Good Chi Sao is Push-Hands + striking.
(waits expectantly for shouts of indignation)
[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.
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]
90% of your training time is spent in an attached drill, when the goal is to not be attached.
This would be the height of stupidity in terms of training concepts.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050818]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.[/QUOTE]
Not really.. It’s contact training that focuses on the tactics and tools of Chun…
Dale you have to remember that Southern Chinese Arts all do similar things, they want to control limbs and bodies, they have a variety of nasty attacks that exploit this contact, they also strike and they do all this with arm/body contact…
So a good deal of the moves in Chun no doubt had this in mind in their inception.
Some of those moves indeed will involve freeing one’s hand (detaching) to strike…or controlling them so they aren’t controlling your weapon.
[QUOTE=Xiao3 Meng4;1050842]Good Chi Sao is Push-Hands + striking.
(waits expectantly for shouts of indignation)[/QUOTE]
And push hands is just as unrealistic a training method as is chi sao.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1050857]Dale you have to remember that Southern Chinese Arts all do similar things, they want to control limbs and bodies, they have a variety of nasty attacks that exploit this contact, they also strike and they do all this with arm/body contact… .[/QUOTE]
They may “want” to do that, but the evidence points to the probability that they were rarely able to do it in actual application.
People who developed systems that have as the goal to physically control limbs and bodies, quickly determined that, if you train and test in a realistic manner, your system has to become one that is composed mainly of grappling.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050868]They may “want” to do that, but the evidence points to the probability that they were rarely able to do it in actual application.
People who developed systems that have as the goal to physically control limbs and bodies, quickly determined that, if you train and test in a realistic manner, your system has to become one that is composed mainly of grappling.[/QUOTE]
I think you overlook the social nature of fighting.. If you and I both want to control each other’s arms/bodies and each have a certain idea of how we want to do that then we will..especially if that’s all we know.
I once sparred with this SCMA guy.. All he wanted to do was to attach to my arms and control me.. (along with digging his nails into my arms which did bleed) My chun moves felt very much at home though with these kinds of attacks… Makes perfect sense since these styles are from the same hood.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1050874]I think you overlook the social nature of fighting.. If you and I both want to control each other’s arms/bodies and each have a certain idea of how we want to do that then we will..especially if that’s all we know.
I once sparred with this SCMA guy.. All he wanted to do was to attach to my arms and control me.. (along with digging his nails into my arms which did bleed) My chun moves felt very much at home though with these kinds of attacks… Makes perfect sense since these styles are from the same hood.[/QUOTE]
OK, I’ll buy that. That being said, in a full contact scenario, where real damage is being done, "control’ will quickly switch to a more realistic, grappling and holding based scenario.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050859]And push hands is just as unrealistic a training method as is chi sao.[/QUOTE]
Oh, no question. It’s a game you play at the beginning stages, first with rhythm and then with resistance, then trade in for a more complex game (say, Chi Sao,) which you then move past into something more complex again.
[QUOTE=Xiao3 Meng4;1050884]Oh, no question. It’s a game you play at the beginning stages, first with rhythm and then with resistance, then trade in for a more complex game (say, Chi Sao,) which you then move past into something more complex again.[/QUOTE]
Whenever you do it it’s still ineffective because actual application looks nothing like the way most people learn push hands.
This is realistic push hands:
http://v.ku6.com/show/OjedUm000-PeN2K7.html
That is what chi sao would look like (with additional head and clothing grabbing) if the goal was to control the opponent limbs and body.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050904]This is realistic push hands:
http://v.ku6.com/show/OjedUm000-PeN2K7.html[/QUOTE]
Yes, I like that kind. The inclusion of trips and throws is where to progress to after figuring out the basic sumo-style stuff, ime.
Adding strikes to the kind of push-hands you linked to is what Sticking games should progress towards.
I guess for me it’s a question of getting there. Basic push hands is meant to be played with a focus on control through the upper body and many people don’t go beyond that. I see good Chi Sao progression as the addition of upper-limb strikes to the upper body control game.
The addition of lower body methods is a natural progression and can generally be introduced in intermediate push hands or as Chi Gerk.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050849]90% of your training time is spent in an attached drill, when the goal is to not be attached.
This would be the height of stupidity in terms of training concepts.[/QUOTE]
who said anything about being attached!!! Chi Sau is not about being attached. It is about learning how to be free to punch and continue punching in amongst all the mess that happens in fighting…see look!! You have no idea of what I’m on about do you?? The contact part is only a small part of Chi Sau and it is there to serve a certain purpose. NOT to stay stuck on arms!!!
GH
[QUOTE=Graham H;1051103]who said anything about being attached!!! Chi Sau is not about being attached.
[/QUOTE]
You ARE attached when you do chi sao. It’s called sticking hands because your hands/arm “stick” – that is maintain connection with or stay attached to – your opponent.
It is about learning how to be free to punch and continue punching in amongst all the mess that happens in fighting…see look!!
You don’t need to practice chi sao to do that. Why would you do a drill where your hands/arms stay in contact with an opponent to learn how be free to punch – you are already free to punch if you are not in contact! Just release contact and you are free to punch.
The other thing is that the WCK punch doesn’t need to be free.
You have no idea of what I’m on about do you?? The contact part is only a small part of Chi Sau and it is there to serve a certain purpose. NOT to stay stuck on arms!!!
GH
If you are not in contact, you are not doing chi sao.
[QUOTE=Graham H;1051103]who said anything about being attached!!! Chi Sau is not about being attached. It is about learning how to be free to punch and continue punching in amongst all the mess that happens in fighting…see look!! You have no idea of what I’m on about do you?? The contact part is only a small part of Chi Sau and it is there to serve a certain purpose. NOT to stay stuck on arms!!!
GH[/QUOTE]
It’s not attached? OK. I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ll buy that.
Please post a clip of this unattached chi sao of which you speak so I can be filled in and educated about it.
Of course, until you can do that, the probability is that you are simply talking out of your @ss.
What he means is that while you start attached in ChiSao the goal during play is not attachment..
MoyYat taught that ChiSao is “A fight for the centerline”…
There are certainly controlling elements in this ‘fight’ and many of the techniques involve attachment, but the goal is not attachment it’s control of the line…
So you start sharing the line.. Force that leaves the line is in error.. When they leave the line you then attack down that line without hesitation via the cultivation of the use of correct position (structure) and energy (forward spring energy) to do this automatically.. You can also help them leave the line, using that energy (CheungChi) to help control them as you hit, this is what the techniques do.
The drill normally starts sharing the line; Then taking the line, one can also ‘move’ the line (flank), etc to assist control of it, where control of the line means filling it with attack. The drill is complete when and if one person takes sufficient control of the line (and partner) so they may land multiple strikes (at least 2) while preventing the partner from doing the same…(fansao) or you can ‘send them away’ (launch them airborne, etc) or drop them…etc…
That said there is more than one way to play..
In any case the goal is control with striking…not attachment per se..
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1051145]It’s not attached? OK. I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ll buy that.
Please post a clip of this unattached chi sao of which you speak so I can be filled in and educated about it.
Of course, until you can do that, the probability is that you are simply talking out of your @ss.[/QUOTE]
…T**t!!! So I guess you are saying that PB, WSL and YM are talking out there @ss too are you??? 
I already posted a clip but if you think that the word sticky means to stick to arms then you carry on mate. If we are going to get bogged down by terminology again maybe I could say “sticky” means to stick to your opponent. Chase the center, where he goes you cut the way, lat jik chung and all that stuff. Who knows who’s right??? Maybe you can do a ouija board and ask Yip Man himself…lmfao
Sticky Arms??? :D:rolleyes:
GH
[QUOTE=YungChun;1051249]What he means is that while you start attached in ChiSao the goal during play is not attachment..
MoyYat taught that ChiSao is “A fight for the centerline”…
In any case the goal is control with striking…not attachment per se..[/QUOTE]
;)…Well put!!!
chi sau is essentially a laboratory for one to experiment. to that end, it serves many purposes. we can use it to hone certain attributes or skills that we’re working on, but it cannot be defined as just “chi sau is centerline, chi sau is about fighting”. proper chi sau is many things.
read this, it may change your ideas about it:
[QUOTE=Graham H;1051327]…T**t!!! So I guess you are saying that PB, WSL and YM are talking out there @ss too are you???
[/QUOTE]
No. Bayer isn’t teaching what WSL and YM taught, only his interpretation-- or reworking – of that.
If we really want to see what WSL and YM taught, you don’t look at just one person – particularly when that one person has “unique” ideas – but to all the other persons they taught, to get a broad sample and from that see what they taught.
And, we can even look at a broader picture than that, and look at other nonYip lineages and see that this isn’t what they do either.
I already posted a clip but if you think that the word sticky means to stick to arms then you carry on mate. If we are going to get bogged down by terminology again maybe I could say “sticky” means to stick to your opponent. Chase the center, where he goes you cut the way, lat jik chung and all that stuff. Who knows who’s right??? Maybe you can do a ouija board and ask Yip Man himself…lmfao
Sticky Arms??? :D:rolleyes:
GH
Chi sao translates to sticking arms (chi means “to stick to” and the character represents two pieces of rice clinging together, sao means arm). That’s what our ancestors named the drill. Do you think they named the drill to mislead people? They didn’t call it sticking to the center (chi ng) or sticking to the opponent (chi jong) but chi sao because you are sticking with YOUR arms. The terminology is clear, and it is descriptive (you call something a hip throw because you are using your hip to throw, not because you aren’t doing that).
[QUOTE=YungChun;1051249]What he means is that while you start attached in ChiSao the goal during play is not attachment..
MoyYat taught that ChiSao is “A fight for the centerline”…
There are certainly controlling elements in this ‘fight’ and many of the techniques involve attachment, but the goal is not attachment it’s control of the line…
So you start sharing the line.. Force that leaves the line is in error.. When they leave the line you then attack down that line without hesitation via the cultivation of the use of correct position (structure) and energy (forward spring energy) to do this automatically.. You can also help them leave the line, using that energy (CheungChi) to help control them as you hit, this is what the techniques do.
The drill normally starts sharing the line; Then taking the line, one can also ‘move’ the line (flank), etc to assist control of it, where control of the line means filling it with attack. The drill is complete when and if one person takes sufficient control of the line (and partner) so they may land multiple strikes (at least 2) while preventing the partner from doing the same…(fansao) or you can ‘send them away’ (launch them airborne, etc) or drop them…etc…
That said there is more than one way to play..
In any case the goal is control with striking…not attachment per se..[/QUOTE]
No one here is talking about the goal being “attachment per se”. But you need that attachment to accomplish your goal. As you said, the goal or objective in chi sao is to practice using WCK movement/actions to control your opponent – that involves controlling the centerline. But to do that, you NEED attachment. No attachment, no control. And the objective isn’t just to control “a line” but the opponent (controlling ONLY a line won’t accomplish anything as the opponent has all kinds of lines he can use).
If you simply “have the line” without contact, you have absolutely no control over an opponent (he can do whatever he wants to).
Sticking (chi) is a method of attachment that is flexible and adaptable (as opposed to say a solid hold), and it permits us to close his offense down, slow his action, connect to his center, manipulate him (via leverage and momentum), etc. Sticking is a skill that permits us to control our opponent. It is the basis of the WCK-style clinch and the very foundation of our method. There is a reason all lineages/branches of WCK have in some form chi sao.
[quote=t_niehoff;1051342]no. Bayer isn’t teaching what wsl and ym taught.
[/quote]
Fairplay T you do make me laugh. Can you back up this claim in any way??? I’m looking forward to your reply. 