To stick or not to stick

[futsaowingchun]

To Stick or Not To Stick ?

The wrong application of Chi Sao is believing you can stick to your opponent while fighting.

Well, unless your opponent is playing the same game,it's not possible. While your trying to stick or stay connected to your opponent bridge he will be striking you..You will be at least a half a beat behind him at all times, however, having a high level of skill in Chi Sao, can gives you a big advantage. But IMO to apply it that way is a gross misunderstanding and a mistake..You should be hitting your opponent not trying to play a Chi Sao game. Use your skills to strike your opponent and don't waste anytime..Use the skills you've developed to assist you to control and interrupt your opponent's movement, but your primary focus should be on striking him. Don't look for a bridge to cross over,just hit your opponent.

I guess Wong Shun Leung said it best "don't chase the hands"

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Leg stick = Detect where your opponent's leg is.
Arm stick = Detect where your opponent's arm is.

His right leg "stick" on his opponent's right leg.

His right hand "stick" on his opponent's right wrist.

His left arm "stick" on his opponent's right arm.

 

[DanT]

I agree that the primary focus should be on the strike. The pin / trap only assists in achieving this. When you pin the opponents arm against their body (pak da), or pull their arm down (lap da), you are negating one of their limbs from striking you. Combine this with fighting on the outside gate, you stop both their arms from being able to strike you temporarily. I like to classify sticking into three different catergories:

The Reactionary Pin: the opponent throws a punch, you cover it with Pak Sao and side step to the outside, and at the same time strike them low with your free arm. As the opponent retracts their arm, you follow it in, pining it against their body, and striking them in the head with your free arm.

The Initiative Pin: while fighting the opponent, they leave their lead hand too far out, you do a lap da, pining their lead arm down, and punching them in the head with your free arm

The Pin By Default: as you square off with your opponent, you seize the opportunity and hit him with a jab in the mouth which stuns him (freezing and therefore pinning his arms by default), and follow this immediately with a cross to his mouth, which knocks his teeth out.

Striking is always the end goal, the question is how do we get there in a way that reduces the chance of us trading blows with the opponent? The Wing Chun I learned promotes 3 ways of doing this:

1. Fight on the outside gate
2. Pin the lead arm and leg
3. Strike to knockout or maim, not just to injure

By successfully doing these things, you:

1. Negate the opponents back leg and arm
2. Negate the opponents lead leg and arm
3. Fight Quicker (less chance to get hit)

 

[hkreporting]

There is a WC maxim about stickiness that might be of interest: “Yuen Kuen, Kan Jaang, Chi Sun Suet”, roughly translated from the Cantonese as:
Long range use punch
Middle range use elbow
Sticky body takedown

I think in WC there is a difference between chi sao, which is a sensitivity drill, and the concept of stickiness, a fighting strategy whose aim is for you to stay in contact with (stick to) your opponent, preferably at close range (elbow striking, takedowns, leg sweeps -- all of these techniques are taught in the forms and wooden dummy set). The idea is that by feeling your opponent, you know what he's going to do and can better respond/counteract than if you were at a distance or not in contact. Without this close range fighting and stickiness, it's not really WC. While striking is one aim, I think the ultimate aim of WC is to destroy your opponent's structure, which requires other techniques carried out at a closer range. FYI, the new issue of WC Illustrated has an article about distancing that talks about this a little bit.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When you pin the opponents arm against their body (pak da), or pull their arm down (lap da), you are negating one of their limbs from striking you. Combine this with fighting on the outside gate, you stop both their arms from being able to strike you temporarily.

Agree with you 100% there. To guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm may be the most difference between CMA and boxing. If you can use 1 arm to control both your opponent's arms, when you punch him with your free arm, he will have no free arm to block your punch.

In

- boxing, you try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you.
- CMA, you try to hit your opponent while he can't hit you.

 

[geezer]

In
- boxing, you try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you.
- CMA, you try to hit your opponent while he can't hit you.

I disagree. I think both Western boxers and traditional Chinese boxers want to (as you said above):

-- hit their opponent while they can't hit you (the technical ideal)

...but they also realize that in an actual fight against a worthy opponent, the best you can realistically accomplish is to (again, your words):

--hit your opponent more than he can hit you.

In WC, we have bare hands and can sometimes use one arm to control two (yat fook yee) at least for an instant. In boxing, with gloves and no grabbing allowed, position (range and angling) is stressed to achieve an advantage. And in CMA too.

 

[Danny T]

In

- boxing, you try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you.
- CMA, you try to hit your opponent while he can't hit you.

Not so much. The objective in boxing is to win the fight by hitting and not getting hit. However, in boxing there is the acceptance that you will get hit. If it were, as you say, to try to hit your opponent more than he can hit you boxers would simply faceoff and just punch rock' em - soc' em. Footwork would not be a priority.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you understand that when you pull your opponent into your punch, that will be A + B > A. In order to "pull", you have to "stick" first.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you understand that when you pull your opponent into your punch, that will be A + B > A. In order to "pull", you have to "stick" first.

Not always. Pulling while punching changes the mechanics of the punch, and can reduce the power delivered. the most powerful strikes tend to come from a rooted back foot. Pulling works best with a rooted front foot (which does need to be ahead of the other).

 

[DanT]

Not always. Pulling while punching changes the mechanics of the punch, and can reduce the power delivered. the most powerful strikes tend to come from a rooted back foot. Pulling works best with a rooted front foot (which does need to be ahead of the other).

I don't know about other styles, but in Wing Chun, we utilize the pull as a crank to help turn our hips. We try to keep the arm mechanic for the punch the same regardless of what the other arm is doing (with natural minor adjustments of course). You're right about the rooted front foot though. If you keep more of your weight on the back leg (like we do in Wing Chun), then it shouldn't be much of an issue.

 

[Anarax]

To Stick or Not To Stick ?

The wrong application of Chi Sao is believing you can stick to your opponent while fighting.

Well, unless your opponent is playing the same game,it's not possible. While your trying to stick or stay connected to your opponent bridge he will be striking you..You will be at least a half a beat behind him at all times, however, having a high level of skill in Chi Sao, can gives you a big advantage. But IMO to apply it that way is a gross misunderstanding and a mistake..You should be hitting your opponent not trying to play a Chi Sao game. Use your skills to strike your opponent and don't waste anytime..Use the skills you've developed to assist you to control and interrupt your opponent's movement, but your primary focus should be on striking him. Don't look for a bridge to cross over,just hit your opponent.

I guess Wong Shun Leung said it best "don't chase the hands"

I think a major problem with chi sao is how it's taught today. Chi sao is a sensitivity drill, it teaches you how to handle an opponent up close and knowing what to do at that range. Being able to feel your opponents movements and act accordingly, either offensively or defensively.

I've been taught different versions of chi sao, but I don't think they all embody what it's supposed to be. I've seen chi sao where there is no concept of center line nor structure, yet they focus on striking. I've seen chi sao were everything is allowed from finger grabbing to sweeping. I think the more free play and techniques you add to chi sao the more it detracts from what it's supposed to be. Chi sao is a drill, yet people treat it like sparring, when it's treated like sparring neither partners develops the sensitivity that the drill is supposed to train.

 

[Eric_H]

I think a major problem with chi sao is how it's taught today. Chi sao is a sensitivity drill,

No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.

 

[Anarax]

No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.

Could you elaborate? I've seen numerous kung fu schools that don't spar, they do chi sao instead. I think this approach produces students that don't know how to spar and are horrible at chi sao. They lack sensitivity, thus they look stiff and rigid. Just because a drill has combative elements or develops a fighting skill doesn't mean it's suppose to be sparring itself.

 

[Martial D]

No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.

I would have to disagree with you there. As Anarax said, chi sao sparring isn't really useful(in my experience anyway), although it can be fun to poke and tap when openings(holes in sensitivity) happen. Chi Sao builds the sensitivity needed for that place you want to be, moments in time, when you can trap an arm and get the angle.

 

[geezer]

No, no it isn't. If you're doing it just for "sensitivity" you've missed the boat IMO.

I don't know how to respond to that. I mean, what do people mean by "sensitivity" anyway? Different groups seem to use that term in such different ways. Unless I know what they mean by "sensitivity, I can't agree or disagree.

Guess I'm not exactly the sensitive type!

 

[DanT]

I don't know how to respond to that. I mean, what do people mean by "sensitivity" anyway? Different groups seem to use that term in such different ways. Unless I know what they mean by "sensitivity, I can't agree or disagree.

Guess I'm not exactly the sensitive type!

You develop sensitivity of:

1. Your centre of gravity and stance
2. Your opponents centre of gravity
3. The quality of your attacks
4. The quality of your defences
5. Your "Jian Dai Lik" (low elbow power)
6. Your arm position (proprioception)
7. Your opponents arm position

 

[geezer]

You develop sensitivity of:

1. Your centre of gravity and stance
2. Your opponents centre of gravity
3. The quality of your attacks
4. The quality of your defences
5. Your "Jian Dai Lik" (low elbow power)
6. Your arm position (proprioception)
7. Your opponents arm position

Many of these characteristics are also trained in other fighting arts, especially (in my experience) in grappling exercises. I cannot see how one could discount the value of developing such skills in application.

 

[DanT]

Many of these characteristics are also trained in other fighting arts, especially (in my experience) in grappling exercises. I cannot see how one could discount the value of developing such skills in application.

They are of utmost value. In terms of Ip Man Wing Chun, Chi Sau is a fundamental element to develop these skills. In addition to Chi Sau, Sparring is also important as it teaches:

1. Distance Judgement
2. Footwork
3. Leg Work

 

[KPM]

Many of these characteristics are also trained in other fighting arts, especially (in my experience) in grappling exercises. I cannot see how one could discount the value of developing such skills in application.

I agree! The area that I typically take issue with is when Wing Chun groups seem to view Chi Sau as their entire goal for training and a "thing" unto itself rather than just one more aspect of the training. All of the things mentioned can be developed without learning complicated and involved choreographed Chi Sau exchanges.

 

[geezer]

...All of the things mentioned can be developed without learning complicated and involved choreographed Chi Sau exchanges.

Yes, but complicated and involved chi-sau exchanges are especially good at keeping students paying for lessons year after year after year.

At least it worked on me. I'm still continually learning, forgetting and re-learning the byzantine chi-sau curriculum of my lineage hoping to eventually get promoted and then, at last, get a certificate that will make me a genuine bad-hass! If anybody ever challenges me, I'll whip out that certificate and give them vicious paper-cuts until the acknowledge my absolute mastery.