What percentage of lesson time do you spend on chi Sao?

[KPM]

I think I answered that question adequately.

---This was your previous answer: "It depends why and how they are used."

---Compare that to this:
To spell it out again, it really depends on the intended result. If your goal is control, tying up, offbalancing or otherwise affecting the body of the opponent then hand chasing it is. If your goal is hitting then hand chasing it is not. VT is a system which imposes control not by grabbing hold and controlling (i.e. grappling), but by the use of attacking angles, stepping, pressure, eating space, closing options, automatic covering while hitting, intelligent recycling of strikes. It requires the correct thinking to work. It utilises a particular strategy, which is entrained and internalised by the individual using abstract drills. It is not application based and drills do not relate directly to fighting. There is no searching for arm contact in VT.

---And yet you think you answered adequately the first time? But anyway, thanks for the eventual answer!

---I am still not clear though....does WSLTV actually use things like Bong Sau, Lop Sau, Lan Sau, Gum Sau, etc in the fight? And if you do, how do you use them without contacting and controlling the opponent to some extent? And controlling, tying up, off-balancing and affecting the body of the opponent is NOT "hand chasing" by anyone's definition but yours. Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"???

 

[guy b.]

does WSLTV actually use things like Bong Sau, Lop Sau, Lan Sau, Gum Sau, etc in the fight? And if you do, how do you use them without contacting and controlling the opponent to some extent?

I don't speak for all of WSLVT. In the VT I practice actions like these are used to clear the way for striking. They are not first actions. Once the way is clear striking resumes. The way can be closed in a basic physical way, for example an arm in the way, or it can be closed in terms of space and timing. As long as the intent is to continue to pressure and strike then not hand chasing.

And controlling, tying up, off-balancing and affecting the body of the opponent is NOT "hand chasing" by anyone's definition but yours.

I wouldn't say that.

Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"???

It appears that way. It is very difficult to get a clear answer about what force flow is for however, so I could be wrong. I get the impression that the idea isn't fully developed yet.

 

[LFJ]

---Why is that never part of any of Phillip Bayer's many videos?

It's his right to show or not show anything he chooses.

---Well then, I would say you don't have a very efficient system.

You don't really know anything about it to have a clue how efficient it is.

Your dummy form is twice as long as it needs to be for what you are getting out of it!!

What are we getting out of each section? What parts are unnecessary?

It sounds like you don't have a very good way to transition Chi Sau skills to fighting if you never challenge each other as an "opponent" in Chi Sau/Gor Sau.

I just explained how you're thinking in the opposite direction. Our chi-sau / gwo-sau is primarily corrective, designed to train out errors in various fighting behaviors.

Free sparring/ fighting experience is essential to discover errors at higher stress levels. We then go from free fighting back to chi-sau.

We are making no attempt to develop sticking and sensitivity skills to be taken into fighting.

You have a whole lot of unneeded things in the SNT, CK, and BG forms

Such as? I'm pretty sure you have no idea how our forms are interpreted and why each part is important.

As with every other part of the system, you have no clue what it's about. Your criticisms are entirely empty. All because we don't deal in applications or do competitive chi-sau.

 

[LFJ]

With the hands, a bridge is formed anytime you strike and you meet an obstacle in the way,

That's the basic problem with this definition.

Does a bridge ever obstruct your crossing of a river? The river, the mess of arms in the way is the obstacle. The attack line to the target is the bridge, the way to go.

How could an obstacle be a bridge? Makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I'm not trying to pick apart an esoteric concept. It's clear and simple, just flawed terminology.

 

[LFJ]

We can go on all day. But without bridge concept why train using chi Sao. If you share nothing when touching you are way better of training using other methods.

We have a bridge concept but it's entirely different and we are trainings for different ends. It's a great method for its purpose which is not accomplished by other methods.

 

[geezer]

Maybe the Wing Chun forum could do with some sub forums dedicated to which branch/lineage a particular member practices. Perhaps then there would not be so many de-constructive comments.

I disagree! (Obvious irony intended ). Seriously, one of the most worthwhile things about this forum is exchanging information and opinions with WC people who have different experiences and a different perspective. I mean who wants to live in an "echo chamber" where everybody agrees?

The problem isn't the difference in perspectives, it's a problem of arrogance. Certain individuals are really not here to discuss, but rather to preach the gospel of their particular lineage. And then others take the bait.

We don't need to split the forum, we just have to stop taking the bait and feeding into trollish behavior.

 

[Transk53]

I disagree! (Obvious irony intended ). Seriously, one of the most worthwhile things about this forum is exchanging information and opinions with WC people who have different experiences and a different perspective. I mean who wants to live in an "echo chamber" where everybody agrees?

The problem isn't the difference in perspectives, it's a problem of arrogance. Certain individuals are really not here to discuss, but rather to preach the gospel of their particular lineage. And then others take the bait.

We don't need to split the forum, we just have to stop taking the bait and feeding into trollish behavior.

Fair point and a agreeable one.

 

[guy b.]

I just explained how you're thinking in the opposite direction. Our chi-sau / gwo-sau is primarily corrective, designed to train out errors in various fighting behaviors.

Free sparring/ fighting experience is essential to discover errors at higher stress levels. We then go from free fighting back to chi-sau.

We are making no attempt to develop sticking and sensitivity skills to be taken into fighting.

This is the difference in approach, concisely stated

 

[Phobius]

This is the difference in approach, concisely stated

So how do you correct your errors in fighting behavior using chi sau? It was clearly stated that chi sau is not sparring which I whole heartedly agree on. Plus your VT does not believe in bridge and as such sticking to is not used in chi sau for you.

So how do you use chi sau to iron out errors?

 

[KPM]

That's the basic problem with this definition.

Does a bridge ever obstruct your crossing of a river? The river, the mess of arms in the way is the obstacle. The attack line to the target is the bridge, the way to go.

How could an obstacle be a bridge? Makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I'm not trying to pick apart an esoteric concept. It's clear and simple, just flawed terminology.

You are thinking too specifically. "Bridge" does not have to mean the architectural structure you are referring too. "Bridge" simply means a connection....as in to "bridge a gap" or a "bridging" statement in a written thesis, or the dental appliance called a "bridge." There is nothing wrong with the terminology.....just your insistence on what you think it means.

 

[KPM]

I practice actions like these are used to clear the way for striking. They are not first actions. Once the way is clear striking resumes. The way can be closed in a basic physical way, for example an arm in the way, or it can be closed in terms of space and timing. As long as the intent is to continue to pressure and strike then not hand chasing.

---Ok. That is clear enough. But I would still disagree with your definition of "hand chasing.



It appears that way. It is very difficult to get a clear answer about what force flow is for however, so I could be wrong. I get the impression that the idea isn't fully developed yet.

---I wasn't referring to any "forceflow." I was simply referring to Alan's ability to break his opponent's structure and balance and move him about at will. You think that is "hand chasing"?? This was my question above: Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"??? It had nothing to do with "forceflow."

 

[LFJ]

So how do you correct your errors in fighting behavior using chi sau? It was clearly stated that chi sau is not sparring which I whole heartedly agree on. Plus your VT does not believe in bridge and as such sticking to is not used in chi sau for you.

So how do you use chi sau to iron out errors?

We take whatever the error is and isolate it in corrective drills, then slowly increase stress levels until we go back to free fighting and see if we have improved or fixed the problem.

The arm contact isn't about fighting methods. It helps force correctness like the dummy.

IMO, this use of chi-sau is far more beneficial than testing fighting techniques that only work in that unrealistic environment.

 

[LFJ]

You are thinking too specifically. "Bridge" does not have to mean the architectural structure you are referring too. "Bridge" simply means a connection....as in to "bridge a gap" or a "bridging" statement in a written thesis, or the dental appliance called a "bridge." There is nothing wrong with the terminology.....just your insistence on what you think it means.

It does in Chinese. Kiu has only one meaning and it's neither a verb nor a metaphor for anything other than a path.

 

[Phobius]

IMO, this use of chi-sau is far more beneficial than testing fighting techniques that only work in that unrealistic environment.

So you are testing techniques in an unrealistic environment, because you or guy said earlier that chi-sau is not punching. There are no opponents. This means you test body structure and techniques. Without the techniques there can be no structure after all, or you mean to tell me it is just for stance training? And if you utilize techniques without punching to clear path to punching, does this mean you never punch but just continue to clear a path?

In what way does your chi-sau become more realistic to fighting than anything else? Besides unless you did not know. All chi-sau is about learning to clear a path to your opponent. So all pretty much with a few exceptions train it with same intent and purpose. You are not a special snow flake in this case. And majority of WC have "techniques" to clear path, but to think a technique only serves a single purpose is something we let beginners do. Ever thought why such a small idea as SNT is something mastered only by experts? There is so much more than what meets the eyes.

Some however think, individuals, that chi-sau resembles fighting. Others think it teaches values such as sense, and yes this I must say before you write about it. It works, it is explainable, it is not magical, and it is easily tested and validated. But I personally do not think chi-sau is fighting/sparring and thinks such ideas are hurtful to the art.

 

[Phobius]

It does in Chinese. Kiu has only one meaning and it's neither a verb nor a metaphor for anything other than a path.

Bridge is a commonly used term in WC. You are free to change that if you wish, but for sake of discussion keep with terminology that is understood or write it path (bridge/kiu) or whatnot so it is clearer.

Your main purpose should be to make yourself understood. And arguing terminology does not lead to development of arts. Nothing changes other than how people can understand you. Just like I can call you "You" or "LFJ", different names but it is all the same in sake of discussion.

 

[guy b.]

What are we getting out of each section? What parts are unnecessary?

KPM?

 

[guy b.]

I wasn't referring to any "forceflow." I was simply referring to Alan's ability to break his opponent's structure and balance and move him about at will.

It is difficult to know what Force Flow™ is. It is demonstrated by bouncing the opponent around in chi sau.

Do you really watch Alan Orr's videos where he is moving people around and off-balancing them and think that he is "hand chasing"???

Again it depends what is being trained during this kind of chi sau. I have tried to ask what this is but no coherent answer has been provided. Usually Alan derides me for not understanding, which doesn't promote understanding.

You appear to suggest that this kind of chi sau training is application based, and that the intention is to develop skills used directly in fighting when arms are joined, in which case yes it would be hand chasing. But I don't know if you are correct, since you are not Alan.

It had nothing to do with "forceflow."

Alan himself would probably disagree, given that the clips are demonstrations of Force Flow™

 

[guy b.]

So you are testing techniques in an unrealistic environment, because you or guy said earlier that chi-sau is not punching.

Chi sau is not testing. Re-read what LFJ wrote. Chi sau is error correction. like the dummy. Sparing and fighting is testing - this is where errors become visible.

you mean to tell me it is just for stance training?

There is a large element of movement, structure, and force generation training in poon sau and chi sau. Errors in these elements exposed during testing is part of what chi sau corrects. The arm bridges utilised in chi sau are not literal techniques to be used in fighting. They are training wheels to allow you to get your balance before trying again to ride the bike without.

In what way does your chi-sau become more realistic to fighting than anything else?

Chi sau is a training drill, not fighting

all pretty much with a few exceptions train it with same intent and purpose.

From the discussion here it appears not.

I personally do not think chi-sau is fighting/sparring and thinks such ideas are hurtful to the art.

Good, I am glad we agree

 

[guy b.]

Bridge is a commonly used term in WC. You are free to change that if you wish, but for sake of discussion keep with terminology that is understood or write it path (bridge/kiu) or whatnot so it is clearer.

We do not have bridge as others here appear to understand it. It is difficult to discuss an idea that doesn't exist in the system. Tacitly acknowledging it by failing to raise the issue could lead to misunderstandings. Any time the idea of "bridging" is raised this will be the case.

 

[LFJ]

Bridge is a commonly used term in WC. You are free to change that if you wish, but for sake of discussion keep with terminology that is understood or write it path (bridge/kiu) or whatnot so it is clearer.

Of course it's common terminology. Cham-kiu, right? But we have a completely different interpretation than you guys. That's the issue. Also what the interpratation leads to in terms of fighting strategy, but we do not even agree on the definition to begin with.