Keith, your whole view is built on false theory. The problem with theory is that you can’t refute it with theory because in theory almost anything can sound plausible (which is why so much BS is sold in MAs). Do yourself a huge favor, and just get some fairly athletic, nonWCK guys (so they don’t behave in brainwashed WCK ways), start in contact, and fight (trying to maintain contact). If you do that, you’ll see that all your chi sao and contact reflexes will go out the window. Everything you’ve trained won’t work. You don’t need to take my word for it. If you do the work, and give yourself the right experience, you’ll see the truth of this for yourself. Only after that experience will you begin to “understand” chi sao. Anyone who hasn’t done this work, has no real understanding of chi sao; they are in the dark,and if they teach, it is a matter of the blind leading the blind. And that’s because you can only “understand” anything in WCK from the perspective of application (fighting). So you need to start with application (with really fighting). You can’t “understand” application except by experience, not from theory (how I “think” it should work).
[QUOTE=Edmund;861380]some WC sparring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ&feature=related[/QUOTE]
Nice, good fun was had by all it seems.
T has a great point …Adopting a ‘lets chi-sao’ with ANYONE who doesn’t strike with inward elbows, and you just put yourself in the worst tactical position you could choose 
… we use the chi-sao DRILL to angle out of lines of entry to us or as the entry apex by US to movement BEFORE we engaged the guy to hit him…spatial battle before firing.
[QUOTE=KPM;861474]I think I’d have to see what you mean.
How is it chi sao?
—Ah! So your answer is “no.” You only train Chi Sao by standing and rolling.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I almost never roll at all.
I never start with rolling and I don’t have any particular starting position.
----Its a progression. Light sparring is a drill like any of the others. You’re just agreeing to combine two drills ahead time. That way you train for the transitions. In a more modern context…you could agree to combine even more drills. You could start from light sparring at a distance, transition to Chi Sao, and then transition to a stand grapple or takedown. The lines between training platforms become fluid once you get to higher levels. If you do this…work on the transition from light sparring into Chi Sao and back out, then you will find that your “all out” free sparring will start having more Chi Sao “elements” than it did previously.
If chi sao becomes sparring then it is one level of the progression. Sparring is the last level you can practice. (More on this below)
Did you watch the recent clips from SENI? Were those not of a “real competition match”? Are you saying you have never taken your Chi Sao to the level that it was a free exchange?
All the time other than the rolling. It’s not sparring though.
The problem with the SENI matches was it started in the chi sao position.
They rolled 3 times. This is already cooperation between opponents.
You seem to be more intent on arguing whether Judo Randori is a valid comparison to Wing Chun Chi Sao than you are on trying to get a new perspective on what Chi Sao can be.
What chi sao can be? Sparring is all that and more. Why does chi sao have to be randori? Sparring is randori already.
I am concerned about whether Judo Randori is a valid comparison to Chi sao.
I think WC people like chi sao a bit too much and maybe they need to focus on sparring rather than trying to make their chi sao realistic.
When you spar I don’t think you are suddenly going to be able to transition into chi sao when you get into contact.
Someone throwing strikes at you at a distance feels a bit different from someone attacking at contact ranges. You can see in lots of sparring clips like the one I previously posted as soon as it moves that close, standing grappling is going to occur.
The reason is because when someone throws for real they are trying to punch through you and you’re doing the same. This is why Kevin is saying chi sao is more about the angle of your arms to cover yourself from the pressure of strikes IMO. When you and opponent are both throwing at each other your arms are only going to meet in the briefest and most ballistic way if at all. Strikes are heading in opposite directions to each other. AND they are trying to extend the strike through the other person. That’s a lot of pressure.
I’m not saying you’re never going to catch their arm with your arm. You can but it’s going to be coming quick with power. The position of your arms is real important AND it’s not going to end up like a transition into chi sao range. It’s going to be far more like guys smacking each other or tying up.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;861484]Nice, good fun was had by all it seems.[/QUOTE]
Found another nice one.
[QUOTE=Edmund;861509]Found another nice one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAHlKXdGcew&feature=related[/QUOTE]
That one kind of sucked…never liked it when people “lift” their face while punching, very silly thing to do.
The problem with the SENI matches was it started in the chi sao position.
They rolled 3 times. This is already cooperation between opponents.
—Its still sparring. As I said before, there are graduations and progressions even in sparring. Your view of sparring seems to be as narrow as your view of Chi Sao.
I am concerned about whether Judo Randori is a valid comparison to Chi sao.
—Why? Take the analogy for what its worth. If it works to give you a better understanding of Chi Sao, then great! If it doesn’t, then just drop it. Like Kevin’s analogy of the spiderweb. 
I think WC people like chi sao a bit too much and maybe they need to focus on sparring rather than trying to make their chi sao realistic.
—I agree! Did you even read my article?
When you spar I don’t think you are suddenly going to be able to transition into chi sao when you get into contact.
—You will if you’ve agreed on it as part of the drill you are doing. Again, my point was that it helps you to train the transitions. Are you going to do that in a “real” fight or an “all out” sparring session? No! But if you can’t transition smoothly from a non-contact to a bridging situation, then your Chi Sao skills are never going to show their full potential in the “free fight” situation.
Someone throwing strikes at you at a distance feels a bit different from someone attacking at contact ranges. You can see in lots of sparring clips like the one I previously posted as soon as it moves that close, standing grappling is going to occur.
—If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren’t emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
The reason is because when someone throws for real they are trying to punch through you and you’re doing the same. This is why Kevin is saying chi sao is more about the angle of your arms to cover yourself from the pressure of strikes IMO.
—And I don’t disagree with what Kevin has said. I think you need to go back and reread my article.
When you and opponent are both throwing at each other your arms are only going to meet in the briefest and most ballistic way if at all. Strikes are heading in opposite directions to each other. AND they are trying to extend the strike through the other person. That’s a lot of pressure.
—Absolutely! And Chi Sao helps build the skills to read, redirect, divert, etc that pressure.
I’m not saying you’re never going to catch their arm with your arm. You can but it’s going to be coming quick with power. The position of your arms is real important AND it’s not going to end up like a transition into chi sao range.
—You have missed the point I have been trying to make about Chi Sao entirely! How can it NOT end up in Chi Sao range? Chi Sao range is contact with the arms. Chi Sao is not an end in itself. Its a structured drill designed to teach good responses at contact distance.
It’s going to be far more like guys smacking each other or tying up.
—Only because you haven’t brought your Chi Sao skills into the exchange.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;861512]That one kind of sucked…never liked it when people “lift” their face while punching, very silly thing to do.[/QUOTE]
Same energy, but very different from what Im accustom too Yes, in some ways they did free their minds, but through deviation
And I truly believe thats because they choose too be that way, or their understanding is not just there yet, sparring way too early in which their understanding is just too weak for that level
And if they continue that way, their wing chun will stay just like that when under pressure (total deviation for self gravitation), it may not be their fought, cuz maybe its how their taught too spar
Ali Rahim.
Keith, your whole view is built on false theory.
—Ah…Terence. I wondered when you would appear on the thread. I hesitate to even respond to you, because it seldom goes anywhere.
The problem with theory is that you can’t refute it with theory because in theory almost anything can sound plausible (which is why so much BS is sold in MAs).
—Yes. We all know your position on “theory.” But, like I’ve pointed out in the past, you can’t talk about ANYTHING without involving theory. If the use of theory is invalid, then we might as well just close down this whole forum because we would have nothing to talk about.
Do yourself a huge favor, and just get some fairly athletic, nonWCK guys (so they don’t behave in brainwashed WCK ways), start in contact, and fight (trying to maintain contact).
—Yes. We all know your position on training. “Go out and get your ars kicked and then come back and talk to me.” I’m willing to bet you didn’t even bother to read my article before posting. I pointed out how often Chi Sao is “overdone” or “overemphasized.” I pointed out that it has to be informed by good sparring to be valid. I’ve talked about the skills developed being independant of Chi Sao itself. I talked about not making it a “patty cake” drill. But none of that is good enough. You aren’t even willing to meet me half way. Its full out “kick ars” sparring for you and nothing else.
If you do that, you’ll see that all your chi sao and contact reflexes will go out the window. Everything you’ve trained won’t work.
—But you’ve already said in another thread that you’ve given up on Chi Sao and no longer practice it. Let me say to you what I said to Edmund:
If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren’t emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
So you need to start with application (with really fighting). You can’t “understand” application except by experience, not from theory (how I “think” it should work).
—I disagree. Again, we’ve talked about this before and it went nowhere. You can’t start with application. I asked you in the past how you teach Wing Chun…do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars? I don’t remember getting a very good answer. There has to be structure and a curriculum. Real experience and structured training are two sides of the same coin. I’ve told you before, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you take it to extremes. Real experience informs structured training, but structured training establishes skills that are used in real experience. There is a middle ground. I see the way I have described Chi Sao as part of that “middle ground” between “patty cake” Chi Sao with lots of complicated moves and full out sparring.
[QUOTE=Edmund;861380]some WC sparring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-UIcxMJNQ&feature=related[/QUOTE]
I’m glad you posted this Ed. It reminded me of why I posted my thread about “how much wing chun do you use…”.
That’s definitely more realistic fight training…and a very good eye opener as to what’s going to work and what isn’t. Again, one must decide for his or herself if a particular technique simply needs more work or if it’s just fundamentally flawed (for the individual) and needs to be dumped.
Looking at these fights closely, they use the wing chun guard, some straight punches, a couple of wing chun kicks. This only happens for the first couple seconds and then the majority of the remaining time they’re using knees in a clinch, elbows, hip throws, and grappling – none of which is WC (well, the elbows and the LT/EBMAS kicks from the ground thing).
I don’t think it’s a matter of having someone jump into sparring too early for “self gratification through deviation” (whatever that means)…I think it’s a matter of truth. Universal truth in fighting.
Although I do prefer wing chun people to fight like wing chun, this is more like what a fight will look like…a little wing chun on the entry, and the rest is other “stuff”. Granted you can still use wing chun theories and principles with the other “stuff” too.
Anyway…those are my thoughts on the subject.
[QUOTE=KPM;861540]—Yes. We all know your position on “theory.” But, like I’ve pointed out in the past, you can’t talk about ANYTHING without involving theory. If the use of theory is invalid, then we might as well just close down this whole forum because we would have nothing to talk about.
[/QUOTE]
You can talk about stuff without theory – athletes do it all the time. But people who don’t do it can’t talk about it except from a theoretical POV.
—Yes. We all know your position on training. “Go out and get your ars kicked and then come back and talk to me.” I’m willing to bet you didn’t even bother to read my article before posting. I pointed out how often Chi Sao is “overdone” or “overemphasized.” I pointed out that it has to be informed by good sparring to be valid. I’ve talked about the skills developed being independant of Chi Sao itself. I talked about not making it a “patty cake” drill. But none of that is good enough. You aren’t even willing to meet me half way. Its full out “kick ars” sparring for you and nothing else.
You don’t know by “position on training” or you wouldn’t misrepresent it.
I did look at your article.
Chi sao is an artificial, unrealasitic drill/exercise where people can do and practice all sorts of things because they are not constrained by the demands of fighting. So they can – and theyo, oh, they do! – practice things that simply won’t work in fighting. Chi sao can’t give people an understanding of WCK because it is unrealsitic and artificial. Without FIRST understanding those demands, people will tend to go off in fantasy-foo directions. No matter what you talk about, if you don’t start with fighting, it can’t be anything more than a silly game of patty cake.
—But you’ve already said in another thread that you’ve given up on Chi Sao and no longer practice it. Let me say to you what I said to Edmund:
If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren’t emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
You use the terms “faith” or “belief” because that is all you have. You say what “WCK is designed for” – well, how the hell do you know? You have some belief, something you’ve been told, and you bought into it. You don’t know. You only have a belief, and no real evidence to support it.
As I said, go put your belief to the test.
You aren’t emphasizing anything in your training other than fantasy. If you can’t do it in fighting, how can you tell others how it should be done?
For me, WCK is an attached fighting method. As such, it requires contact fighting skills. But you can’t get those fighting skills from chi sao. Chi sao has very limited usefulness, mainly as a way of teaching certain, limited things. It is WCK with the training wheels on. Once you can ride the bike, you don’t need to continue with the training wheels. To develop, you must take them off.
So you need to start with application (with really fighting). You can’t “understand” application except by experience, not from theory (how I “think” it should work).
—I disagree. Again, we’ve talked about this before and it went nowhere. You can’t start with application. I asked you in the past how you teach Wing Chun…do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars? I don’t remember getting a very good answer. There has to be structure and a curriculum. Real experience and structured training are two sides of the same coin. I’ve told you before, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you take it to extremes. Real experience informs structured training, but structured training establishes skills that are used in real experience. There is a middle ground. I see the way I have described Chi Sao as part of that “middle ground” between “patty cake” Chi Sao with lots of complicated moves and full out sparring.
WCK, like boxing or wrestling, is a skill. A person that doesn’t have that skill can’t teach it to others. That is the case of the blind leading the blind. If you can’t do in fighting against fairly athletic, nonWCK fighters the things you teach, then you are teaching bulsh1t, you’re teaching fantasy-foo. You have a theory of how WCK should work, how someone should train, etc. This is not based on experience(this works for me) and not based on performance (results in fighting), it is based on theory. My point is that until YOU have done this work (the fighting), until you’ve figured out how to make WCK work in fighting for you (not in theory, but in fact), you aren’t in a position to teach anyone. You can only teach what you can do. You’re understanding is limited to your ability (fighting).
If you get the chance, and are ever coming by way of St. Louis, let me know. We can get together and in a friendly way, I’ll show you where you are wrong. FWIW, until you make that first step – seeing what contact, inside (attached) fighting is really like, what you need to really do and deal with, you will never make progress developing skills to actually do it.
[QUOTE=KPM;861521]
—Its still sparring. As I said before, there are graduations and progressions even in sparring. Your view of sparring seems to be as narrow as your view of Chi Sao.
—I agree! Did you even read my article?
When you spar I don’t think you are suddenly going to be able to transition into chi sao when you get into contact.
—You will if you’ve agreed on it as part of the drill you are doing. Again, my point was that it helps you to train the transitions. Are you going to do that in a “real” fight or an “all out” sparring session? No! But if you can’t transition smoothly from a non-contact to a bridging situation, then your Chi Sao skills are never going to show their full potential in the “free fight” situation.
—If you have no faith and belief in contact bridging skills and see no value in Chi Sao, then you should just give up Wing Chun and do Muay Thai or some other kickboxing system. Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance. If you aren’t emphasizing that in your training, then you might as well be doing something other than Wing Chun.
I’m not saying you’re never going to catch their arm with your arm. You can but it’s going to be coming quick with power. The position of your arms is real important AND it’s not going to end up like a transition into chi sao range.
—You have missed the point I have been trying to make about Chi Sao entirely! How can it NOT end up in Chi Sao range? Chi Sao range is contact with the arms. Chi Sao is not an end in itself. Its a structured drill designed to teach good responses at contact distance.
It’s going to be far more like guys smacking each other or tying up.
—Only because you haven’t brought your Chi Sao skills into the exchange.[/QUOTE]
Keith,
I did read your article and I agreed with some of it and disagreed with other parts.
The reason I posted clips of WC sparring was to illustrate that what you are talking about with the chi sao happening in sparring is pretty unlikely. The amount of striking power and movement make it difficult to do what you are saying unless you’re both going kinda light.
I’m not saying chi sao skills are useless but those techniques have to adapt to the force that’s occurring so they won’t look the same as when you are doing chi sao. The type of strikes you can throw from a distance are different than from close contact.
Even in close, the realistic forces that occur still aren’t low. They are going to involve standing grappling like MT and stuff like that. That’s just reality.
Even going light it’s difficult to avoid that. eg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGIhccW8CGE&feature=related
[QUOTE=Vankuen;861554]
Looking at these fights closely, they use the wing chun guard, some straight punches, a couple of wing chun kicks. This only happens for the first couple seconds and then the majority of the remaining time they’re using knees in a clinch, elbows, hip throws, and grappling – none of which is WC (well, the elbows and the LT/EBMAS kicks from the ground thing).
I don’t think it’s a matter of having someone jump into sparring too early for “self gratification through deviation” (whatever that means)…I think it’s a matter of truth. Universal truth in fighting.
Although I do prefer wing chun people to fight like wing chun, this is more like what a fight will look like…a little wing chun on the entry, and the rest is other “stuff”. Granted you can still use wing chun theories and principles with the other “stuff” too.
Anyway…those are my thoughts on the subject.[/QUOTE]
I agree somewhat… I think they used more than a little WC but the techniques that worked weren’t the ones that get a lot of attention like say tan/ bong/fook.
The reason I posted clips of WC sparring was to illustrate that what you are talking about with the chi sao happening in sparring is pretty unlikely. The amount of striking power and movement make it difficult to do what you are saying unless you’re both going kinda light.
—But I never said that Chi Sao happens in all out sparring! I said that the skills developed in Chi Sao can translate to all out sparring. It seems you keep missing the point. Maybe I am not explaining it very well.
I’m not saying chi sao skills are useless but those techniques have to adapt to the force that’s occurring so they won’t look the same as when you are doing chi sao.
—When did I ever say otherwise? Chi Sao is a drill. It develops certain skills. Those skills can show up in all out sparring. But there are gradations of sparring drills that help to transition those skills. Structured Chi Sao can be worked as part as that gradation or progressive sparring approach to development. Every sparring session doesn’t have to be an “all out take his head off!” exchange.
You can talk about stuff without theory – athletes do it all the time. But people who don’t do it can’t talk about it except from a theoretical POV.
—I think you’re wrong. Athletes talk about the latest conditioning program and how it might help their game…theory. Athletes talk about who they might train with next and how it might help their game…theory. Athletes talk about what strategy to use at the next outing…theory. Athletes talk about what they could have done better at their last performance…theory. One fighter will talk about what strategy and techniques might work in the ring against their next opponent whom they have never faced before…theory.
Chi sao can’t give people an understanding of WCK because it is unrealsitic and artificial.
—That’s an interesting viewpoint. There are plenty of high-ranking people who call Chi Sao the “heart” of Wing Chun. I guess they didn’t really have an understanding of it all either.
Without FIRST understanding those demands, people will tend to go off in fantasy-foo directions. No matter what you talk about, if you don’t start with fighting, it can’t be anything more than a silly game of patty cake.
—I think Chi Sao has to be “informed” by fighting to keep it from being a “silly game of patty cake.” But how do you “start” with the fight without having some background training?
You say what “WCK is designed for” – well, how the hell do you know?
—Because the way I was taught to view Wing Chun by three different teachers in three different “families” of Wing Chun. Because of the structure and biomechanics used in Wing Chun. Because of the way I see the majority of my fellow Wing Chun players describe their Wing Chun. How the hell do you NOT know?
You aren’t emphasizing anything in your training other than fantasy. If you can’t do it in fighting, how can you tell others how it should be done?
—Same old cliched argument Terence. I’d think you’d get tired of it after awhile. You have nothing to discuss about Wing Chun other than whether people are going out and fighting every chance they get. If anyone posts something to suggest otherwise, then its time to trot out the old refrain.
For me, WCK is an attached fighting method. As such, it requires contact fighting skills.
—What does that mean? And just how is that different from what I said? I called it “contact bridging skills” and said “Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance.” Doesn’t “attached” imply “contact” and “close-range”??? You asked how the hell I know what Wing Chun is designed for, then you turn around and state what sounds like almost the same thing!!
But you can’t get those fighting skills from chi sao.
—You can get some of them from Chi Sao. I’ve explained how. Generations of Wing Chun players that came before us also seemed to think so. Otherwise Chi Sao would have been dropped as a useful training method a long time ago. Maybe you don’t think that approach would work for you, and that’s OK. But that’s no reason to discount the approach entirely.
Chi sao has very limited usefulness, mainly as a way of teaching certain, limited things. It is WCK with the training wheels on. Once you can ride the bike, you don’t need to continue with the training wheels. To develop, you must take them off.
—Now it sounds like you are saying that Chi Sao is useful at some stage of training. But I would hate to “misrepresent” your position. So in answer to my previous question of “how do you teach Wing Chun…do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars?” it sounds like you are now saying that you WOULD give that new student some structured background and training before they would be expected to hold their own in sparring. But its still a bit unclear to me.
If you get the chance, and are ever coming by way of St. Louis, let me know. We can get together and in a friendly way,
—Yes, I’d like to do that. You post the same things all the time but never really get around to describing how YOU train and how YOU teach Wing Chun to beginners.
[QUOTE=KPM;861764]
Athletes talk about the latest conditioning program and how it might help their game…theory. Athletes talk about who they might train with next and how it might help their game…theory. Athletes talk about what strategy to use at the next outing…theory. Athletes talk about what they could have done better at their last performance…theory. One fighter will talk about what strategy and techniques might work in the ring against their next opponent whom they have never faced before…theory.[/quote]
I think that the difference being is that the athletes you speak of engage in the actual performance of their said sports. Most wing chun folks do it for recreation and more than likely have never sparred in their lives.
[QUOTE=KPM;861764]
There are plenty of high-ranking people who call Chi Sao the “heart” of Wing Chun. I guess they didn’t really have an understanding of it all either.
[/quote]
It is the heart…but not because it’s the most useful tool…but moreso because it’s the most commonly known tool and one that most people associate with wing chun.
[QUOTE=KPM;861764]
I think Chi Sao has to be “informed” by fighting to keep it from being a “silly game of patty cake.” But how do you “start” with the fight without having some background training?[/quote]
There are lots of other ways to practice fighting skills in wing chun without going the way of chi sao. I would often times using segmented sparring drills with my students, using a particular technique, movement, or what have you. I use a lot of man sao drills, wherein the attacker practices entry and the defender deflectes the attack, they are now in clinching range and touching, from there they can pause to reflect on their current positions, how they got there, and how they can go about achieving control from there. Or they can continue in a free flowing manner. I typically hate doing poon sao movements, as I think that is completely useless for fighting (though it develops sensitivity in general by way of forcing the participants to react to a tactile input).
[QUOTE=KPM;861764]
You can get some of them from Chi Sao. I’ve explained how. Generations of Wing Chun players that came before us also seemed to think so. Otherwise Chi Sao would have been dropped as a useful training method a long time ago. Maybe you don’t think that approach would work for you, and that’s OK. But that’s no reason to discount the approach entirely.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. It’s not completely void of usefulness. Though I think it’s paramount benefit is simply a general aspect of building sensitivity. I think that if one were to use chi sao as a means of “learning to fight” I think the performance would be a very sad one.
[QUOTE=KPM;861753]The reason I posted clips of WC sparring was to illustrate that what you are talking about with the chi sao happening in sparring is pretty unlikely. The amount of striking power and movement make it difficult to do what you are saying unless you’re both going kinda light.
—But I never said that Chi Sao happens in all out sparring! I said that the skills developed in Chi Sao can translate to all out sparring. It seems you keep missing the point. Maybe I am not explaining it very well.
[/QUOTE]
Well you seem to be more about defending your point, than listening to other people’s points.
How can you not comment on the contrast between how realistic sparring clips look and how chi sao clips look?
You said in your own article that chi sao is no substitute for sparring and chi sao isn’t a fight and not realistic resistance. Your article didn’t try play up the importance of chi sao. IF anything it played it down.
Chi Sao is a drill. It develops certain skills. Those skills can show up in all out sparring. But there are gradations of sparring drills that help to transition those skills. Structured Chi Sao can be worked as part as that gradation or progressive sparring approach to development. Every sparring session doesn’t have to be an “all out take his head off!” exchange.
I think the clips of all out sparring show what sort of skills work and how far chi sao can develop those skills.
[QUOTE=KPM;861764]—I think you’re wrong. Athletes talk about the latest conditioning program and how it might help their game…theory. Athletes talk about who they might train with next and how it might help their game…theory. Athletes talk about what strategy to use at the next outing…theory. Athletes talk about what they could have done better at their last performance…theory. One fighter will talk about what strategy and techniques might work in the ring against their next opponent whom they have never faced before…theory.
[/QUOTE]
You still don’t get it. Someone who actually does his activity/sport, who is performing, who is getting results, uses that perspective (experience) AS A BASIS for everything they do. To use an analogy, it is like scientists who’ve done many, many experiments drawing conclusions about their subject. As opposed to someone who has never really played the game coming up with theories of what will and won’t work, how things should be done, etc. You have no real basis of experience to draw upon.
Chi sao can’t give people an understanding of WCK because it is unrealsitic and artificial.
—That’s an interesting viewpoint. There are plenty of high-ranking people who call Chi Sao the “heart” of Wing Chun. I guess they didn’t really have an understanding of it all either.
Here’s your problem again, taking what others say as true and/or thinking you know what they meant by it. Keith, what made them “high-ranking”? Seriously? What did they ever do to prove they had real fighting skill? Who did they ever fight? You hold these people out as authorities of WCK when there is really no evidence they had much in the way of skill.
—I think Chi Sao has to be “informed” by fighting to keep it from being a “silly game of patty cake.” But how do you “start” with the fight without having some background training?
Simple. By fighting, by experiencing what it is really like, seeing the real problems you will encounter, etc. You can begin sparring in BJJ on day one. You won’t be any good, but you’ll experience the ground. It’s the same with WCK.
All kinds of nonsense is taught in chi sao that simply won’t work in attached fighting. Worse, people who don’t fight, use chi sao as the basis for their WCK.
You say what “WCK is designed for” – well, how the hell do you know?
—Because the way I was taught to view Wing Chun by three different teachers in three different “families” of Wing Chun. Because of the structure and biomechanics used in Wing Chun. Because of the way I see the majority of my fellow Wing Chun players describe their Wing Chun. How the hell do you NOT know?
And if you and your three teachers fought with some aggressive, nonWCK fighters who were in decent shape, and you’d all get destroyed. Same with the majority of WCK players. They all suck. Maybe some can fight, but are they using the things they train in their fighting as they train them? No. Until you accept the simple fact the only thing that all these guys know is the curriculum of WCK but have no real ability to apply that curriculum beyond a superficial level (skill). There are no authorities in WCK.
When you listen to people with no skill, when you follow their directions, you aren’t on the road to progress, you are on some side road to fantasy land. But the good news is you don’t need them. What you need is to let application be your sifu, let your results (fighting) guide you and act as your compass.
—Same old cliched argument Terence. I’d think you’d get tired of it after awhile. You have nothing to discuss about Wing Chun other than whether people are going out and fighting every chance they get. If anyone posts something to suggest otherwise, then its time to trot out the old refrain.
I’ll be happy to discuss WCK with you when you begin doing WCK. Doing WCK is fighting. As you are not doing that, how can we discuss it? It is only theory to you.
For me, WCK is an attached fighting method. As such, it requires contact fighting skills.
—What does that mean? And just how is that different from what I said? I called it “contact bridging skills” and said “Wing Chun is designed for and works best at that close-range contact distance.” Doesn’t “attached” imply “contact” and “close-range”??? You asked how the hell I know what Wing Chun is designed for, then you turn around and state what sounds like almost the same thing!!
I said FOR ME WCK is attached fighting. For me. I don’t know what
WCK was “designed for”. Neither of us, nor can anyone, speak for all WCK or for the the founders or anything else other than what we can do. I know what I do. I am not saying that it works best doing what I do. There may be other ways.
The difference between our views is you are talking from a theoretical POV as some authority that can speak for all WCK and I’m saying based on my experience this is how I see it. I see it this way because I’m doing it that way. You are not basing your view on experience.
But you can’t get those fighting skills from chi sao.
—You can get some of them from Chi Sao. I’ve explained how. Generations of Wing Chun players that came before us also seemed to think so. Otherwise Chi Sao would have been dropped as a useful training method a long time ago. Maybe you don’t think that approach would work for you, and that’s OK. But that’s no reason to discount the approach entirely.
Do you see what evidence you marshall? What others have thought (or what you believe they thought). And the good old silly argument, if it didn’t work, they wouldn’t be doing it. But traditioanl arts do all sorts of silly things that we know aren’t particularly useful or necessary, like forms.
The evidence you didn’t marshall to support your argument was performance results. You are not saying I practice this is chi sao and when I fight, I do the exact same thing. One, because you are not fighting to know that, and two, because it won’t work like that.
I told youo how to get the experience to see for yourself, and you won’t do it.
Chi sao has very limited usefulness, mainly as a way of teaching certain, limited things. It is WCK with the training wheels on. Once you can ride the bike, you don’t need to continue with the training wheels. To develop, you must take them off.
—Now it sounds like you are saying that Chi Sao is useful at some stage of training. But I would hate to “misrepresent” your position. So in answer to my previous question of “how do you teach Wing Chun…do you just throw a brand new student who knows nothing out in the ring and let someone kick there ars?” it sounds like you are now saying that you WOULD give that new student some structured background and training before they would be expected to hold their own in sparring. But its still a bit unclear to me.
Read what I ****1ing said – it has limited usefulness for teaching. Teaching. But you can never develop fighting skills from chi sao. People don’t behave in fighting like they do in chi sao, so you never learn how to really deal with someone fighting you by doing chi sao.
You want to know how I would teach someone WCK. My point is that before you can teach anyone and before talking about howto do that, YOU need to have the skill. You can’t teach what you don’t know. If you know it, if you know a skill, that itself will give you insight into how to teach it. Until YOU can do it, you can’t teach others. For example, you can’t teach wrestling because you can’t wrestle. If you were a very good wrestler, you’d know the fundamental skills (not from theory,butfrom your experience) and you could teach them.
If you get the chance, and are ever coming by way of St. Louis, let me know. We can get together and in a friendly way,
—Yes, I’d like to do that. You post the same things all the time but never really get around to describing how YOU train and how YOU teach Wing Chun to beginners.
You are always welcome. The problem about my saying how I “teach” is that when I do teach it is individually-based or learner-centered. There is no set way. Generally, however, I show a trainee the approach (the strategic battle plan of WCK) and focus on developing the 7 or 8 fundamental skills they will need to implement that approach. I use a sparring platform to do that, but also use some of the classical drills, including chi sao, as part of the teaching/learning process.
Well you seem to be more about defending your point, than listening to other people’s points.
—I could say the exact same thing of you! How long did we belabour the point of whether Judo Randori was a good analogy for Chi Sao…with you seeing only the differences and not the similarities?
How can you not comment on the contrast between how realistic sparring clips look and how chi sao clips look?
—What difference does that make? They are two different things. I’ve said over and over that Chi Sao is a structured drill with a specific purpose. It is not realisitic sparring.
You said in your own article that chi sao is no substitute for sparring and chi sao isn’t a fight and not realistic resistance. Your article didn’t try play up the importance of chi sao. IF anything it played it down.
—Exactly! I was trying to provide the middle ground between saying Chi Sao is useless and throwing it out…like Terence has done…and saying that Chi Sao is ideal way to learn to fight with Wing Chun…which it isn’t. I was trying to point out that focusing on long strings of complicated movements against a cooperating partner is not the real intent and purpose of Chi Sao training. I have been trying to show how Chi Sao can be make part of a progressive sparring program in order to better transition the contact reflex skills developed into actual application. But it seems like no one is listening. Rather than trying to see and understand what I am saying, you and others keep harping on the negatives. I have to keep wondering…“do these guys even do Wing Chun?”
I think the clips of all out sparring show what sort of skills work and how far chi sao can develop those skills.
—Unless you know the participants personally you have no way of judging. How do you know what kind of Chi Sao training they have had? Maybe they learned to roll…learned lots of prearranged combinations against a cooperative partner…and that was it. Maybe they were never taught how to transition their Chi Sao skills into sparring. Maybe they’ve never worked on progressive sparring drills designed to show them how to use Chi Sao skills. Maybe they’ve never developed any actual Chi Sao skills to begin with!!
To use an analogy, it is like scientists who’ve done many, many experiments drawing conclusions about their subject.
—Scientists do not start from scratch. Scientists have a background from learning what other scientists have done. Scientists spend years in school training before they ever embark on real experiments of their own. No, I see what you are saying Terence, and have said before that you have a few good points. But you take it too extremes. You alienate nearly everyone you interact with. You won’t meet anyone half-way and see the middle ground.
As opposed to someone who has never really played the game coming up with theories of what will and won’t work, how things should be done, etc. You have no real basis of experience to draw upon.
—I have sparred with people from other systems. I have examined the biomechanics behind my Wing Chun and made some changes. But I haven’t had the opportunity to go out every weekend and find hardcore guys willing to spar. I haven’t had the opportunity to enter any kind of local MMA competition and likely never will. Not everyone has access to lots of people from other styles willing to spar on a realistic by friendly level. So we work with it as we can. But I’m sure that’s still not good enough for you. You don’t see a middle ground in anything. Its “all out” or nothing for you…at least that’s how you come across in your posts.
Here’s your problem again, taking what others say as true and/or thinking you know what they meant by it. Keith, what made them “high-ranking”? Seriously? What did they ever do to prove they had real fighting skill? Who did they ever fight? You hold these people out as authorities of WCK when there is really no evidence they had much in the way of skill.
—Terence I will ask again…why do you even practice Wing Chun? You don’t think that any Wing Chun players in the past were fighters, so how could they have possibly developed an effective fighting system? You don’t think that Chi Sao is useful, when it has been one of the main training methods for Wing Chun for generations. So how could Wing Chun possibly be an effective fighting system? You don’t trust the historical background of Wing Chun, so why do you practice it? You don’t think anyone can actually fight with Wing Chun. Why aren’t you doing Muay Thai?
All kinds of nonsense is taught in chi sao that simply won’t work in attached fighting. Worse, people who don’t fight, use chi sao as the basis for their WCK.
—I agree. That is essentially what I have been writing about. But you don’t see a middle ground.
And if you and your three teachers fought with some aggressive, nonWCK fighters who were in decent shape, and you’d all get destroyed.
—I least one of those teachers did fight with aggressive nonWCK fighters in Hong Kong. I wasn’t there and can’t vouce for their skills or what kind of shape they were in, but he didn’t get destroyed.
There are no authorities in WCK.
—Again, why do you practice WCK? And I’m not just being factious. I’m truly interested in why you stick with Wing Chun when you could be doing something like Muay Thai. Muay Thai has a documented fighting background. Lots of Muay Thai teachers are former ring fighters. Muay Thai guys do some serious sparring. Why do you bother with Wing Chun?
What you need is to let application be your sifu, let your results (fighting) guide you and act as your compass.
—Yes. I like that saying from Robert Chu. But as I have said several times in the past, you have to start somewhere! You need a structured curriculum. Then your sparring/fighting to test application can inform what you are doing and how you train.
I’ll be happy to discuss WCK with you when you begin doing WCK. Doing WCK is fighting. As you are not doing that, how can we discuss it? It is only theory to you.
—See, this is where you tick off almost everyone you interact with here. If we’re not going out and fighting people from other systems on a regular basis, then we’re not even doing WCK. That is a pretty lame attitude.
I said FOR ME WCK is attached fighting. For me. I don’t know what
WCK was “designed for”. Neither of us, nor can anyone, speak for all WCK or for the the founders or anything else other than what we can do. I know what I do. I am not saying that it works best doing what I do. There may be other ways.
—You still haven’t described how what you said is different from what I said.
You are not basing your view on experience.
—Sure I am! I am basing it on experience with several teachers. I am basing it on experience with performing and practicing it with an eye towards good biomechanics. I am basing it on experience using it in sparring…maybe not to the level they you would like…but I do more than just forms and Chi Sao.
You are always welcome. The problem about my saying how I “teach” is that when I do teach it is individually-based or learner-centered. There is no set way. Generally, however, I show a trainee the approach (the strategic battle plan of WCK) and focus on developing the 7 or 8 fundamental skills they will need to implement that approach. I use a sparring platform to do that, but also use some of the classical drills, including chi sao, as part of the teaching/learning process.
—That sounds good. But why are you attacking me for describing a little different approach? Why are you never supportive in what you post? You use Chi Sao as part of the teaching/learning process but believe that sparring should be the focus. I’ve said the same thing. You evidently haven’t thrown out Chi Sao totally. I’ve described how I see Chi Sao as being somewhere between the “be all and end all” of WCK training and being competely useless. It seems we would agree on that point and our differences are essentially in how much or how little we use Chi Sao in training. Why do you attack me for my position rather than see and discuss the similarities that we appear to have? Why is everything a fight for you rather than a discussion?