This is true. But the problem is that the rolling platform for Chi Sao is an artificial construct. If one never uses or tests what they are training and learning outside of that construct, then there is a problem. That's why I think there can be an over-emphasis on Chi Sao. But also why I think the Lat Sao example that started this thread is a good idea....if done right. And it doesn't matter what lineage or style of Wing Chun you come from. Chi Sao is not fighting, and not even real sparring. And it shouldn't be looked upon as a substitute for either one. I agree that Chi Sao teaches one how to deal with different types of forces and how to redirect and absorb those forces. But I've seen too many examples of Chi Sao "games" where multi-step moves and counters are used that just would never show up in a real encounter with someone NOT doing Wing Chun. Chi Sao has value. But IMHO spending countless hours of training to learn how to defeat another Wing Chun guy in a Chi Sao exchange using complicated set ups and counters is time wasted that could have been spent on better things.
Exactly.
Chisao is an essential training method, and I would say does encompass the heart and soul of Wing Chun. It's where we learn to apply the principles and techniques of the system. But it tends to become too much of a focus sometimes, and, in my opinion, a bit too competitive.
It's also important to learn to deal with "bad energy," though. One disadvantage of only practicing Chisao is that you're entirely accustomed to skilled Wing Chun practitioners who don't attempt to use unconventional lines, use excess force, or push strongly inwards or outwards. In some cases, it's easier to deal with this kind of energy, but in others, it's more difficult. If you're too used to sticking endlessly to an opponent who doesn't over commit, you won't pickup when you should let go of one who does. Likewise, varying degrees of stiffness, strength, and speed can throw you off as well.
I like to compare Wing Chun to historical fencing -- particularly Lichtenauer's tradition of medieval German longsword, as it adheres to the very same principles that we do in Wing Chun. If you look through the historical treatises, it is interesting to note that most plays deal not with other fencers using the Lichtenauer system, but rather with unskilled or free-fighters, exemplifying how to take advantage of opponents who cut wide, bring their point off the line, or strongly parry outwards, and all those things that Lichtenauer's tradition specifically instructs one not to do. I have seen a select few Sifus put Wing Chun in this sort of context, and comparing it with other styles, and touching on the origin and intent of certain concepts or techniques as they were designed to be applied against other contemporary styles. That sort of breadth of knowledge is invaluable in understanding an art and its application, I think, but is sadly lost on most modern practitioners.
