Kiu Sao and Chi Sao

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

Fau kiu

Reneritchie I see your point but your point did not answer my question, hopefully hendrik will answer the questions since the questions arose from his earlier post.

“You have to understand though, if you look only at outwards appearances or only at the differences that is all you see. If you look at the similarities, again this may be all you’ll see.” --Mckind13

David, Does this mean you believe neither Savi nor yourself are capable of seeing past your own particular lineages?

Lastly David if your opponent as you refer to them doesn’t “strike” the conditions needed for the creation of a bridge will not be met. This may indeed be one of the lessons of the seminar you may want to review.

42

Yuanfen Wrote
>>> If one overemphasized techniques then one goes down the road of creating endless subcategories of technques for the bridge versus techniques for other parts.

Joy, I agree with you on this one. Not just over emphasizing bridge techniques but techniques in general. All things considered equal, I believe a skilled principle fighter will always have an advantage over those who aquire their skill solely on technique.

Chi sao is not fighting anyway- but is a very important developmental tool.

Again I agree. The popular Chi Sao drill is not fighting and does develop skill. For me I look at the drill as a teaching technique for developing said skill. But when you look past the technique and focus on the principles, thats where one finds the lesson and relevance of Chi Sao in actual combat.

>>>Doing it well develops everything- the kiu, the distancing, the assesment of risk, and the adptation to the level of risk.

Here I need to ask when “doing Chi Sao well” and having developed the above (kiu, distancing, etc…) - Have you used your Chi Sao to train for combat or a drill? If for combat is that when Chi Sao becomes not just a drill to prepare skills for fighting but an actual applicable meathodology of fighting in and of itself?

In writing this I’m asking myself is Chi Sao a drill, a concept or both …

I dont know if this was on topic or not but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to agree with Joy for once.

-David

43

Especially when others say you’re being selfish.

Selfish? LOL

Check it out,
1, where does the link to Taiping… source from? Check back a few years ago.
2, Who post the Emei’s summary and white Crane stuffs?..
3, Go to Shang Hai Dien Chun Dong and link all the history pices and give it out for free.


You always like to give your opinions about other WCK families.

There is a different between discussing about WCK technical and WCK family. I don’t have problem with David, Joy, Blood God, Jim… and they don’t have problem with me.


But you wouldn’t answer some of Jeremy’s questions on your own teacher. Why?

I don’t need to answer and answer and answer what I have been post.
My teacher and what I know is not a secret. Read the www.wingchunkuen.com.

On the other hand, what have you answer about
all those Chan and root of the WCK issues?


People are not interested in your politics and opinions.

It is very strange that I am here to discuss about Kiu Sau and you want to link everything to politics. By the way, there is a different between opinions and facts.

Maybe others like Hung Fa Yi and Jee Sim WCK families see this more clearly than you and your Cho’s family.

You better check with Hung Fa Yi’s Garret and Jee Sim’s Andreas if you represent them before you post this sentence above. They might not like what you have post.

Bees = Robert Chu’s camp (Hendrik, David Mckind, Terence).

There is no Camp there is technical discussion. Get that straight.

44

Empty cup?

Hello David,

<snip> I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.

The strike can only happen when a true superior position is gained! We will not break our structure or put ourselves at risk to strike. Some might say well “that is true with all WCK” How everI think we might have a different idea of what true superior position is. In the HFY system we have very specific methods to point this out. I hope we can meet again a further this discussion. I cannot see us really being able to discuss precise positons via this forum.

<snip>Savi, the DNA as Hedrick called it of Wing Chun is all very similar and different genetic traits present themselves differently depending on the parents and the dominant or recessive genes.

David I think you would agree that due to HFY’s “Consistant” and precise nature. If you make one small change in the base information it cannot be recognized as HFY. So for it to be kinda or very simular to other WCK we are not talking about the same thing. HFY has very precise references. It would be like changing one of the 36 chromozone. This would create a very different Cell-tissue-organ-to-organism. So if you take the HFY information and say it is like etc… Simularities may be at first glance. I have to admit before I got more HFY base information. I did alot of saying it is like Yip man system this way and that way. I found that I could not really progress in my HFY until I stopped doing this. I found that the differences had been quite significant. So much to the point that I did not mind having to go back and revisiting all of my Wing Chun information. after doing so I realized that this was my crutch and was the very thing that denied me of my understanding of the HFY information . By doing this I can really appreciate both the Yip Man information and the HFY information as two different things. So when someone says to me what is the difference between the HFY and Yip Man systems I say to them " do you have a few minutes and who is buying the coffee" I have to say from the opening moves of the form the meanings are different. To give you an idea of HFY’s precise nature you can tell if a person has a base understanding from the first move of the form! The key elements and awarness of one’s structure can be seen right away. There is not a grey area when it comes to this.

Chango (Saat geng sau)

:cool:

45

Re: Fau kiu

Originally posted by canglong
hopefully hendrik will answer the questions since the questions arose from his earlier post.

Since Rolling Hands said I am political and selfish. Why should I share? LOL

46

Point of Clarification

Hi David,

Originally posted by Mckind13
[B]Grendel wrote - I don’t mean to nitpick, but doesn’t striking an opponent create a bridge?

Striking does create a bridge but i said an arm to arm bridge.
[/B]

You actually said the following:
[B]

Originally posted by Mckind13
Does this mean that in the philosophy of HFY you would not directly strike an opponent without first creating a bridge?

Given the line I would strike and keep on striking until I needed to create an arm to arm bridge with my opponent.
[/B]

[B]

I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.
[/B]

I think I misunderstood where you were leading the discussion. Good question for HFY. I’ll look forward to a HFY answer. :smiley:

Regards,

47

ouch

you should share because you are political and selfish and sharing will help you in your cause.

48

Tony/canglong

You misunderstood what I said. Savi asked what it was that others saw that made HFY look different to them that I did not see. I said that maybe I saw everything they did only I recognized the similarities.

I think we are capable of looking past our own lineages and understanding on many levels what we see or even read.

So for those that saw a completely different art/lineage, good for them.

But when I saw the application done, and felt the energy used by Sifu Gee, I felt and saw the similarities.

I have not had a broad exposure to WCK but I can recognize differences in form versus differences in the functionality even if the concepts behind the applications are a little different.

BTW. I do not see HFY as having the exact same ideas or strategy as other Wing Chun schools but I do see the family resemblance more then some others might.

Tony wrote - Lastly David if your opponent as you refer to them doesn’t “strike” the conditions needed for the creation of a bridge will not be met. This may indeed be one of the lessons of the seminar you may want to review.

I understand that Tony, and from the context of the seminar as I understand it the Kiu Sau is all about creating that bridge effectively and in the best possible way.
That was, however, not my question. Does the strategy of HFY dictate that you create a bridge (Kiu Sau if you want) when faced with the opportunity to strike, but where no immediate resistance or threat exists from an opponent? Provided there is a good reason to be hitting him in the first place J.

David McKinnon

49

fau kiu

David,
you seem to have posed this particular question without any regard for the philosophy or principles of HFY. I think that would be a common mistake. To the priciple of the question as I see it, there is no need for strategy where no threat exist. The philosophy as I see it, says you are in a state of harmony so enjoy it. As for application kiu sau does not necessarily mean san da will follow or that it has to. Kui sau is a means of demonstrating your ability to get to a nuetral or superior position in order to curtail the need for strikes. If your opponent is unable to recognize your ability to attain these positions you can further demonstrate them by moving from kiu sau (arm bridge) to chi sau (striking point) while preventing your opponent the opportunity to do the same and that I think is key. Then further if he is unable to recognize your ability to do this you can further demonstrate your superiority by striking. The point being if your kiu sau is good enough you will seldmon have to move to chi sau and even less likely will be the need for you to strike.

50

Re: fau kiu

Hi Canglong,

All of what you write makes surprising good sense. I think I begin to see your differentiation between kiu sau and chi sao. Still, it seems like Wing Chun to me.

Originally posted by canglong
David,
you seem to have posed this particular question without any regard for the philosophy or principles of HFY. I think that would be a common mistake. To the priciple of the question as I see it, there is no need for strategy where no threat exist.

Stating the obvious, yes.
[B]

The philosophy as I see it, says you are in a state of harmony so enjoy it. As for application kiu sau does not necessarily mean san da will follow or that it has to. Kui sau is a means of demonstrating your ability to get to a nuetral or superior position in order to curtail the need for strikes.
[/B]

This I don’t understand. Why would you not want to dispatch your opponent with strikes once you have position?
[B]

If your opponent is unable to recognize your ability to attain these positions you can further demonstrate them by moving from kiu sau (arm bridge) to chi sau (striking point) while preventing your opponent the opportunity to do the same and that I think is key.
[/B]

You have provided good definitional clues here.
[B]

Then further if he is unable to recognize your ability to do this you can further demonstrate your superiority by striking. The point being if your kiu sau is good enough you will seldmon have to move to chi sau and even less likely will be the need for you to strike. [/B]

Here you lost me. If we’re in a fighting situation, you don’t stop until your opponent is out, right? Are you referring perhaps, to a training exercise when you say there is no need to strike? If so, I’d agree with HFY principles on that point then. But, if it’s only a training exercise, do you have instances when you’d move to chi sao, but you remain in kiu sau range because you have control over your partner anyway? Please clarify this use.

Regards,

51

fau kiu

Grendel,

Yes, we are talking wing chun as you can see I am a newbie so I may have missed that point in time where HFY was classified as something other than wing chun. To get back on track we’ll just go forward considering HFY as wing chun.

David’s post I was replying to didn’t specify a fighting situation. Although to answer your question and Davids with my own understanding I would have to say our teaching is that striking is not the martial way but demonstrating your superior ability to strike and not strike is the martial way. Remeber Rene’s story about the old man in the park he didn’t have to clobber rene to convince him to upgrade just show him something superior. When your opponent doesn’t have the ability to strike you striking that opponent is nothing but wasted energies on your part.

52

fau kiu

Grendel,

“do you have instances when you’d move to chi sao, but you remain in kiu sau range because you have control over your partner anyway? Please clarify this use.”

The short answer is yes, the reason being you can attain san da position to strike from kiu sau. No need to go to chi sau, but if your opponent is not a threat and you have control that control at kiu sau range may be all that is warranted in that situation, or or paraphrasing my Sitiagung chi sau is a priviledge that you attain via persuasion of your kiu sau.

53

Re: Fau kiu

quote:

Originally posted by canglong
hopefully hendrik will answer the questions since the questions arose from his earlier post.

–Since Rolling Hands said I am political and selfish. Why should I
share?–Hendrik

–ouch
you should share because you are political and selfish and sharing will help you in your cause.–canglong

A fool is happy until his mischief turns against him.

Canglong,

Thanks to all HFYWCK brothers, you guys are wonderful and I really am learning a lot from your lineage.

54

FWIW, I have a slightly different perspective of kiu (bridge) and chi sao. For me, since first and foremost I seek to control my opponent, the term “kiu” to me reflects having a solid connection to my opponent’s center (to best guarantee control), regardless of the method of joining (dap/jip). For example, you can touch (mor) someone’s chest and not have control of their center (so there exists no bridge). However, if you press firmly enough to make (feel) the connection, you’ve established the bridge. Combine having the bridge with breaking the opponent’s body structure (have him on his heels when you make the connection), and you can easily control him. Similarly, if I strike my opponent’s shoulder or some other part (rather than his center) - so that I haven’t disrupted his center - my strike doesn’t become a bridge (to his center) at all. And so kiu sao for me is no more than establishing a bridge to the opponent (his center) via the arm. Thus, as I see it, kiu denotes a certain quality of connection. From this perspective, I can stick (chi) and not have a bridge (kiu) and I can touch (mor) and not have a bridge (kiu). Yet whenever I touch or stick, I seek to bridge (chum kiu) in accordance with the kuen kuit: “mo kiu jee jouu kiu” (if no bridge, then erect one).

Terence

55

If you want someone to respect your opinion, you should respect theirs, even if you disagree with it. If what you train is WCK, than a WCK person should be able to look at it and see it as WCK. If not, than you should be content to be doing something other than WCK. I’m not sure you can have that both ways (“We’re WCK but completely unlike any other kind of WCK”).

So, if you’re not completely unlike any other kind of WCK, and other WCK people can see that, then I’m not sure what the problem is. There are similarities and differences in every teacher’s approach, some more, some less, but in the end it has to be similar enough to be the same art (unless you cease being WCK altogether). You can choose to focus on the differences, or on the similarities. Neither represents the complete picture, but both are valid perspectives and denying one denies the other.

To think that anyone who disagrees with you is blind or stupid or doesn’t understand or has alterior motives is arrogant and self-limiting. Empty cups should be empty on all sides of a discussion, and the reasons you believe other people are wrong should be the same reasons you watch yourself for being wrong as well.

Both David and Savi have well expressed opinions, and I personally welcome them both. You need both inner knowledge and outer perspective to get a good sense of a thing. Maybe outsiders are too far removed, but insiders are often too involved as well. A balance is a good thing to have.

If anyone can’t see and respect that, they have the problem.

AndrewS - Understood and agreed. Bridge Arm is classically an arm, and the terminology seems to stem in large part from that liguistic characteristic, but I also think our art in application goes beyond that (even into psychological bridges).

Hendrik - There are tons of unanswered questions all around. Certain bullies love to ask repeatedly about unanswered questions when their bags are three times as full. Still, your martial family kept a great legacy of WCK and IMHO you should share it. Don’t worry about the bullies (they’re caught in their own self-limiting traps), just share for the rest of us and if you need any help with the English expression, there are several folks here for you.

MKind13 -

when faced with the opportunity to strike, but where no immediate resistance or threat exists from an opponent? Provided there is a good reason to be hitting him in the first place J.

Someone attacking your girlfriend, for example, or friend. They are busy bridging someone else, but you may (or will) need to intervene.

Trolling_Hand - Please stop stalking me.

56

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
[B]Re: Fau kiu

A fool is happy until his mischief turns against him.

[/B]

Rolling Hand,

You are certainly very Right!

the term kiu certainly was redefined to be… .

That shows and justified itself on the lack of Classical Chinese Martial art vocab. and understanding… a mix up

Only fool will certainly trying to shoot the messanger.:cool:

57

Originally posted by reneritchie
[B]

Hendrik - There are tons of unanswered questions all around. Certain bullies love to ask repeatedly about unanswered questions when their bags are three times as full. Still, your martial family kept a great legacy of WCK and IMHO you should share it. Don’t worry about the bullies (they’re caught in their own self-limiting traps), just share for the rest of us and if you need any help with the English expression, there are several folks here for you.

[/B]

Thanks Rene,

Kiu is specificly defined.

The term Kiu of certain people has been redefined since I don’t want to say they don’t have clear understanding.

There are atleast other terms has to be included.

Now, mixing alots of stuffs and called it kiu is the source of confusion.

There is a reason why kids in the USA has to take SAT Vocab. test.
To be specific one needs Vocab. The higher the education the more vocab. is needed for communication, classification, and organization.

I am not impressed if the WCK original ancestors couldn’t figure out between Kiu, Wai, Sai…

58

Rene Ritchie,

Chairman Moa once gave his party members these hints on speech-making: Be sincere, be brief and be seated.

If you want someone to respect your opinion, you should respect theirs, even if you disagree with it. If what you train is WCK, than a WCK person should be able to look at it and see it as WCK. If not, than you should be content to be doing something other than WCK. I’m not sure you can have that both ways (“We’re WCK but completely unlike any other kind of WCK”).

So, if you’re not completely unlike any other kind of WCK, and other WCK people can see that, then I’m not sure what the problem is. There are similarities and differences in every teacher’s approach, some more, some less, but in the end it has to be similar enough to be the same art (unless you cease being WCK altogether). You can choose to focus on the differences, or on the similarities. Neither represents the complete picture, but both are valid perspectives and denying one denies the other.

To think that anyone who disagrees with you is blind or stupid or doesn’t understand or has alterior motives is arrogant and self-limiting. Empty cups should be empty on all sides of a discussion, and the reasons you believe other people are wrong should be the same reasons you watch yourself for being wrong as well.

Both David and Savi have well expressed opinions, and I personally welcome them both. You need both inner knowledge and outer perspective to get a good sense of a thing. Maybe outsiders are too far removed, but insiders are often too involved as well. A balance is a good thing to have.

If anyone can’t see and respect that, they have the problem.

AndrewS - Understood and agreed. Bridge Arm is classically an arm, and the terminology seems to stem in large part from that liguistic characteristic, but I also think our art in application goes beyond that (even into psychological bridges).

Hendrik - There are tons of unanswered questions all around. Certain bullies love to ask repeatedly about unanswered questions when their bags are three times as full. Still, your martial family kept a great legacy of WCK and IMHO you should share it. Don’t worry about the bullies (they’re caught in their own self-limiting traps), just share for the rest of us and if you need any help with the English expression, there are several folks here for you.

MKind13 -
quote:when faced with the opportunity to strike, but where no immediate resistance or threat exists from an opponent? Provided there is a good reason to be hitting him in the first place J.

Someone attacking your girlfriend, for example, or friend. They are busy bridging someone else, but you may (or will) need to intervene.

Trolling_Hand - Please stop stalking me.

59

Hi Hendrik,

I think you make valid points but you also have to realize that most of the people posting here aren’t Chinese, and some don’t have a very high level of Chinese education (myself included). Some of us do no a little, but we still struggle. Absent our own knowledge, we usually depend on our teachers, who in some cases don’t have very good grasps of English, and in many cases the languages themselves lead to problems in transliteration.

So, people discussing “Kiu” or anything else here are, in large part, regurgitating what they heard from someone in whom they have faith. It is not personal knowledge, and thus is limited to both the expression they received and the understanding they (we actually) have attained. Thus, if someone says “kiu sao” means forearm to forearm, or it means bridge arm or it means something else, absent anything else, that’s what it will mean to us.

This is my long winded reasoning for you to post more/better information. Some may not remember that before most of us gained more/better info on the 'net, instructors were content to tell us Fook Sao was “Monkey Hand” or “Bent-Wrist Bridge”, but we’ve come a long way since then, and hopefully will continue to go further still.

As much as people scream about maintaining an open mind, it needs to apply to all of us.

60

Hendrik

Rolling Hand,

–You are certainly very Right!–HS

**Just about everyone needs personal attention from Hendrik!

–the term kiu certainly was redefined to be… .–HS

**Now, you can smile again!

–That shows and justified itself on the lack of Classical Chinese Martial art vocab. and understanding… a mix up–HS

**The problem with having a blind spot is that others see it and you don’t.

–Only fool will certainly trying to shoot the messanger.–HS

**Look not for recognition, but follow the awakened, and set yourself free.

Humm…