Paak-da chi-sau entry

[LFJ]

The video isn't a lesson? It's just a light hearted demo showcasing Sifu Fong's skill. I'd imagine that's not how he teaches? IDK, cause he's not my teacher.

Without trying to imagine or assume anything about it, I just see a student trying to figure things out, getting frustrated and asking his teacher many questions, but not getting much of a response; certainly nothing useful anyway...

He's demonstrating controlling the line and using full body structure. What the student is doing, I really could give two sheets about.

In his demonstration, if that's what this is, I see him exhibiting many of the same mistakes as the student. But then, my lineage never plays with these kind of armwrestling logic riddles, which I think are entirely useless for fight training. We're obviously training very different systems though, so it may well be "right" and "good" according to theirs. So, just never mind my opinion I guess.

 

[LFJ]

Now you posted a video of PB previously? So I'm assuming this is how you do chi sao?

I don't know. I didn't post a video of him doing chi-sau, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I noticed he likes to bump people out of chi sao range? Which he's very good at IMO. And it looks like really good full body structured chi sao? I actually have a habit of doing this also. Problem for me is when I bump a non WC guy. Let say MMA guy or kick boxer. I bump them into there power range and I end up chasing after the

It wasn't chi-sau at all. I think the video you saw was just a drill about initially getting one's bearings by pulling back to wu and checking with man, then finding a tactical entry into ideal striking range through interception, and repeating. So there was attacking, pulling back, and attacking again. That's why the range was expanding and contracting. Because the drill was repetitive, not because that's a fighting strategy.


But anyhow, VT is a striking system. Chi-sau is just a training method. There is no "chi-sau" range in free fighting; you're either in ideal striking range for the system, or you're not. And that is neither grappling range nor a kickboxer's power range in my system.

When we use pushing it is to keep the opponent within our ideal striking range while disrupting their balance and facing as we press forward with a ceaseless flow of attacks. It is not to push them beyond ideal striking range, and definitely not into a kickboxer's power range. That would certainly be a mistake. Although, some times in training that may be done just to reset. Some times people see this and mistakenly take it for a strategy.


As far as pushing away, as someone like Gary Lam seems obsessed with, that would be something I'd only use in situations where there are multiple attackers, for example, and they can be pushed into each other and attacked, or I can escape while they're falling over each other; or in more life-threatening situations where an assailant is armed with a deadly weapon and there is a handy wall nearby. Otherwise, launching someone's skull into a brick wall, or tossing them down a flight of stairs is a quick way to get a prison sentence. And I agree, pushing them away for no apparent reason so that you can no longer hit them is pretty stupid.

 

[Vajramusti]

Without trying to imagine or assume anything about it, I just see a student trying to figure things out, getting frustrated and asking his teacher many questions, but not getting much of a response; certainly nothing useful anyway...



In his demonstration, if that's what this is, I see him exhibiting many of the same mistakes as the student. But then, my lineage never plays with these kind of armwrestling logic riddles, which I think are entirely useless for fight training. We're obviously training very different systems though, so it may well be "right" and "good" according to theirs. So, just never mind my opinion I guess.

Without trying to imagine or assume anything about it, I just see a student trying to figure things out, getting frustrated and asking his teacher many questions, but not getting much of a response; certainly nothing useful anyway...



In his demonstration, if that's what this is, I see him exhibiting many of the same mistakes as the student. But then, my lineage never plays with these kind of armwrestling logic riddles, which I think are entirely useless for fight training. We're obviously training very different systems though, so it may well be "right" and "good" according to theirs. So, just never mind my opinion I guess.

 

[Vajramusti]

Opinions--and you have yours. Ok to have different opinions.

 

[Jake104]

I don't know. I didn't post a video of him doing chi-sau, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.



It wasn't chi-sau at all. I think the video you saw was just a drill about initially getting one's bearings by pulling back to wu and checking with man, then finding a tactical entry into ideal striking range through interception, and repeating. So there was attacking, pulling back, and attacking again. That's why the range was expanding and contracting. Because the drill was repetitive, not because that's a fighting strategy.


But anyhow, VT is a striking system. Chi-sau is just a training method. There is no "chi-sau" range in free fighting; you're either in ideal striking range for the system, or you're not. And that is neither grappling range nor a kickboxer's power range in my system.

When we use pushing it is to keep the opponent within our ideal striking range while disrupting their balance and facing as we press forward with a ceaseless flow of attacks. It is not to push them beyond ideal striking range, and definitely not into a kickboxer's power range. That would certainly be a mistake. Although, some times in training that may be done just to reset. Some times people see this and mistakenly take it for a strategy.


As far as pushing away, as someone like Gary Lam seems obsessed with, that would be something I'd only use in situations where there are multiple attackers, for example, and they can be pushed into each other and attacked, or I can escape while they're falling over each other; or in more life-threatening situations where an assailant is armed with a deadly weapon and there is a handy wall nearby. Otherwise, launching someone's skull into a brick wall, or tossing them down a flight of stairs is a quick way to get a prison sentence. And I agree, pushing them away for no apparent reason so that you can no longer hit them is pretty stupid.

I find bumping and pushing causes momentary pauses in forward energy that I can exploit? In free fighting ranges change and usually end up in the clinch. How do you maintain that "ideal striking range"? What if your opponent pushes the clinch? What if he changes levels and shoots in while you're seamlessly attacking him? Do you think your striking alone will stop him from taking you down or throwing you?

If VT is a striking system and chi sao is only a training method. What exactly are you training? Why bridge? Bridging would seem pointless in free fighting if you can maintain that perfect striking range? Just strike then. It would seem to me a better training method would be to spar and train footwork and combinations ? Like the way every other striking system trains on the planet? Why train one way and fight a completely different way?

Chi sao is what makes WC special. It took me awhile to figure that riddle out. Like Joy said WC is very diverse. To each it's own.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Bridging would seem pointless in free fighting if you can maintain that perfect striking range?

When you punch at your opponent, your opponent may

1. dodge your punch,
2. block your punch,
3. wrap your punching arm,

In the 1st case, the striking range is maintained. In both the 2nd and 3rd cases, the "bridge" is built and the clinch range is established. You can either try to

- take advantage on it, or
- avoid it.

IMO, to "take advantage on it" is better than to "avoid it".

 

[Jake104]

When you punch at your opponent, your opponent may

- block your punch (defensive approach),
- wrap your punching arm (offensive approach),

the "bridge" is then established. You can either try to

- take advantage on it, or
- avoid it.

IMO, to "take advantage on it" is better than to "avoid it".

That's also what I'd do. I'd take advantage of it.

 

[Jake104]

When you punch at your opponent, your opponent may

1. dodge your punch,
2. block your punch,
3. wrap your punching arm,

In the 1st case, the striking range is maintained. In both the 2nd and 3rd cases, the "bridge" is built and the clinch range is established. You can either try to

- take advantage on it, or
- avoid it.

IMO, to "take advantage on it" is better than to "avoid it".

This is my point. In fighting your opponent has options too. Chances are you're not going to maintain that perfect striking range. Once you're caught in the clinch. You will need to know the clinch. This is where controlling the line structure and whatever else I said earlier in my previous post Sifu Fong was demonstrating.

 

[Jake104]

I trained today with one of our MMA wrestler/grappler guys. From the clinch we were training single leg takedowns. They are relentless. Wing Chun guys who think they are going to punch or elbow them to stop the take down are lying to themselves. They keep coming and will blow through that with ease. This is where chi sao and controlling COG and all the rest of that good stuff comes in. If you know how to use it properly? So today I had to solve that riddle. A real life reality riddle.

 

[Vajramusti]

I trained today with one of our MMA wrestler/grappler guys. From the clinch we were training single leg takedowns. They are relentless. Wing Chun guys who think they are going to punch or elbow them to stop the take down are lying to themselves. They keep coming and will blow through that with ease. This is where chi sao and controlling COG and all the rest of that good stuff comes in. If you know how to use it properly? So today I had to solve that riddle. A real life reality riddle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------Yep-spot on-you cannot under estimate determined grapplers bent on taking someone down.Lots of wing chunners don't train for this and try to graft bjj or bits of other systems.
But those who understand integrated wing chun structure and motion
can counter and disturb grappling structures and use wing chun attack principles in the process.
I have practiced this against real grapplers and best students and kung fu brothers can do this too.
Learning a little bjj is no defense against a real competent grappler.
The problem is deep because lots of wing chun people even teachers do not sufficiently develop their wing chun structure and the relationship between stability and mobility.
In my second JAMA article on my website there a set of pictures showing me and an all American Greco roman wrestler.

 

[Jake104]

--------------------------------------------------------------------Yep-spot on-you cannot under estimate determined grapplers bent on taking someone down.Lots of wing chunners don't train for this and try to graft bjj or bits of other systems.
But those who understand integrated wing chun structure and motion
can counter and disturb grappling structures and use wing chun attack principles in the process.
I have practiced this against real grapplers and best students and kung fu brothers can do this too.
Learning a little bjj is no defense against a real competent grappler.
The problem is deep because lots of wing chun people even teachers do not sufficiently develop their wing chun structure and the relationship between stability and mobility.
In my second JAMA article on my website there a set of pictures showing me and an all American Greco roman wrestler.

Yes yes and yes! I really get it now. My current teacher does multiple arts. But he teaches me using my WC principles. Like today using Chum sao idea or energy for single leg defense. Using it to collapse structure right off the get go. And before the grapplers jump in and say my training partner probably wasn't doing a single leg right. Well he was. Grappling is his art. That was part of the lesson also. Doing a single leg from a clinch properly.

He showed us how if done improperly certain grappling counters will work. But if done right even a sprawl won't. The difference was guy going for single goes for right leg with right arm while controlling left overhook and pulling down on that arm. Which collapses hips and not allowing sprawl. In demos a lot of times the left overhook gets neglected

. But for me, like I said. He teaches me how to use my WC energy and structure properly to achieve same thing. That's what I see in Sifu Fong's video.

 

[Vajramusti]

Yes yes and yes! I really get it now. My current teacher does multiple arts. But he teaches me using my WC principles. Like today using Chum sao idea or energy for single leg defense. Using it to collapse structure right of the get go. And before the grapplers jump in and say guy probably wasn't doing a single leg right. Well he was. Grappling is his art. That was part of the lesson also. Doing a single leg from a clinch properly.

He showed us how if done improperly certain grappling counters will work. But if done right even a sprawl won't. The difference was guy going for single goes for right leg with right arm while controlling left overhook and pulling down on that arm. Which collapses hips and not allowing sprawl. In demos a lot of times the left overhook gets neglected. Wing Chun when done pr works. But for me, like I said. He teaches me how to use my WC energy and structure properly to achieve same thing. That's what I see in Sifu Fong's video.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that your teacher and you are on the right track.
Good wishes.

 

[Jake104]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that your teacher and you are on the right track.
Good wishes.

Thank you!

 

[LFJ]

I find bumping and pushing causes momentary pauses in forward energy that I can exploit?

Whoever's doing it to you is doing it wrong then; at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

How do you maintain that "ideal striking range"?

We use tactics to turn the opponent or let them overshoot and turn themselves so we fight their flanks, taking away some of their weapons, disrupting their balance, and preventing them from recovering their facing and countering so effectively.

Do you think your striking alone will stop him from taking you down or throwing you?

Am I coming off that stupid or amateur to you in my posts? There is a lot more to VT than simple chain punching.

If VT is a striking system and chi sao is only a training method. What exactly are you training?

Coordination, balance, distancing, fluidity of action and reflexes.

The name "sticking hands" is merely visual. From an outside perspective, it may look like we're sticking to each other's arms. And indeed, many have run with that idea and made all sorts of fighting theories out of it. Really, we are exchanging force with a partner to help each other develop the above attributes into our own behaviors. It's not about fighting each other yet at that stage.

Why bridge?

I don't share your definition of bridge and I don't do what you call bridging. It's not a verb in Chinese either. It refers to the quickest and most direct line to the target. Like taking a bridge to cross a river, rather than walking all the way around it. At times a bridge will appear, and we'll cross it (taking advantage of open attack lines). Other times there is no bridge, so we create it ourselves (cutting the way, creating superior angles).

Why train one way and fight a completely different way?

The VT system is a training progression. Forms > chi-sau > gwo-sau > gong-sau (free sparring and fighting).

When we find errors revealed under pressure in free sparring and fighting, we drop back to an earlier stage to iron things out, then return to free fighting. At higher skill levels, most training time is spent in gwo-sau, closer to free fighting, but still mutual to train out our mistakes. Sparring and fighting are mostly done outside of training time, but the system is self-corrective so we will recognize our errors when they are made and know which stage to go to in training in order to fix them.

Back in the YM / WSL school days, not a lot of guys went out to test their skills, so their training really didn't have much of a reference point, and chi-sau become an experimental lab of sorts where people with no fighting experience came up with all sorts of sticky-hand theories. But that generally leads to disaster when one focuses on trying to establish arm contact to feel and sense and so on while the other guy is just focusing on knocking your head off.

We don't take chi-sau into fighting because it's a mutual development drill that can't be done with a non-compliant enemy. But then, you and I apparently have entirely different ideas about what chi-sau training is for, and what is taken from it, so from your point of view that might sound crazy. We train different systems.

 

[Jake104]

Whoever's doing it to you is doing it wrong then; at the wrong time and in the wrong way.



We use tactics to turn the opponent or let them overshoot and turn themselves so we fight their flanks, taking away some of their weapons, disrupting their balance, and preventing them from recovering their facing and countering so effectively.



Am I coming off that stupid or amateur to you in my posts? There is a lot more to VT than simple chain punching.



Coordination, balance, distancing, fluidity of action and reflexes.

The name "sticking hands" is merely visual. From an outside perspective, it may look like we're sticking to each other's arms. And indeed, many have run with that idea and made all sorts of fighting theories out of it. Really, we are exchanging force with a partner to help each other develop the above attributes into our own behaviors. It's not about fighting each other yet at that stage.



I don't share your definition of bridge and I don't do what you call bridging. It's not a verb in Chinese either. It refers to the quickest and most direct line to the target. Like taking a bridge to cross a river, rather than walking all the way around it. At times a bridge will appear, and we'll cross it (taking advantage of open attack lines). Other times there is no bridge, so we create it ourselves (cutting the way, creating superior angles).



The VT system is a training progression. Forms > chi-sau > gwo-sau > gong-sau (free sparring and fighting).

When we find errors revealed under pressure in free sparring and fighting, we drop back to an earlier stage to iron things out, then return to free fighting. At higher skill levels, most training time is spent in gwo-sau, closer to free fighting, but still mutual to train out our mistakes. Sparring and fighting are mostly done outside of training time, but the system is self-corrective so we will recognize our errors when they are made and know which stage to go to in training in order to fix them.

Back in the YM / WSL school days, not a lot of guys went out to test their skills, so their training really didn't have much of a reference point, and chi-sau become an experimental lab of sorts where people with no fighting experience came up with all sorts of sticky-hand theories. But that generally leads to disaster when one focuses on trying to establish arm contact to feel and sense and so on while the other guy is just focusing on knocking your head off.

We don't take chi-sau into fighting because it's a mutual development drill that can't be done with a non-compliant enemy. But then, you and I apparently have entirely different ideas about what chi-sau training is for, and what is taken from it, so from your point of view that might sound crazy. We train different systems.

Can you post some free fighting videos of you or your students please? I'm still learning and I'd like to see maybe what I might be missing? I'm very visual. So it's hard for me to understand what you mean without actually seeing it? Otherwise for me it's just words and I may interpret it in the wrong way. I think a video will help me see what you are explaining. I'd really appreciate it. Specifically free sparring starting from a realistic distance and not from crossing hands or rolling? Thank you.

 

[Jake104]

"Am I coming off that stupid or amateur to you in my posts? There is a lot more to VT than simple chain punching."

Of coarse not. But I have no idea who you are? I don't know your background, experience or skill level? I'd like too? You seem like a nice person.

 

[LFJ]

I don't teach and don't make videos myself, but I think some of what I'm talking about can be seen in, for example, that gwo-sau video I posted on the other thread, reposted below for easy reference. You may have to use the play speed feature to slow it down and see exactly what's happening, but you will notice things I mentioned like cutting off attacks, turning them, disrupting their balance and facing, etc., all while striking.

Granted this is only a drill, and the partner always comes in with paak-da on the lead arm to start. But I think you can see what I refer to. These are skills and tactics that get carried over into free fighting, and maybe you can imagine how. You will notice no attempt to stick or feel– things there are no time for at speed– only interception and sudden displacement of limbs to clear the way for striking. That's good and usable VT in my opinion.

Another clear example of "cutting the way" to reduce their weapons, and prevent recovery and effective countering. It's a well-developed tactical striking system, not sticking, grappling, or energy riddle solving. You'll never see them standing around holding each other's arms and thinking about how to deal with each other's energy as in the Fong video. I don't think that has any value for fight training. At least, it's not my cup of tea.

 

[wckf92]

LFJ and Jake104...you guys are actually discussing the same thing; however...
1) it depends on ones definition of the term "chi sau / sticking hands", and also
2) your interpretation of what that drill does for the WC/VT'er.
For example: imho the "drill" of "chi sau'ing" teaches one (ones ENTIRE body) how to manage forces/pressures/energies from his training partner. Yes, everyone knows (or should know) that the classical two arm chi sau drill is NOT fighting. However, that drill (when trained properly and with the right mindset and training methodology) is supposed to ingrain into the WC/VT practitioner the skill of how to manage forces he (his arms/body/structure) is receiving.
3) bayer's clip: watch what happens at the :18 - :19 second mark. bayer, at that moment, IS DOING chi sau. His left arm get's Pak'd (ie a force or pressure is applied to his left arm near the elbow. He interprets that pressure on his arm (note: this is the moment that the dreaded "sticking" or "energy riddle" happens)...then uses footwork to manage that pressure and get a different angle...all while bringing up a secondary hand (in this case Wu sau) to cover his opponents incoming punch. He continues to use chi sau in the next few seconds because he enters in and punches to his opponents face...he "feels" something pressuring his punch offline...he interprets that pressure and his punching hand becomes a pulling hand to clear that obstacle out of the way.
It's all chi sau. I think the PB folks take such an issue with the "sticking" part because they define the period of time in a literal fashion when this is not the case at all. Bayer did have an energy riddle to solve at the 18-19 second mark...at his skill level it only took him nanoseconds to solve, but it (the momentary connection of limbs/"stick") was there...on PB's elbow.
Now, Jake104 uses his interpretation of the skill of chi sau in the clinch. Well, all a clinch is is simply the two armed chi sau platform collapsed slightly and at much closer distance. It's all chi sau.
sorry for the long post...

 

[LFJ]

3) bayer's clip: watch what happens at the :18 - :19 second mark. bayer, at that moment, IS DOING chi sau. His left arm get's Pak'd (ie a force or pressure is applied to his left arm near the elbow. He interprets that pressure on his arm (note: this is the moment that the dreaded "sticking" or "energy riddle" happens)...then uses footwork to manage that pressure and get a different angle...all while bringing up a secondary hand (in this case Wu sau) to cover his opponents incoming punch.

I think this is quite a reach. It is nothing like what the guys were doing in the Fong video before. In fact, one could react to that slap on the arm in a similar manner and not even know VT. It's just stepping out, shifting and checking the punch. Relating this to energy-riddle type chi-sau is reaching.

He continues to use chi sau in the next few seconds because he enters in and punches to his opponents face...he "feels" something pressuring his punch offline...he interprets that pressure and his punching hand becomes a pulling hand to clear that obstacle out of the way.

Interesting how you know what he feels. In fact, the opposite is happening. It's his punch that is intercepting and cutting his partner's punch off the line. The jat+punch follow up is to further prevent recovery and capacity to counter while continuing his own attack, as opposed to just chain punching into the gap made by the first punch, leaving the partner space to bring his arms up to recover position and stop the flow of incoming attacks.

Bayer did have an energy riddle to solve at the 18-19 second mark...at his skill level it only took him nanoseconds to solve, but it (the momentary connection of limbs/"stick") was there...on PB's elbow.

The definition of "stick" is to remain attached by adhesion. The guy just slapped his arm away. Nothing stuck, and PB didn't do any sticking. By your definition, punching someone in the face could be called sticking. But any form of contact is not sticking. Not even the terminology works in this theory...

What the guys in the Fong video were doing was sticking and trying to solve energy riddles, because they were remaining attached to each others arms and thinking about how to deal with the energy in order to divert and get through. That is not seen in the PB clip. And even in chi-sau drilling, the sticking merely happens because partners have mutually agreed to exchange force in such a format, but not for the sake of sticking and feeling energy and doing things with it.

 

[Vajramusti]

I think this is quite a reach. It is nothing like what the guys were doing in the Fong video before. In fact, one could react to that slap on the arm in a similar manner and not even know VT. It's just stepping out, shifting and checking the punch. Relating this to energy-riddle type chi-sau is reaching.



Interesting how you know what he feels. In fact, the opposite is happening. It's his punch that is intercepting and cutting his partner's punch off the line. The jat+punch follow up is to further prevent recovery and capacity to counter while continuing his own attack, as opposed to just chain punching into the gap made by the first punch, leaving the partner space to bring his arms up to recover position and stop the flow of incoming attacks.



The definition of "stick" is to remain attached by adhesion. The guy just slapped his arm away. Nothing stuck, and PB didn't do any sticking. By your definition, punching someone in the face could be called sticking. But any form of contact is not sticking. Not even the terminology works in this theory...

What the guys in the Fong video were doing was sticking and trying to solve energy riddles, because they were remaining attached to each others arms and thinking about how to deal with the energy in order to divert and get through. That is not seen in the PB clip. And even in chi-sau drilling, the sticking merely happens because partners have mutually agreed to exchange force in such a format, but not for the sake of sticking and feeling energy and doing things with it.