Saw this and it makes my head hurt

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017592]Chi sao as typically practiced gives people the impression that they can do things in a fight that just don’t work. Chi sao is an exercise in chasing hands as it encourages a 1:1 block for every attack. Finally, people adjust their postures and habits to be better at chi sao. Adjustments that improve chi sao do not translate to fighting.
[/QUOTE]

You’re assuming that based on your (complete misunderstanding of the drill) you can make a valid judgment call on it..

Sorry, no–you don’t even have a beginner’s level understanding of the drill.

22

[QUOTE=YungChun;1017593]I think your responses are stupid.

The forearm is a long bone and does not specify a specific location or THE correct one.

No, the wrist sections are in contact when done 100% correctly.. Beyond that when you move past the wrist you already lost a good deal of positioning.

Your logic circuits are broken.. Contact point has nothing to do, implied or otherwise to what kind of energy, the vector to be used and what to do with it.. suggesting that it does tells me you can’t think clearly.

That’s a nice theory…[/QUOTE]

The lower forearm is the location, because if their contact is at your elbow, one of you is being punched, hopefully them.

If losing positioning is punching someone in the head and ending the fight, i’ll take it.

If collapsing them opponent’s defence resulting in no bullsh/it wrist to wrist contact resulting in no defence and many strikes, again I’ll take it, as should everyone.

The contact point is extremely important regarding what can be done with the angles available for the attack. Clearly, this man’s and your own approach ends up looking like hand chasing because that’s what it is.

Calling it wrist to wrist bears little reference to differing body and arm lengths, for as they change, if one keeps “wrist to wrist” the intent behind it cannot help but be directed not at the target but somewhere else, with elbows akimbo.

Of course 90% of any training focussing on one thing will result in terrible application of all components.

However, this does not imply that chi sao in and of itself is the problem, but merely that that person doesn’t know where it fits in the overall picture.

Humble,
"Chi sao as typically practiced gives people the impression that they can do things in a fight that just don’t work. Chi sao is an exercise in chasing hands as it encourages a 1:1 block for every attack. Finally, people adjust their postures and habits to be better at chi sao. Adjustments that improve chi sao do not translate to fighting. "

Saying such things only makes you look stupid.
Generalisations like “as typically practised” are meaningless.

Who is the practitioner, what are they doing that makes it useless and how can it be remedied.

I totally agree with you that people who are adjusting to simply be good at chi sao, and not at fighting are missing the point. However, chi sao is NOT an exercise in chasing hands. It is an exercise in training the stance, training the footwork, training in distancing, timing, positioning and facing.

The theory you commented on is simply what barry teaches. It is not something esoteric which I made up i the far recesses of my unconscious.

23

[QUOTE=YungChun;1017595]You’re assuming that based your (complete misunderstanding of the drill) you can make a judgment call on it..

Sorry, no–you don’t even have a beginner’s level understanding of the drill.[/QUOTE]

Love of chi sao is based on a beginners level understanding of fighting. I have never seen anyone put chi sao into action in a real fight. If anything, I have only seen “expertise in chi sao” used against people. I teach people to feed chi sao players techniques and counter based on their predictable and incorrect responses.

24

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017597]Love of chi sao is based on a beginners level understanding of fighting. I have never seen anyone put chi sao into action in a real fight. If anything, I have only seen “expertise in chi sao” used against people. I teach people to feed chi sao players techniques and counter based on their predictable and incorrect responses.[/QUOTE]

Wrong.

I have seen ideas from chi sao put into practise time and time again in real fights, successfully.

You teach people to alter their chi sao to combat errors that are made by other people doing it incorrectly. Did you not just claim that this is what people are doign wrong?

Surely it would be better to do it right, as occams razor suggests??

25

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017596]

Humble,
"Chi sao as typically practiced gives people the impression that they can do things in a fight that just don’t work. Chi sao is an exercise in chasing hands as it encourages a 1:1 block for every attack. Finally, people adjust their postures and habits to be better at chi sao. Adjustments that improve chi sao do not translate to fighting. "

Saying such things only makes you look stupid.
Generalisations like “as typically practised” are meaningless.

Who is the practitioner, what are they doing that makes it useless and how can it be remedied.

I totally agree with you that people who are adjusting to simply be good at chi sao, and not at fighting are missing the point. However, chi sao is NOT an exercise in chasing hands. It is an exercise in training the stance, training the footwork, training in distancing, timing, positioning and facing.

The theory you commented on is simply what barry teaches. It is not something esoteric which I made up i the far recesses of my unconscious.[/QUOTE]

Thinking that chi sao works at all makes you look stupid. I was just trying to diplomatic. Chi sao is a joke. The more chi sao that a gym practices the more likely that gym’s practitioners are to be beaten like they stole some candy.

26

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017599]Thinking that chi sao works at all makes you look stupid. I was just trying to diplomatic. Chi sao is a joke. The more chi sao that a gym practices the more likely that gym’s practitioners are to be beaten like they stole some candy.[/QUOTE]

Chi sao doesn’t work in a fight, as you understand it. Two options are available for the explanation. 1, that it doesn’t work and you do understand it; and 2, that it does work but you don’t understand it.

It does however teach many things which are useful in fights.
Most of all it allows recognition of and exploitation of momentary and transient vulnerabilites without the need to think about them.

It is simply a conditioning drill. Not conditioning as in toughening your arms, but pavlovian conditioning. But for it to work that way, the right things need to be programmed.

It’s pretty clear that you don’t get it, and that you are a class 2 sort of guy.

27

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017598]Wrong.

I have seen ideas from chi sao put into practise time and time again in real fights, successfully.

You teach people to alter their chi sao to combat errors that are made by other people doing it incorrectly. Did you not just claim that this is what people are doign wrong?

Surely it would be better to do it right, as occams razor suggests??[/QUOTE]

I don’t teach them to alter their chi sao because we don’t practice to stick like that. If chi sao needs to be altered to work in a fight then it is not a fighting drill. We just train to beat the sh1t out of people who chase hands, stand immobile, and lean backwards.

When, I had gone to other gyms and trained chi sao with them. I felt like something was lost by training with the contact. The physical sensitivity is only part of what is required to fight at that range. If chi sao is practice under that agreement that both parties are going to stay attached then it will never work.

28

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017596]
The lower forearm is the location, because if their contact is at your elbow, one of you is being punched, hopefully them.
[/quote]

This is semantic BS.. If I zoom in on those pics the contact point is clearly the wrist, or very close to it..

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017596]
If losing positioning is punching someone in the head and ending the fight, i’ll take it.
[/quote]

You’re making up your own masturbatory arguments based on nothing..

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017596]
If collapsing them opponent’s defence resulting in no bullsh/it wrist to wrist contact resulting in no defence and many strikes, again I’ll take it, as should everyone.
[/quote]
More unintelligible nonsense…

The drill is the drill.. You don’t know what you’re talking about..

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017596]
The contact point is extremely important regarding what can be done with the angles available for the attack.
[/quote]

That’s true and the more distant past the wrist the less balanced is the positioning.. See if you knew even the most basic elements of the drill you’d know that..

Regardless, the positioning in the pics is correct.. If you agree your spewing nonsense for no apparent reason..but I get it–that’s just what you (and most teenagers) do…

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017596]
Clearly, this man’s and your own approach ends up looking like hand chasing because that’s what it is.
[/quote]

Correct positioning is seen in the pic with Ip Man, the same position that I use..

Tom is close however he uses it very differently than I.

He also didn’t even stick to the W2W since his student began using tok sao instead of fook.

Hand chasing goes to intent, energy vector and action.. I am a major proponent of not chasing hands which all my posts have reflected..

The needed balance between partners exists and is set by correct beginning positions again correct as seen in the pic of the old man and Bruce.. There is no debate here.. Everyone with very few exceptions has the same LukSao give or take.. If you or anyone agrees with the pic of Yip in terms of position then we agree, if not then we don’t..

The key is what you do with it, or not.

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1017596]
Calling it wrist to wrist bears little reference to differing body and arm lengths, for as they change, if one keeps “wrist to wrist” the intent behind it cannot help but be directed not at the target but somewhere else, with elbows akimbo.
[/quote]

Complete nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. This honestly sounds like you are making $hit up as you go..

The position of LukSao is the same location (wrist/very low forearm) on the arm for anyone no matter the length of the arm.. If you think it’s correct to teach differing contact points for people with different length arms then I must conclude you have no actual knowledge of the art.. Actually that is apparent in any case.

Folks who know virtually nothing of the art should best keep their fingers off the keyboard and simply try to learn something instead of pontificating torrent loads of nonsensical BS that barely resembles English..

Botton line is the luksao contact point is as seen in the pics… And I do not agree with what Tom does with the drill..

If we did the same thing I would agree, I don’t, see how that works?

29

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1017597]Love of chi sao is based on a beginners level understanding of fighting. I have never seen anyone put chi sao into action in a real fight. If anything, I have only seen “expertise in chi sao” used against people. I teach people to feed chi sao players techniques and counter based on their predictable and incorrect responses.[/QUOTE]

That’s wonderful.. Have you ever considered training Wing Chun?

30

well to be precise, the position is the distal ulna/ radius. A fist should fit between both wrists. The closer the mans wrist is to your elbow the more control you have until it gets part. As it is harder to move my elbow then his wrist. And you use that photo of bruce that he bought as yip wouldn’t train with him. You will find different parts of the arm have more or less control. But once chi sao starts it is in controling this distance to make him weaker where you are strong. Ie if he is much bigger then me i stay at his wrists until an opening occurs them i go in. But if i can control them i will stay in the whole time as i can hit easier..

31

The more important aspect is developing striking in cycles constantly…tan is rested on with fok that is a jum sao..

the jum sao is the strike from outside the tan sao..we strike in cycles tan ,jum, etc…the elbows are trained to stay both inwards with forward pressure…

tan elbow tries to displace partners jum elbow…“out versus in” cycle, align, add motion, etc…all under constant forwards pressure to develop explosive strikes to gaps as they appear without any hesitation…using stances that wont allow you to fall forwards , backwards if the partner takes hands away…

Yip Mans fok is not touching at the wrist on Bruces bong He is a small guy so is keeping his elbow down, that would make it look like anyone taller is wrist to wrist.

btw when you do bongsao the bong finger point at the partners bicep, so the wrist cant be following at the bongs wrist or it will be taken across the line each time you strike across the tan sao.

dan chi-sao is at wrist distance, then we step a little closer to be able to contact the chest with force and elbow angles of tan and jum.

so it is a little further in than ..wrists to wrists danchi > chi-sao.

upper forearm :smiley:

the focus is on aligning the elbows inwards and forwards to strike explosively in alignment WHILE using elbow idea of SLT.

the fighting aspect is that your developing intuitive actions to clashes of fighting from distances and entry only using a lead /man sao and a rear wu sao striking arms , with elbows controlled and trained in drills…

this will open up where is the wrist of bong sao ? on the line ? NO, across it , YES so the attempted strike is on the bongs forearm, not following its wrist across the line getting naturally deflected if it uses wrist force as the contact point…

I used to do wrist to wrist too, until I realized my mistake …wrist wrist leads to wrong pressure point focus and leads to seeking the contact points with ..wrists… , rather than striking development for fighting.

32

[QUOTE=k gledhill;1017615]The more important aspect is developing striking in cycles constantly…tan is rested on with fok that is a jum sao..

the jum sao is the strike from outside the tan sao..we strike in cycles tan ,jum, etc…the elbows are trained to stay both inwards with forward pressure…

tan elbow tries to displace partners jum elbow…“out versus in” cycle, align, add motion, etc…all under constant forwards pressure to develop explosive strikes to gaps as they appear without any hesitation…using stances that wont allow you to fall forwards , backwards if the partner takes hands away…

Yip Mans fok is not touching at the wrist on Bruces bong He is a small guy so is keeping his elbow down, that would make it look like anyone taller is wrist to wrist.

btw when you do bongsao the bong finger point at the partners bicep, so the wrist cant be following at the bongs wrist or it will be taken across the line each time you strike across the tan sao.

dan chi-sao is at wrist distance, then we step a little closer to be able to contact the chest with force and elbow angles of tan and jum.

so it is a little further in than ..wrists to wrists danchi > chi-sao.

upper forearm :smiley:

the focus is on aligning the elbows inwards and forwards to strike explosively in alignment WHILE using elbow idea of SLT.

the fighting aspect is that your developing intuitive actions to clashes of fighting from distances and entry only using a lead /man sao and a rear wu sao striking arms , with elbows controlled and trained in drills…

this will open up where is the wrist of bong sao ? on the line ? NO, across it , YES so the attempted strike is on the bongs forearm, not following its wrist across the line getting naturally deflected if it uses wrist force as the contact point…[/QUOTE]

I assume you mean lower forearm, eg closer to the wrist than the bicep..

But yeah, it’s not an exact W2W where that means some exact match-up that doesn’t adjust.. The idea is it is close to the wrist or even touching wrists depending, and that’s just the luksao not yet ChiSao..

The line, the forward elbow is primary, and the body follows..

Tom goes wrong with the energy, with the toksao, with the ridiculous pulsing on each roll, the missing Lut Sao Jik Jong and more..

33

[QUOTE=k gledhill;1017615]
I used to do wrist to wrist too, until I realized my mistake …wrist wrist leads to wrong pressure point focus and leads to seeking the contact points with ..wrists… , rather than striking development for fighting.[/QUOTE]

Totally disagree here.. There is no “used to wrist”.. Wrist power and hand chasing was never Wing Chun.

There is no “wrist power” associated with correct tan/fook alignment/positioning…

If your luksao doesn’t look like what the old man is doing and you moved it closer fine, but that’s your creation.

As was said wrist to wrist is a basic guide for correct position.. In the case of Tan and Fook meeting in luksao the neutral luksao position is almost exactly W2W.. In other cases the correct position is slightly higher.. It’s ironic because if I pass your wrist too far with my tan you’ll have to try to wrist it (wrong move) to prevent total penetration–the beginner will “wrist it”, setting himself up.

These are the correct starting points.. The energy vector is something else.. Assuming you are sharing the line in the roll, which is the point of luksao then each person’s energy is correctly directed into the line…

Point is, there is no point.. If you are playing waaaay past the wrist (close enough to strike your partner cleanly w/o a small step) it’s not correct luksao based on how Yip passed it.. Moreover there is an imbalance of position, meaning both are not sharing the line equally.

34

Actually, just reading all this stuff about chisau/luksao/whateversau makes my head hurt!

Personally, I feel that if you dont know that luk/chi are completely different practises then you are definitely wasting your time on these simple interactive exercises. :o

35

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1017762]Actually, just reading all this stuff about chisau/luksao/whateversau makes my head hurt!

Personally, I feel that if you dont know that luk/chi are completely different practises then you are definitely wasting your time on these simple interactive exercises. :o[/QUOTE]

Some would argue that either exercise is a waste regardless.

36

[QUOTE=YungChun;1017618]Totally disagree here.. There is no “used to wrist”.. Wrist power and hand chasing was never Wing Chun.

There is no “wrist power” associated with correct tan/fook alignment/positioning…

If your luksao doesn’t look like what the old man is doing and you moved it closer fine, but that’s your creation.

As was said wrist to wrist is a basic guide for correct position.. In the case of Tan and Fook meeting in luksao the neutral luksao position is almost exactly W2W.. In other cases the correct position is slightly higher.. It’s ironic because if I pass your wrist too far with my tan you’ll have to try to wrist it (wrong move) to prevent total penetration–the beginner will “wrist it”, setting himself up.

These are the correct starting points.. The energy vector is something else.. Assuming you are sharing the line in the roll, which is the point of luksao then each person’s energy is correctly directed into the line…

Point is, there is no point.. If you are playing waaaay past the wrist (close enough to strike your partner cleanly w/o a small step) it’s not correct luksao based on how Yip passed it.. Moreover there is an imbalance of position, meaning both are not sharing the line equally.[/QUOTE]

how yip passed it…you’d be surprised what Yip Man passed on to some :D..and not others.

Elbows , elbows , elbows…simple once you have it shown, but you wouldnt ever see it otherwise… hidden , cryptic, secrets :wink:

37

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1017766]Some would argue that either exercise is a waste regardless.[/QUOTE]

it is a waste of time if you don’t understand what it is your doing…years even, wasted.
Its very simple but many turn it into feely , touchy stuff with hands grappling for control and hitting each other , fighting in chi-sao like its a sparring match, rather than tools for developing to fight . Sparring with guys who do VT is the easiest way to show the results, not chi-sao. By doing chi-sao you engage each other in a drill that many have turned into a ‘gotcha’ game of tag.
We allow guys to hit us when we deliberately make openings to make us develop close range strikes without hesitating to hit if an arm leaves ours …you would be surprised that even ‘sifu’ of many years cant do the punching when asked to. Wasted time doing feely sticky bs , instead of hitting with force to ko you on the spot.

Fighting is the goal, we try to make the class a systematic progression as a class with the same ideas, rather than one group stays in their level and another thier level…we all train as fighters, not belt /grade merchants. We try to develop as fighters, not ‘chi-saoers’ :o

38

“It’s ironic because if I pass your wrist too far with my tan you’ll have to try to wrist it (wrong move) to prevent total penetration–the beginner will “wrist it”, setting himself up”

the beginner shouldnt have wrists as the option…they should already have jum sao as the counter strike from dan chi-sao or angling as toi ma…

wrong thinking. your not thinking elbow inwards , your thinking "how do I stop the tan from getting in ? " and answering , wrist..this is wrong. Jum sao is a counter strike to your tan strike, Jums effectiveness lies in its previous development in dan chi-sao.
jum inward elbow strike keeps entry along the line closed AS IT STRIKES in a fluid motion.
Meaning i dont have to ever engage my wrist if you er ‘penetrate’ too far…if you do then theres the toi ma angle offline and back as you attempt to enter in with a leading line of force, aka tan strike …so i can hit you, deflect your tan and only use one arm to do it without ever losing the attacking action for yours…:smiley: brilliant huh ?:smiley: I can use this in sparring too…we move and angle relative to leading lines of attack, ie jab, grab from left arm..i can do all kinds of things, but from the seung ma toi ma and angling I have intuitive motion to counter attack the tactically ‘better’ choice and isolate the other arm from making a better swing at me as a follow up. I can also use pak and hip force to disrupt you enough to make an attacking action or you make an action relative to mine etc…fighting.

The chi-sao tan strike and the fok/jum strike are constantly cycled in chi-sao drills for this natural use fighting …if an arm crosses over my striking arm i naturally, from 1000’s of bongs rotate the elbow up quickly to sharply deflect your energy sideways to my centerline, this doesnt require contact to feel first…ergo bong travels across the line in chi-sao…to take energy it meets and move it laterally , opening up the wu sao strike line as the bong elbow drops and strikes again..as chi-sao bong up elbow back down to strike, repeat.

you should think of your tan strike as entry with the outside leading edge as the centerline defense…in chi-sao you are attacking in with tan and as I angle to counter with toi ma and jum strike, you immediately turn to face my movement offline to your attack, so you make abetter attack line at me rather than past me…there are more actions involving shifting to lines of force in the chi-sao, more mobility and unity of lower body [chum kil] and upper [slt]…

after a while deviation off the precise lines of parry strike become more apparent, further leading to striking attacks along the centerline and simply manipulating what happens along it as you attack, with cycling arms developed to act independently of the other…

39

[QUOTE=k gledhill;1017855]“It’s ironic because if I pass your wrist too far with my tan you’ll have to try to wrist it (wrong move) to prevent total penetration–the beginner will “wrist it”, setting himself up”

the beginner shouldnt have wrists as the option…they should already have jum sao as the counter strike from dan chi-sao or angling as toi ma…
[/QUOTE]

There’s no such thing as should–there is only what is.. If you have a lot of experience teaching this is obvious.. You can tell many students all day long not to do the “wristing” what I would call lateral energy–and other things but “wrong energy” is a natural human response–especially when the ego is involved.

If you could just tell folks what to do and then they would do it there would be no need for training. But these kinds of natural reactions are what we train to feed off of… So its presence esp among younger students is welcome..it’s part of natural human resistance.

But, once Tan gets the right position they won’t be able to stop it regardless…thus the techniques of desperation come out.

40

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1017766]Some would argue that either exercise is a waste regardless.[/QUOTE]

Well ChiSao is a key element of Yip’s Wing Chun… Without it you can’t and won’t develop certain things..

What’s your lineage in Chun?