The moment people talk about superior chi sao, they have not understood the purpose of it. Chi sao is sparring. Its learning attributes whilst testing your structures and techniques under pressure.
To say one group of schools is better at chi sao than another is again going back to the style vs style debate. Better methods of training, sure. But not all wing chun schools are aiming for the same thing. Ip Chun for example has a nice documentary on youtube on how he doesnt use wing chun for fighting or combat.
So straight away, we have a group who will be using their chi sao for an entirely different purpose. Another group may use their chi sao to develop stick, sensitivity and technique.
Another group may use it as full on sparring. In Kamon, for example, we have an 'anything goes' attitude, in that eventually, you should welcome any type of attack from your partner in chi sao, even if they are non-WC moves.
Leung Tings group has always had controversy surrounding them, despite producing some great talent, and they are part of the reason for the politics that exists in WC
To say one group of schools is better at chi sao than another is again going back to the style vs style debate. Better methods of training, sure. But not all wing chun schools are aiming for the same thing. Ip Chun for example has a nice documentary on youtube on how he doesnt use wing chun for fighting or combat.
So straight away, we have a group who will be using their chi sao for an entirely different purpose. Another group may use their chi sao to develop stick, sensitivity and technique.
Another group may use it as full on sparring. In Kamon, for example, we have an 'anything goes' attitude, in that eventually, you should welcome any type of attack from your partner in chi sao, even if they are non-WC moves.
Leung Tings group has always had controversy surrounding them, despite producing some great talent, and they are part of the reason for the politics that exists in WC