ah…I noticed that some of the other messages of other members was also deleted. That is a shame since this forum deals with issues regarding wing chun and the topic discussed is a main part of wing chun today. It gets brought up in kwoons, in magazines, in discussions such as these ones. We are all consenting adults here. Since you always say that this is ‘our forum’ shouldn’t we have a right to talk about issues that concern us if we want to, as long as we abide by the rules? Could you imagine a world where you couldn’t bring up certain topics in conversation because they are too controversial and opinions are too varied? No abortion, religion, politics, heck, even sports discussions!!! Where North America turns into China or the Middle East. This is what is happening here. We are being systematically silenced. The William Cheung issue is a valid one and concerns all Wing Chun practioners. There’s no reason why it can’t be discussed…a little bit heated is ok…in the real world adults don’t always remain unanimated when talking about their passions…this board should be no different.
Discuss the subject at hand
Hello Empty Cup,
Why not discuss the subject at hand which is I belive Chi Gerk? Or is that less important to you than what an individual person thinks?
Discuss the art not the artist, what a radical idea :rolleyes:
Peace,
Dave
TWC and Chi Gerk
Marcelino,
Your loyalty to the head of your substyle is admirable, but its uncritical nature and your one-eyed infatuation are becoming tedious.
I am a student of Rick Spain, and attained my tenth/instructor level while we were still in the WWCKFA. i.e. aligned with William Cheung.
At that time, chi gerk was not included in the grading syllabus, though it was occasionally reviewed in class. Since we have left the WWCKFA and I and my sihings and sidais have continued to progress, we have done a little more chi gerk. We probably do not practise it near as much as styles which use a primarily rear leg weighting such as WT (no offense meant, just that TWC and WT are different). This may be to our compartive detriment, who’s to say?
To say that it is a waste of time developing sensitivity and the ability to deflect leg attacks and launch return fire is ridiculous.
Forms and the dummy cannot teach you these attributes as you are not exposed to incoming force from another person, much the same as you need a partner to develop sensitivity using chi sao.
It is even more ridiculous to say that a particular drill is a waste of time based on a passing comment someone attributed to William Cheung. For chrissake, Marcelino, take your lips away from his a$$ and think for yourself a little.
Since we incorporated BJJ into our syllabus the usefulness of the attributes developed by chi gerk have become a lot more apparent.
“While you’re trying to punch me in the face, I’ll be snapping your knee. After that you won’t even be able to run away.”
To Abman
You probably didn’t get a chance to read my post earlier in response to marcelino, but it is uncanny how our comments parallel each other.
You also bring up an interesting point regarding weight distribution. Performing chi-gerk would require you to distribute your weight 100%/0%, and most lineages of wing chun have some weight on both legs. The logic behind the 100/0 distribution is that your front leg is always at disposal as a weapon. If there was weight on the front leg, you could not kick with it unless you shifted the weight off of it. Also, you are not susceptible to front leg sweeps, since it carries no weight that supports the body upright. The disadvantage of a 100/0 distribution is that the stance is weaker.
However… that’s where the chi-gerk comes in. Sure, if you allow someone to shove you or kick you, while you’re balanced on your rear leg, you’ll probably topple. But like your chi sao training, which would train you to deflect a shove so that you wouldn’t have to take the force of that shove, you learn chi-gerk to deflect the force of a kick that could potentially topple you over. Same thing applies for leg sweeps. There are many ways an opponent could attack your lower extremities with their lower extremities, so I see chi-gerk to be VERY invaluable to the wing chun practitioner.
I think that the advanced footwork comes in the later stages of wing chun curriculum because the stance and basic advancing footwork has to be very solid before attempting things like chain kicks, which is part of wooden dummy form. You can probably learn ALL the techniques in wing chun within a year or two, but to be able to apply them is another matter. That takes years of training. It is likely that good instructors held off on the very advanced techniques until the students mastered the fundamentals. And for those students who became impatient or never mastered the fundamentals, they were never shown the advanced techniques, such as chi-gerk.
EC
You agreed with me… You just didn’t admit it.
Twice… ten times… what’s the difference?
If you say so 
Chi gerk is a regular part of our wing chun curriculum and always has been and we are neither TWC or WT. But novices cant do very good chi gerk until they have learned to be properly rooted and learn controlling their hands. Wing chun is not TKD- you learn stancing and then fundamental hands-then you can lift legs.. Just as chi sao is not the same as fighting, chi gerk is not fighting either. When one learns proper rooting
then controlling the hands and chi gerk-ing with the legs and the timing and transitions teaches you the coordination of bong gerk. tan gerk and fok gerk and its variations FWIW.
Thanks for your replies, everyone.
But my question remains unanswered…
Is there a book or video on Chi Gerk that is worth getting ?!
“Kick his ass, Sea-Bass!” - Dumb and Dumber
The ABMAN
The AbMan
First of all the system i train in is not a “substyle”. Perhaps that is what you call your
system a “substyle”. You are a student of Rick Spain, so what. Who did Rick Spain learn wc from?
Grandmaster Cheung Right? It seems there is no longer any respect here for seniority. Grandmaster
Cheung has more seniority than Rick Spain and has been doing Wing Chun a lot longer than you and Rick Spain combined. The fact that you talk down on TWC makes you a hypocrite and a thief. You practice a system that is based on TWC but you don’t aknowledge who gave you that knowledge. Instead you steal other peoples ideas and try to make them your own.
Don’t be so sure of yourself AbMan you may have had an instructor level in the WWCKFA but
you are no longer with the organization. Funny though you still practice the 50-50 leg
weight distribution.
You and your instructor have made up their own organization for their own purposes.
Still i would rather learn my wing chun from the source – ie the one with the most seniority
which is Grandmaster Cheung..YOu seem to forget that.
“Funny quote mr Abman, i highly doubt a real wing chun man goes for the knee for someone trying to strike him in the face. Sounds more like a BJJ thing ..why don’t you just say you do BJJ
instead with a bit of wing chun thrown in ?”
Ps you would never be able to snap my knee, anyway mr AbMan.
Try not taking things so personally marcelino31. Abman is disusisng the merits of chi-gerk, this is just an internet forum!
wow
lol @ marcelino.
Original poster:
Try books by Dr. Joseph Wayne Smith
They arent the best books on Wing Chun, but they are the only ones I have read that address chi gerk.
strike!
Here’s my opinion, for what its worth.
If you have good lut sao jit chung, you dont have to worry about the opponents legs at close range, if he lifts his leg, then your pry sends him flying. Also works against knees.
If you are at chisao distance, and your opponent can kick you, then you are probably too far away to start with, IMO.
At kicking distance, its a whole different ball game, however, Id be less concerned with trying to chigerk his legs, and more concerned with bypassing the legs and getting in close as soon as possible. Sure, that may mean a stop kick, or a kwan and kick against a roundhouse, but Id prefer using footwork to avoid the legs, and get into hitting distance, on the premise that you are more stable with both legs on the ground.
As WSL said, fight the person, not his arms. I guess that holds true for legs as well 
[Insert obligatory “Your mileage may vary” here…]
The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!
Frank,
You dont ‘chi-sao’ with somebody during a fight, nor do you ‘chi-gerk’ them either.
chi sau trains sensativity in the arms, and chi gerk the legs - they are not techniques or combat strategys (possibly considered a strategy of mobility - manuver around your opponents limbs to hit his centerline - when there is a opening, strike, on loss of contact, strike!)
Of course your going to use footwork to avoide being hit by the opponent - but when he punches at me I will intercept and stick and strike, and when he kicks I will intercept and stick and strike.
When the opponent offers you a arm or leg by throwing it at you, grab it and defeat him.
strike!
kick distance
“If you are at chisao distance, and your opponent can kick you, then you are probably too far away to start with, IMO.”
in my humble opinion, one should be able to kick an opponent well within punching range.
–
chi kwai
names of kicks in chinese
Anyone know the names of the three (four?) actions in chi gerk, in chinese?
Is it bon-gerk, tan-gerk, and fuk-gerk??
marcelino31-you are very funny
Other WC styles dont use a round kick.How many other WC styles have you studied.In WC a step is a kick and a kick is a step.Can you think of any circular stepping motions or maybe triangular.(hint)
On the chi gerk subject perhaps there is some confusion between training and usage.Yip Ching for example doesnt believe in chi gerk combined with chi sao for the simple reason that if arms are in contact kicks are easily disrupted so leg vs. leg should never occur.However in fighting you must be able to use leg vs.leg.What range to use what is important.Also I think using your stance to tie up or disrupt the opponents stance also falls under chi gerk but others may not see it this way.
Re Smith’s books- dem IMO are the worst in wing chun. 
Thank you S.Teebas for your supporting comments re Marcelino’s interesting last post.
Ok, Marcie:
First of all the system i train in is not a “substyle”.
Matter of definition. TWC is seen by most as being one branch of Wing Chun, or what I call a sub-style.
You are a student of Rick Spain, so what. Who did Rick Spain learn wc from? Grandmaster Cheung Right? It seems there is no longer any respect here for seniority.
Hey, boy, I didn’t knock William Cheung. I had words to say about your dog-like devotion to everything he says.
The fact that you talk down on TWC makes you a hypocrite and a thief. You practice a system that is based on TWC but you don’t aknowledge who gave you that knowledge. Instead you steal other peoples ideas and try to make them your own.
Since when did I deny my lineage and the debt my instructor and I owe to William Cheung? My teacher never did this, neither did I.
Don’t be so sure of yourself AbMan you may have had an instructor level in the WWCKFA but
you are no longer with the organization.
What are you implying? That because I left the organisation that what I learned magically disappeared and thus my skills somehow became useless?
Funny though you still practice the 50-50 leg
weight distribution.
And why not? William Cheung didn’t invent this, nor did he patent it. Jack Dempsey was using 50/50 weighting before William Cheung was a twinkle in his father’s eye.
You and your instructor have made up their own organization for their own purposes.
We left the organisation after a William Cheung dummy spit during a seminar in front of about 50 witnesses. My Sifu had the choice of either losing all his honour and credibility or leaving the WWCKFA. I was there, you weren’t.
Still i would rather learn my wing chun from the source – ie the one with the most seniority
which is Grandmaster Cheung.
It’s a free world. Do what you want. I’m loyal to the instructor I started with, not someone I used to see for two hours at a seminar every six to twelve months.
YOu seem to forget that.
Since when?
"Funny quote mr Abman, i highly doubt a real wing chun man goes for the knee for someone trying to strike him in the face.,
Mate, you put up a stupid quote, I just turned it around.
Sounds more like a BJJ thing ..why don’t you just say you do BJJ instead with a bit of wing chun thrown in ?"
Because it’s more like Wing Chun with a bit of BJJ thrown in.
Ps you would never be able to snap my knee, anyway mr AbMan.
Not over the internet, certainly.
Mate, you sound like an eleven year old with an IQ in the low double figures. I wasn’t dissing William Cheung, I was disagreeing with your assertions regarding Chi Gerk and its place in TWC, matters in which my experience varies from yours, which appears to be largely second hand.
If you want throw a hissy fit and take your bat and ball and go home, don’t let me stop you.
excellent reply abman…
Yen Hoi
>> You dont ‘chi-sao’ with somebody during a fight, nor do you ‘chi-gerk’ them either. <<
I am aware of this, which is why I actually said “When you are at chi-sao distance”, not “when you are chisao-ing”.
But, you can chisao in many ways. I know that some schools teach it as purely a sensitivity exercise, for them sparring is a seperate thing.
For us, chisao can go from this level all the way up to full contact sparring.
And the rest of your post was pretty much what I was saying, hence the final WSL quote, concentrate on hitting, not chasing the arms or legs.
The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!
[This message was edited by Frank Exchange on 11-02-01 at 04:07 AM.]