he stresses its importance. Whether you see importance in it is your right of opinion, but I can assure you that established teachers of it see more than an evolved form of Kickboxing. And even in that, the close range combat techs are highly effective.



I didn't say he abandoned it.  Just that there was not nearly the emphasis on it that there had been in earlier years.   And yeah, Tackett's group trains Chi Sau...I said that...just not the emphasis that it had early on in JKD.   Now, take guys like Burt Richardson and Matt Thornton...they seem to have dropped Chi Sau completely.


----------



## Thunder Foot (May 1, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Agree, I was speaking specifically to the Rolling Hands platform of Chi Sau. I feel it to be an inferior method from which to practice the exercise, because one person always starts off in a dominated inferior position. While this may be conducive to learning how to re- establish a dominant position, no one willingly enters a fight by assuming an inferior position. It lends itself directly to hand chasing, constantly being a step behind & excessive clinching when overwhelmed. This is where clinch work becomes necessary yet is often neglected in favor of using a structured platform with "rules" that don't allow for much deviation as found in other methods such as pummeling. IMO the platform is poor, not the exercise itself.


I respect your opinion but I don't follow the logic. How is fook and tan an inferior dominated position? It can be directly equated to an overhook and an underhook in pummeling. It is what you make of it. I think what you are inferring to is a leveraged position that is 50/50. But pummeling whether neck or chest, usually starts in that way as well so I'm not understanding the dominated inferior position you speak of. In terms of a limb being over and under its really the same exact thing, unless I'm missing something in your point. The "rules" which are better described as principles set the context, which are later adapted/crossed/modified as a situation calls for like most other training mechanisms. Those principles are only limiting for those newcomers trying to define that context. But conversely, there are those bad examples that never do and thus become lost in chasing hands. Chasing hands in my opinion is due to lack of context and not the position you're in. It's all in reference to how the material is taught and unfortunately with WC/VT's rapid popularity, some principles that drive the techs aren't a focal point. As I see it this doesn't mean that the mechanism is faulty but rather the teaching method. This inadequacy you are highlighting is not something that is exclusive to chi sau, and can be the case for any mechanism which has lost the context in which it is effective. Without the principles there is no intent behind the mechanism. No intent, no power or effectiveness. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 1, 2017)

Thunder Foot said:


> I respect your opinion but I don't follow the logic. How is fook and tan an inferior dominated position? It can be directly equated to an overhook and an underhook in pummeling. It is what you make of it. I think what you are inferring to is a leveraged position that is 50/50. But pummeling whether neck or chest, usually starts in that way as well so I'm not understanding the dominated inferior position you speak of. In terms of a limb being over and under its really the same exact thing, unless I'm missing something in your point. The "rules" which are better described as principles set the context, which are later adapted/crossed/modified as a situation calls for like most other training mechanisms. Those principles are only limiting for those newcomers trying to define that context. But conversely, there are those bad examples that never do and thus become lost in chasing hands. Chasing hands in my opinion is due to lack of context and not the position you're in. It's all in reference to how the material is taught and unfortunately with WC/VT's rapid popularity, some principles that drive the techs aren't a focal point. As I see it this doesn't mean that the mechanism is faulty but rather the teaching method. This inadequacy you are highlighting is not something that is exclusive to chi sau, and can be the case for any mechanism which has lost the context in which it is effective. Without the principles there is no intent behind the mechanism. No intent, no power or effectiveness. Just my $0.02.


Rolling Hands starts with one individual in tan/bong being contacted by another in a double fook position ( I'm my lineage anyways, I've seen some Yip Man lineages do it a little differently). From my understanding, and Yuen family oral history, it was developed as a way to train recovery from inferior position. Pummeling hands has no defined starting position, though often entering from collar & elbow, which is 50/50 for each person. Rolling Hands always starts with one on top, I would equate it to mount & guard. A good exercise for recovering from what is generally considered an inferior (bottom) position. Using many of the same principles, pummeling, feeling hands, Grinding arms, push hands, circling hands exercises almost always have both practitioners starting in the exact same position with the exact same advantage. While both ways have merit, and with slightly different goals, starting from the bottom generally causes hand chasing & constantly being a step behind IMO. Others may feel differently & obviously skill of practitioner must be considered, but rolling hands is not the only sticking hand platform, there are others I feel more realistic in approach. In my personal opinion, the Rolling hands platform is over emphasized and often used for training a method it wasn't designed for. It, IMO, is not for testing skill as many use it for, but actually learning how to overcome a mistake, kind of like Biu  Jee. I only speak for my branch of WC, others will certainly be of different opinion & that's OK.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 4, 2017)

I'm just throwing in what I think, and it is related  to the article, not any of the replies that followed, although I did read them all.

In my opinion, Chi Sao is an incredibly useful exercise because it takes place at the range where I have seen many, many, many fights initiate. Two guys will be standing less than arm's length from each other, doing it up alpha male style, until one guy gets sick of the monkey dance and throws a punch. There is not a lot of time or space to react in, and Chi Sao can help develop the reflexes at this range. Is it as good if your fight happens to start further away? No, but once the distance is closed (and your training should include drills to get yourself into the proper range), Chi Sao skills become useful again.

I will say this to what one person wrote, regarding "Starting from an inferior position." I am not sure what you mean by that. Possibly you are talking about a positioning of the arms where one person has two Fook Saos going. So they have both hands on top, while the other person has both hands on the bottom? If so, then I have this to say: as it has been said, Chi Sao is not fighting. Therefore if Chi Sao is not fighting, then I see no harm in one person starting out with both hands on the bottom. Plus during the roll, each partner should be doing changes so that whoever is on top is not ALWAYS the one on top.

Lastly, I will agree that you are right: no one enters a fight in the inferior position, but I will add one word to that, which is no one PURPOSELY enters in the inferior position. However, sometimes that is beyond your control, and you should train in a way where you know how to handle it if it does happen.


----------

