[QUOTE=t_niehoff;940240]If you bother to look at the Cheung-Boztepe fight, you’ll see for yourself why it is too bad he didn’t know what chi geuk was for – and why he ended up on his ass.[/QUOTE]
I’m usually very respectful but I must say that you are an A**. First of all Yip Man didn’t teach chi gerk. I have an article that explains it was “invented” by some students. And second of all one encounter doesn’t mean some one is no good. If that were the case them Ali, Frazier, Joyce Gracie, Tyson, Chuck Liddel, (I could go on), are no good.
I still would love to see you in action without having to come to MO. Your remark was childish at best. And yes, I WOULD say that to your face. I thought you were better than that. You’ve NEVER seen me write something negative about any Sifu regardless of what I think about their kung fu.
[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;940377]Ultimate Wing Chun posted:
t_niehoff posted:
Oh wow Niehoff do you practice Chi Gerk…The way it is practiced is unrealistic how does it prepare you for real fighting. I mean really who the hell is going to kick you like that. Not a Kickboxer or someone who practices; Gojoryu Karate,Shotokan, Kyoshukin, Tae Kwon Do, Muay Thai or Tang So Do…Do they kick like that? How does Chi Gerk prepare you for real competent fighters outside of Wing Chun kwoons???
Back in the days of Yip Man and his brothers learning WC did they practice Chi Gerk. No Chi Gerk is later invention is it not?[/QUOTE]
Two things:
1-there is nothing wrong with it being a “later invention.”
Many systems contain drills and two man exercises that have been developed from techniques and situations that came up during training. Isolating this and creating drills, and giving them a name does not negate its value. On the contrary, in some cases it shows the evolution of a practitioner.
2-when you are within your opponent’s range, you will encounter their legs. Whether it is a low line kick, sweep, leg hook leading into a takedown, etc. Having the ability to intercept and redirect their leg, or move around it, in order to maintain position, or create a better position is a skill well worth developing.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that you are going to catch a kick with your “sticky leg” and trap it, like some cheezy Shaw Bros. flik.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;940398]I’m usually very respectful but I must say that you are an A**. First of all Yip Man didn’t teach chi gerk. I have an article that explains it was “invented” by some students. And second of all one encounter doesn’t mean some one is no good. If that were the case them Ali, Frazier, Joyce Gracie, Tyson, Chuck Liddel, (I could go on), are no good.
I still would love to see you in action without having to come to MO. Your remark was childish at best. And yes, I WOULD say that to your face. I thought you were better than that. You’ve NEVER seen me write something negative about any Sifu regardless of what I think about their kung fu.[/QUOTE]
Why do you idolize Cheung? Just because someone teaches WCK doesn’t make them immune from criticism. That clip Victor posted just illustrated that Cheung – like most “grandmasters” – has a very limited grasp of WCK. BFD. Your skill and your understanding (beyond the superficial level) doesn’t come from your sifu. The fact of the matter is, the Boztepe fight showed that Cheung didn’t know what to do with his legs when he got close – and that’s why he ended up on his ass. Those are the skills that are taught in the chi gerk exercise.
Yes, Yip’s students created the drill called chi gerk, taking the hand exercise and extending it to the legs. So what? It’s not the exercise that is significant but the skills the exercise teaches that is important. These things can be taught as san sao or through a drill. The same is true of chi sao. Cheung apparently doesn’t know what those skills are. You guys use circling footwork to open your forms, right? That’s a chi gerk skill.
Victor posted a clip of Cheung “explaining” why chi gerk was silly (I guess it’s OK for him to say others are silly but not for us to say he’s the one who is silly?). I replied saying that Cheung apparently didn’t grasp what chi gerk was really about. The proof of that is in what he says and the example of his fight. Interesting to note is that Leung Ting’s curriculum (that Boztepe trained) includes chi gerk.
PS - your analogy using Gracie, Ali, etc. isn’t sound or applicable to Cheung. We KNOW that Gracie, Ali, Liddell, etc. all had great fighting skills since they proved they did through fighting great fighters (and we could see it for ourselves, in action). That they lost individual fights didn’t take away from their accomplishments. Cheung is another story entirely. The Boztepe incident was the ONLY fight we’ve ever seen Cheung in – unlike Ali, Gracie, Liddell, etc. Yes, he had some rooftop fights as a kid. We’ve seen what those were like and the level of the competition.
[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;940377][
Oh wow Niehoff do you practice Chi Gerk…The way it is practiced is unrealistic how does it prepare you for real fighting. I mean really who the hell is going to kick you like that. Not a Kickboxer or someone who practices; Gojoryu Karate,Shotokan, Kyoshukin, Tae Kwon Do, Muay Thai or Tang So Do…Do they kick like that? How does Chi Gerk prepare you for real competent fighters outside of Wing Chun kwoons???
[/QUOTE]
Chi gerk, like chi sao, is a learning platform, a way for a trainee to learn in an unrealistic environment, certain skills. With regard to chi gerk, it is to learn the leg/footwork skills you need when on the inside, close to an opponent. Robert listed many of these things in his post.
While chi sao and chi gerk teach certain skills, you need to take those skills and put them into a realistic environment to hone them into realistic skills.
Back in the days of Yip Man and his brothers learning WC did they practice Chi Gerk. No Chi Gerk is later invention is it not?
You’re right – it was a later invention. Read my post to Phil. So what? The chi sao most people use including Yip Man lineage (the luk sao platform) was invented by YKS and Sum Nung. It’s not what Leung Jan used or how Yip learned chi sao. So what? It’s not the exercise or platform that’s important but the skills it teaches that is important. You can learn the chi gerk skills as san sao or in chi sao. It doesn’t matter.
chi gerk
Ip Man taught various things in various ways to various people.
I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Ip Man never taught chi gerk.
Ip Man’s life was not covered bya 24 hour motion detector.
The problem is that some folks do make up things that do not conform to good wing chun
dynamics.
Opinions can vary-so often everyone has an opinion with varying merit.
joy chaudhuri
Phil,
Don’t waste your time with this guy.
He’s demonstrated time-and-time again on this forum over many years now that he’s willing to say virtually anything - including constant insults against people who could (and would) wipe the floor with him like a mop…
and then, when he’s called out, has made it clear (by his actions, not his words)…that he’d never be willing to back up his insults like a man.
And I mean never.
How can you respect a guy like this? :rolleyes: :mad:
It’s impossible. And you only disrespect yourself if you try to answer all of his hundreds of posts that never stop coming - regardless of how ignorant, or how foolish, or how arrogant he’s been proven.
I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve put him on the IGNORE list over the 7 years now that I’ve been posting here.
In good ol’ Brooklynese - he’s a punk.
Forget him.
I would say that Yip Man probably didn’t teach his early students (pre 1960’s) Chi Gerk.
From my own meeting of elders from pre 1960’s Tsui Sheung Tien, WSL, William Cheung, Hawkins Cheung, Lo Man Kam, Victor Kan - they have said to me that Chi Gerk was not part of their curriculum. Of course, I may be mistaken, as I am fallible in memory and these days concentrate on disease. Post 1960’s like Moy Yat, Ng Chan, Ho Kam Ming have some variation of Chi Gerk, with Ho Kam Ming/Augustine Fong branch having the most refined Chi Gerk curriculum.
Of course, with this board, people from various lineages can verify when their sifu learned from Yip Man year, and say if their branch has Chi Gerk.
I personally teach Chi Gerk and think it has a good basis for stepping, kicks, sweeps, throws, and pins.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;940442]Why do you idolize Cheung? . . . . [/QUOTE]
I don’t IDOLIZE any man. I never have and never will. What I don’t do is trash talk other martial artists because I understand Mo Duk.
Since you used the chi geuk example you probably know of a famous Leung Ting Sifu who trained in Chi geuk that lost a fight to a TWC guy who doesn’t do chi geuk. In fact he was hospitalized. My issue was your trash talking. Not chi geuk. If some prefer to use it then good for them.
Also, though there are no videos with regards to Wm Cheung/Chang fighting. Read what WSL and others say about him.
http://members.tripod.com/~Wing_Chun/
http://www.wongvingtsun.co.uk/wslbl.htm
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung/articles/article_lo01.html
Leung Ting chi gerk?
And his NYC student’s chi gerk? You can’t be serious.
The differences in stances can count. EB had some wrestling take down background.
joy
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;940260]
Too many wing chun people have never been taught high quality chi sao - as well as quality sparring/fighting translations of what they learn in chi sao (and other drills)…
and hence, they either wind up with a whole bunch of clueless ideas about how to use wing chun - or they come to the conclusion that things like forms, chi sao, and chi sao related drills are all useless - and they wind up throwing the baby out with the bathwater - including drills like dan chi sao, luk sao, cross arm chi sao, pak sao-pak da, bong sao-lop sao, etc.[/QUOTE]
***WANT to follow up on this. Just came across this vid on youtube. It’s labelled “ADVANCED CHI SAO”…and then subtitled double pak sao-chuen sao.
Clearly just pure nonsense in terms of how to use pak/cheun - as without coming into your opponent to take his space away - the whole concept of pak, or chuen, or the two together is meaningless. I understand it’s just a drill - but it’s missing a very important element (eating up his space).
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBHY1a-ZdM&feature=related
LOL @ chi gerk training in WC, which is basically another pretend, theoretical training method. If you want to learn what is realistic in terms of leg-work, off-balancing, sweeping, etc, go train some judo and muay thai.
Chi soa with legs… give me a break.
kf-read much? doubtfull. otherwise you may have understood that chi-gerk is NOT chi-sau with legs. Read chusauli’s posts. Then maybe you can speak on this forum with any intelligence.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;940533]kf-read much? doubtfull. otherwise you may have understood that chi-gerk is NOT chi-sau with legs. Read chusauli’s posts. Then maybe you can speak on this forum with any intelligence.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the dumbgass question asked in the video.
As far as what it is or isn’t, unless you are drilling it by drilling slamming kicks into your opponents legs and sweeping him full force onto the ground, you are pretty much wasting your time.
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;940516][B]
Clearly just pure nonsense in terms of how to use pak/cheun - as without coming into your opponent to take his space away - the whole concept of pak, or chuen, or the two together is meaningless. I understand it’s just a drill - but it’s missing a very important element (eating up his space).
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBHY1a-ZdM&feature=related[/QUOTE]
Agreed. There is no Chum Kiu element to the pak sao in the vid’s. No control or influence on the opponent’s COG.
This is “slapping Hands” taken waaaay too literally.
"As far as what it is or isn’t, unless you are drilling it by drilling slamming kicks into your opponents legs and sweeping him full force onto the ground, you are pretty much wasting your time. "
ahh, that’s pu$$y$hit.
Can you do THIS?
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;940529]LOL @ chi gerk training in WC, which is basically another pretend, theoretical training method. If you want to learn what is realistic in terms of leg-work, off-balancing, sweeping, etc, go train some judo and muay thai.
Chi soa with legs… give me a break.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;940534]As far as what it is or isn’t, unless you are drilling it by drilling slamming kicks into your opponents legs and sweeping him full force onto the ground, you are pretty much wasting your time.[/QUOTE]LOL, Dance much?
Dale, you’re wrong. In this case it seems very much like your chi gerk didn’t cut the mustard. It was one of the few directly applicable things I managed to take from wing chun into MMA training.
Edit: but yes, the logical conclusion of chi gerk training is to do full force sweeps, trips, takedowns etc… which we did regularly on mats when we trained chi gerk (after we’d got to know the basics) and incorporated into chi sao (when we were doing it at a harder level).
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;940485]I don’t IDOLIZE any man. I never have and never will. What I don’t do is trash talk other martial artists because I understand Mo Duk.
[/QUOTE]
“Trash talking”? Mo duk? Phil, this isn’t China and I don’t buy into the you-must-respect-your-elders crap. Cheung is a WCK teacher. Period. That’s ALL. He said something about WCK that was wrong. His own words show he doesn’t know what chi gerk is about. Not only that, but his own actions show that he doesn’t have the skills that chi gerk teaches. That isn’t “trash talk”, it’s the truth.
If some martial art instructor said that the guard was no good and then we had a video of him getting submitted in the guard some time later, wouldn’t that be significant? If some martial artinstructor said take-down defense was unnecessary and we had a video of him later getting taken down, wouldn’t that be significant?
Since you used the chi geuk example you probably know of a famous Leung Ting Sifu who trained in Chi geuk that lost a fight to a TWC guy who doesn’t do chi geuk. In fact he was hospitalized.
So what?
My issue was your trash talking. Not chi geuk. If some prefer to use it then good for them.
Your issue isn’t trash talking, it is criticizing Cheung. Cheung is nobody special. He’s just another WCK instructor. A dime a dozen. That doesn’t make him immune from criticism.
Also, though there are no videos with regards to Wm Cheung/Chang fighting. Read what WSL and others say about him.
http://members.tripod.com/~Wing_Chun/
http://www.wongvingtsun.co.uk/wslbl.htm
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung/articles/article_lo01.html
Isn’t it sad that the best evidence you have is what others say about him? IMO that speaks for itself.
Look, I have no doubt he had some fights as a teenager. We’ve all seen the rooftop fights and the level of the competition. While it’s true he and some others fought, that experience hardly proves that he was some great fighter.
No one becomes a great fighter without putting in loads of sparring/fighting with other really good fighters. As the Gracies say, you are only as good as your sparring partners. When did he put in that time? With whom? We both know it didn’t happen.
And, quite frankly, some of the stuff he does say, like about pressure point striking, hitting iwth the fingers, the entry technique, etc., really has to make a person wonder. Those aren’t things we’d expect from someone with significant fighting experience.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;940529]LOL @ chi gerk training in WC, which is basically another pretend, theoretical training method. If you want to learn what is realistic in terms of leg-work, off-balancing, sweeping, etc, go train some judo and muay thai.
Chi soa with legs… give me a break.[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree with you. Unrealistic training won’t develop skills. I just see those things are traditional ways of introducing certain skills. But, you’re right – if you want to develop skill, you need to train like judo and muay thai.
“Cheung is nobody special. He’s just another WCK instructor. A dime a dozen.” (Terence)
***YOU SEE what I mean, Phil?
This guy would never say such a thing directly to the face of one of William Cheung’s students. Never in a million years. :eek:
Don’t waste your time with him. 
As for chi geak…
While I do see “some” value in it, I really don’t regard it as anything crucial to your overall wing chun training - precisely because there are other martial art systems that cover this type of material - and go waaaay beyond it…
and should be crosstrained, imo.
Some have already been mentioned, ie.- judo).
But I’m thinking specifically of wrestling/grappling systems.
If you crosstrain in one of them, after awhile what you learned (and might still drill) in chi geak will seem like high school stuff - compared to the college material you’d learn in wrestling, jiu jitsu, judo, sambo, etc.