Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn’t want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.
I think it’s an interesting theory.
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1050196]
Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn’t want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.
I think it’s an interesting theory.[/QUOTE]
Not true IME..
Most shorter/weaker people in ChiSao have similar problems taking control of the larger longer limbed person.. Most stronger folks with longer arms will dominate in ChiSao and it’s only when the smaller, weaker player has developed sufficient skill that these limitations no longer limit the smaller player.
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1050196]Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn’t want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.
I think it’s an interesting theory.[/QUOTE]
Chi Sau was developed so that 2 people can exchange force to develop the body to support the punch. Also to learn to fight in close and learn how to react with the correct action to aid the punch.
It has nothing to do with big or small guys or sticking to the arms.
GH
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1050196]Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed?[/QUOTE]
No.
It has developed continuously and Ip Man refined it further to aid his teaching. It’s specifically a teaching tool and shouldn’t be used to ‘over power’ anyone or anything! That’s simply called ‘bullying’ here in London!
If you are truly interested in where it comes from, you should look into ‘how to control horned cattle’. That’s a more interesting starting point than thinking it was invented to save face :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1050196]Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn’t want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.
I think it’s an interesting theory.[/QUOTE]
If you see WCK as a attached/contact fighting method, then I think the question of why chi sao was developed is easily understood – it is an unrealistic (non-fighting) representation of the WCK “clinch” (sticking). The tools of WCK are mostly contact tools, so they need to be learned/practiced in contact, and once you start sticking (maintaining flexible contact) and chaining these contact tools, you get chi sao.
No man. Im 163 cms tall and 62 kilograms. I have to be massivly higher in skill then the big guy just to keep up. This is the normal crap. Think about it. If I can make every movement stronger, quicker etc then why shouldn’t it be the same for a big guy.
It ****es me off. I have to get everything so precise or it doesn’t work against anyone big, big guys use their strength etc and just “muscle” it through.
It is much easier to chi sao with someone than spar. It is safer. In all those Kung fu tournaments the chi crowd is never sparring. And then they get cheered for having good fighting skills. Down with the spinny hands!
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1050196]Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn’t want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.
I think it’s an interesting theory.[/QUOTE]
More than likely it came from people who were looking for a less than full contact way to train without beating each other up.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050654]More than likely it came from people who were looking for a less than full contact way to train without beating each other up.[/QUOTE]
I was thinking that as well. Like MP said it is easier to roll and strike than it is to spar. Sparring is way more unpredictable than chi Sao.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050654]More than likely it came from people who were looking for a less than full contact way to train without beating each other up.[/QUOTE]
More advanced ChiSao is often done with hard/full contact.. There also have been many cases in certain places and times where much blood was spilled doing this ‘less than full contact way’.. Bottom line is that the level of contact varies, “light contact” is not a requisite part of the drill.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1050699]More advanced ChiSao is often done with hard/full contact.. There also have been many cases in certain places and times where much blood was spilled doing this ‘less than full contact way’.. Bottom line is that the level of contact varies, “light contact” is not a requisite part of the drill.[/QUOTE]
no no no during chi sao we manage to have a cup of tea and talk about the latest reality show.
Dont try and fool anyone 
[QUOTE=jesper;1050706]no no no during chi sao we manage to have a cup of tea and talk about the latest reality show.
Dont try and fool anyone :)[/QUOTE]
No, that’s DanChiSao…
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1050276]If you see WCK as a attached/contact fighting method, then I think the question of why chi sao was developed is easily understood – it is an unrealistic (non-fighting) representation of the WCK “clinch” (sticking). The tools of WCK are mostly contact tools, so they need to be learned/practiced in contact, and once you start sticking (maintaining flexible contact) and chaining these contact tools, you get chi sao.[/QUOTE]
If you see WC as an attached/contact fighting method then you are a fool!!! The tools in VT teach you to be free in order to strike and NOT to be attached to the arms.
When my Teacher was asked in an interview about Chi Sau this was his reply…
…To train and improve in Ving Tsun, we have a unique and versatile
training partner exericise which serves to train and correct many
attributes necessary for fighting…this exercise is called Chi Sau. Chi
Sau is a co-operation between mutual partners to exchange and reciprocate
something between themselves, if there is no co-operation…it’s no
longer Chi Sau, which becomes un-productive. Chi Sau is a very good
exercise to help you to reach your goal and that’s why we spend so much
time and effort usually up to 90% of our training time, but it is still
only a link or bridge between the forms and sparring which serves to
develop the Idea of Ving Tsun.
GH
[QUOTE=Graham H;1050717]If you see WC as an attached/contact fighting method then you are a fool!!! The tools in VT teach you to be free in order to strike and NOT to be attached to the arms.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, brilliant! You believe that your art’s signature drill/exercise is an attached one because you don’t want to be attached but free to strike (I guess you haven’t learned the WCK punch – see that thread-- because your arm doesn’t need to be “free” to strike). In other words, you practice doing one thing to do another.
Yes, do X to get better at Y. And I’m the fool. 
When my Teacher was asked in an interview about Chi Sau this was his reply…
But my sifu sez . . . so it must be true.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1050731]
But my sifu sez . . . so it must be true.[/QUOTE]
Its not really a matter of who is right and who is wrong T. Ving Tsun has evolved in many different directions.
The main point is what makes sense and what doesn’t and I can’t see any sense in your ideas as I have practiced Ving Tsun that way before. WSLPB’s ideas are different and for me make more sense but obviously not to you. Thats ok.
Even if PB was not doing things as they should be then I think his “incorrect” way is far far better than all the so say “correct” ways that I have practiced before. I’m happy with that. 
GH
Again the issue arises IMO because of the tendency of modern fighters not to hold the line… Some arts, many arts especially CMA want to control the line, control the arms/body, but most of what is out there now does not. (strikers)
If someone is trying to control your arms you want to stop, avoid that and control theirs, either directly or indirectly so you can hit them.. If they don’t and are not doing this then clearly the game changes..
The function of the strikes don’t change however they still serve the same function which most agree on…to break them down.
There is still some question then about the ability to break structure.. Terence seems to see that they can but emphasizes more assisted control… No big deal so long as whatever way you go it works.. Either way breaking their structure is one of the key’s of the art.. If your strikes don’t do that you need to supplement them… Body power in the strikes is paramount however…
You guys know how there are reality shows on television that are not really reality? But all the drama is real enough to hypnotize us all. Chi sao is like a reality show of fight training. Not real but real enough to make you feel something.
Just skip chi sao and watch Jersey Shore.
[QUOTE=Graham H;1050733]Its not really a matter of who is right and who is wrong T. Ving Tsun has evolved in many different directions.
[/QUOTE]
WCK hasn’t evolved in many directions – WCK is WCK, and as the KK says, “the method of WCK comes from the ancestors.” If you are not doing that (what the ancestors developed), you are not doing what has come down to us as WCK. You are then doing your own thing. And various people have gone off in many different directions, either intentionally or unintentionally, doing their own thing but call what they are teaching WCK.
The main point is what makes sense and what doesn’t and I can’t see any sense in your ideas as I have practiced Ving Tsun that way before. WSLPB’s ideas are different and for me make more sense but obviously not to you. Thats ok.
No. The main point isn’t about “what makes sense.” When you talk about “ideas” and “what makes sense”, you are talking from an entirely theoretical POV. Lots of things sound sensible to people inexperienced in fighting – that’s why people buy into all kinds of nonsense. And, of course, you can design your drills or demo’s in such a way as to make the nonsense appear plausible to the inexperienced. But you can’t tell what will work or not work in fighting by “what makes sense”, you can ONLY tell by DOING it (or seeing it done).
And you’ve never practiced WCK “that way” before (you may have practiced WCK, but not what we’re talking about).
Even if PB was not doing things as they should be then I think his “incorrect” way is far far better than all the so say “correct” ways that I have practiced before. I’m happy with that.
GH
If you are happy with what you are doing with Bayer, that’s fine and dandy.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1050736]
There is still some question then about the ability to break structure.. Terence seems to see that they can but emphasizes more assisted control… No big deal so long as whatever way you go it works.. Either way breaking their structure is one of the key’s of the art.. If your strikes don’t do that you need to supplement them… Body power in the strikes is paramount however…[/QUOTE]
Let me elaborate a bit on my view. WCK’s method is to control while striking. An illustrative analogy is WCK is like standing ground and pound. In GNP, you want to control your opponent on the ground and then pummel him with strikes, right? OK, so how much control do you need? Some people are happy to be standing in an open guard - which provides minimal control - and try to rain down strikes. Some want more control, maybe they are happy being in top in half-guard, while others don’t start really punching until they pass the guard and work their way to the mount (a great deal of control). But it is all GNP, all about controlling while striking. The approach is the same, but how people individually execute it, how much control they are personally satisfied with, will depend on many factors, including what they find through practice – doing it – works best for them. The situation is also significant (do I think I need much control over this particular opponent, etc.) Control isn’t black and white (you either have it or you don’t) but a continuum.
But, if you don’t go into your practice with the objective of wanting to control an opponent while striking him, you can’t develop skill doing that. So in my training, I go for max control because my view is that you can always scale it down if you need or want to, but if you don’t practice trying to get max control, you won’t be able to.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1050699]More advanced ChiSao is often done with hard/full contact.. There also have been many cases in certain places and times where much blood was spilled doing this ‘less than full contact way’.. Bottom line is that the level of contact varies, “light contact” is not a requisite part of the drill.[/QUOTE]
Well, then, the only other explanation is that they decided to come up with an unrealistic training exercise in as misguided attempt to simulate what might happen in a fight.