Geezer this post is in your honor, happy belated birthday by the way!
The question has been asked "What does Wing Chun need in the 21st century?" My answer, eliminate Chi Sau or at least minimize its "importance" as a litmus into the efficacy of martial prowess. My questions to Chunners everywhere is:
1. Do you truly believe that Chi Sau is the "Key" to making Wing Chun work?
2. If Chi Sau is really such an effective training process why don't arts like Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling or Jujutsu (all arts that have proven themselves effective in sport and street fighting) adopt the method?
3. For all those that say "Chi Sau isn't fighting", then why act like it is and put such emphasis on it as to make it integral to the functionality of the art?
Let the sh!t show begin! Geezer you're welcome, lol.
Thanks for posting this. I'm enjoying the view as an outsider, and have an observation (then some input that mirrors what some others have said). The vigor of some of the early responses in this thread suggest this is a sore spot for some. There's probably a reason for that, and it's probably worth some exploration within the WC community. I think it's an interesting question/proposition.
Whenever I see chi sau videos, I'm immediately reminded of some practices common in the aiki arts, and I think some of the issues are similar. There are drills/exercises that show up to varying degrees in different styles and different schools, which have some of the same focus (a bit internal, develop "feel", mimic specific movements that may or may not be used in combat, etc.). Where those drills are used "properly" (the definition of which can vary based on the needs and purpose of each group), they are beneficial. Where those drills become the focus, they actually become detrimental.
When a drill is detrimental, removing it is beneficial - even if it's part of the recognizable identity of the style. Aikido schools that over-emphasize light-touch drills (I don't know the name they use for the drill I have in mind, so can't search up a video for it) develop students who
depend upon light touch and can't work with heavy touch (meaning what they do only works when the input is a gentle, flowing attack). In those schools, eliminating the drill would actually be useful, because it would be likely to force them to give more time to other aspects of their training. In schools where the light-touch drill is used as a way to soften beginners so they aren't dependent upon muscular exertion, or for advanced students to polish technique, the drill can be highly beneficial.
I wouldn't argue that drill should be removed from Aikido, in general. I would argue it should be removed from some schools, because it doesn't do what they think it is doing, and actually does the opposite.