[QUOTE=Buddha_Fist;1255738]Yawn…[/QUOTE]
Yea…Would rather train than argue. 
[QUOTE=sehing2;1255718]“Want to actually see whether somebody’s Ving Tsun works? Simply spar and let all that babbling aside.”
While sparring using gloves, moving around, faking, jabbing, etc. does develop attributes it does not replicate or necessarily prepare you for street defense. It prepares you more for sport. Sparring has rules to protect the participants, so it does not really prove the effectiveness of anyone’s wing chun.[/QUOTE]
Sparring is definitely not the be-all/end-all for street prep, but it sure prepares one for the street way better than does chi sao.
[QUOTE=sihing;1255682]Great post! A good article on Chi sau here.. http://vingtsunserbia.wordpress.com/the-system/chi-sao-pon-sao/ .
Chi sau is development, to bring about a skill set specific to VT, and from there the person uses that skill set in combat, VT=development, You= Application, VT is does not fight, YOU fight. Sparring is a drill as well. From the little that I saw in those Danny vids, he’s fighting in his chi sau, no real skill seen…just my opinion:)
James[/QUOTE]
You fight using the skills you learned to fight with.
Chi sao would be great for developing fighting skills if fighting was anything like chi sao, but it’s not.
[QUOTE=sehing2;1255718]Sparring has rules to protect the participants, so it does not really prove the effectiveness of anyone’s wing chun.[/QUOTE]
If you have landed your fist on your opponent’s face 1000 times, the chance that your fist will be able to land on your opponent’s face for the 1001 time will be high.
In mathematic, it’s called “extrapolation”.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1255818]
If you have landed your fist on your opponent’s face 1000 times, the chance that your fist will be able to land on your opponent’s face for the 1001 time will be high.
In mathematic, it’s called “extrapolation”.[/QUOTE]
It is the circumstances prior to landing the punch that have little connection to the reality of most street encounters.
While sparring using gloves, moving around, faking, jabbing, etc. does develop attributes it does not replicate or necessarily prepare you for street defense.
Your answers so far for some reason don’t seem to divulge your better methods of preparing for street defense.
[QUOTE=LaRoux;1255815]You fight using the skills you learned to fight with.
Chi sao would be great for developing fighting skills if fighting was anything like chi sao, but it’s not.[/QUOTE]
But we don’t learn chi-sau per se as a skill to fight with.
It is like hitting a heavy bag to develop the punch- structure, penetration, etc.. But the bag doesn’t hit back or follow you. It is nothing like fighting, unless you’re picking on a kid, yet you will fight with the punching skill heavy bag training develops. It is one tool and one aspect. No one who trains it thinks it is fighting nor fights a person in just the same way they “fight” a heavy bag.
I assume because chi-sau is a two-person drill where both may be working offensive and defensive skills which resembles a fantasy fight to the unlearned, you have grossly misunderstood its purpose. That’s what instructors are for.
But certainly, there are plenty of lousy instructors (watch WCBlast) who seem to have the same misunderstanding and replace the position of sparring with chi-sau and treat it like fighting, but they are missing the point of the developmental drill and indeed the training process entirely.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1256511]But we don’t learn chi-sau per se as a skill to fight with.
It is like hitting a heavy bag to develop the punch- structure, penetration, etc.. But the bag doesn’t hit back or follow you. It is nothing like fighting, unless you’re picking on a kid, yet you will fight with the punching skill heavy bag training develops. It is one tool and one aspect. No one who trains it thinks it is fighting nor fights a person in just the same way they “fight” a heavy bag.
I assume because chi-sau is a two-person drill where both may be working offensive and defensive skills which resembles a fantasy fight to the unlearned, you have grossly misunderstood its purpose. That’s what instructors are for.
But certainly, there are plenty of lousy instructors (watch WCBlast) who seem to have the same misunderstanding and replace the position of sparring with chi-sau and treat it like fighting, but they are missing the point of the developmental drill and indeed the training process entirely.[/QUOTE]
You are the one with the misunderstanding and missing the point of developmental drills.
The heavy bag is a valid developmental drill in that it trains many of the the same attributes that will be used in a fight. The proof of this is that a person who trains on the heavy bag will fight in a way that resembles pretty closely the way he hits the heavy bag.
Chi sao is a totally non-valid developmental technique because it trains very little of the attributes that are used in fighting. The proof of this is that, by far, people who train in chi sao will fight nothing in a way that resembles what they do in chi sao.
[QUOTE=LaRoux;1256523]people who train in chi sao will fight nothing in a way that resembles what they do in chi sao.[/QUOTE]
Laroux, i think you just validated what LFJ was trying to tell you…
You seem hell bent to throw wing chun under the short bus.
chi sau training attempts to ingrain an idea, thats it.
[QUOTE=LaRoux;1256523]Chi sao is a totally non-valid developmental technique because it trains very little of the attributes that are used in fighting.[/quote]
Perhaps not the attributes you use in fighting, because you aren’t a wing chun practitioner. You don’t even have a clue how to begin assessing whether or not a practitioner uses something from their chi-sau development, other than to look at the form, which is already an error.
The proof of this is that, by far, people who train in chi sao will fight nothing in a way that resembles what they do in chi sao.
That is because what chi-sau develops is abstract, perhaps unseen to the unlearned ignorantly expecting a wing chun practitioner’s fighting to resemble their chi-sau drills.
The unlearned will first make the mistake of thinking we believe it to be fight training, and then make the mistake of thinking a wing chun practitioner’s fighting should look like it. But that is not why it is trained. Until you get into it and have proper instruction, you’re just left to your imagination and, you are wrong.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1256511]But we don’t learn chi-sau per se as a skill to fight with.
It is like hitting a heavy bag to develop the punch- structure, penetration, etc.. But the bag doesn’t hit back or follow you. It is nothing like fighting, unless you’re picking on a kid, yet you will fight with the punching skill heavy bag training develops. It is one tool and one aspect. No one who trains it thinks it is fighting nor fights a person in just the same way they “fight” a heavy bag.
I assume because chi-sau is a two-person drill where both may be working offensive and defensive skills which resembles a fantasy fight to the unlearned, you have grossly misunderstood its purpose. That’s what instructors are for.
But certainly, there are plenty of lousy instructors (watch WCBlast) who seem to have the same misunderstanding and replace the position of sparring with chi-sau and treat it like fighting, but they are missing the point of the developmental drill and indeed the training process entirely.[/QUOTE]
Well said.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1256528]Perhaps not the attributes you use in fighting, because you aren’t a wing chun practitioner. You don’t even have a clue how to begin assessing whether or not a practitioner uses something from their chi-sau development, other than to look at the form, which is already an error.
That is because what chi-sau develops is abstract, perhaps unseen to the unlearned ignorantly expecting a wing chun practitioner’s fighting to resemble their chi-sau drills.
The unlearned will first make the mistake of thinking we believe it to be fight training, and then make the mistake of thinking a wing chun practitioner’s fighting should look like it. But that is not why it is trained. Until you get into it and have proper instruction, you’re just left to your imagination and, you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
the problem is no one can actually point to a good fighting clip showing these attributes developed in chi sao in action, every clip of actual wind chun sparring and fighting gets pulled apart as being terrible on this forum
That is not a problem for me as it has no consequence on the efficacy of my personal training. My training is validated by my efforts and experience alone, not whether there is good video footage of someone else to be seen somewhere nor by obtaining the approval of random viewers on the internet.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1256532]That is not a problem for me as it has no consequence on the efficacy of my personal training. My training is validated by my efforts and experience alone, not whether there is good video footage of someone else to be seen somewhere nor by obtaining the approval of random viewers on the internet.[/QUOTE]
Now that, is well said.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1256532]That is not a problem for me as it has no consequence on the efficacy of my personal training. My training is validated by my efforts and experience alone, not whether there is good video footage of someone else to be seen somewhere nor by obtaining the approval of random viewers on the internet.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post LFJ.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1256532]That is not a problem for me as it has no consequence on the efficacy of my personal training. My training is validated by my efforts and experience alone, not whether there is good video footage of someone else to be seen somewhere nor by obtaining the approval of random viewers on the internet.[/QUOTE]
That was pretty much the philosophy of this guy and his students before he got introduced to reality.
Maul Mornie (coolest name, ever), had a good post on Facebook today. I’ve never seen anyone from his art spar or enter MMA competitions, etc. People always knock the guy saying his stuff only works on compliant partners, etc.
Try telling that to Ray Burns. YouTube videos are not always the best yardstick for something’s effectiveness; and not everyone showcases their art in a ring 
[QUOTE=BPWT;1256575]Maul Mornie (coolest name, ever), had a good post on Facebook today. I’ve never seen anyone from his art spar or enter MMA competitions, etc. People always knock the guy saying his stuff only works on compliant partners, etc.
Try telling that to Ray Burns. YouTube videos are not always the best yardstick for something’s effectiveness; and not everyone showcases their art in a ring ;)[/QUOTE]
The early days of MMA/NHB had a few silat practitioners. They got destroyed.
I’m not sure what those pictures have to do with working with compliant partners, other that showing Burns being a compliant partner to that lock. Just reinforces the point that it only works with compliant partners.
[QUOTE=LaRoux;1256573]That was pretty much the philosophy of this guy and his students before he got introduced to reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I[/QUOTE]
Poor example.
[QUOTE=LaRoux;1256579]The early days of MMA/NHB had a few silat practitioners. They got destroyed.
I’m not sure what those pictures have to do with working with compliant partners, other that showing Burns being a compliant partner to that lock. Just reinforces the point that it only works with compliant partners.[/QUOTE]
I posted it as an example of training that some might question, especially in relation to no ring work, no ‘evidence’ of it working in a competitive setting; yet there are many with that very competitive experience who do train in these ‘questionable’ methods - because these methods do have worth and relevance.
Chi Sau has a purpose related to fighting, but that purpose is not to make a fight ‘look’ like a Chi Sau exercise.
Boxers jump rope but they don’t take the rope with them into the ring, they take in what it gave them