what the difference?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn’t have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn’t have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.

2

[QUOTE=bennyvt;1050562]What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn’t have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn’t have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.[/QUOTE]

Biggest difference imho is that to many people put to much into chi sao skills. Doesnt seem to happen so much with bjj rolling.

We even have people competing in chi sao for f… sake.

Bearing in mind im still very much new to bjj I would say that mostly the rolling is done to practice very specific skills to overcome a certain problem.
In contrast many people seem to make new “moves” in chi sao to overcome problems only encountered in chi sao.

Dunno if that makes any sense

3

[QUOTE=bennyvt;1050562]What would you people say is the difference between chi sao and rolling in BJJ.

They both start at a preset postion that you would start a fight in, rolling doesn’t have strikes or takedowns, chi sao doesn’t have takedown or ground work.

The way I see it both are limited to be able to practice the main thing you want to acheive, in chi sao that is doing any move to be able to hit the guy, BJJ is to poistion him so he can submit him.

People talk like bjj rolling is close to fighting. Its just a small part. With the shoot guy I train with we do takedowns, rollling, sparing. Sparing is everything togeather.[/QUOTE]

BJJ starts in positions that regularly occur during full contact situations and continues from there using mostly positions, transitions and submissions that occur during full contact situations. Watch a BJJ guy on the ground and it will look pretty much like it looks during rolling.

Chi sao starts in a position that rarely or never occur during full contact situations and continues on with things that rarely happen during full contact situations. Watch a WC guy fight and it generally bears very little resemblance to what he does in chi sao.

4

****, I think I agree with you mostly. I think I need some help.:eek::smiley:

5

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1050642]Chi sao starts in a position that rarely or never occur during full contact situations and continues on with things that rarely happen during full contact situations. Watch a WC guy fight and it generally bears very little resemblance to what he does in chi sao.[/QUOTE]

Still, your words seem to highlight a lack of understanding as to what chisau actually is. I don’t know why I’m concerned but I will share what I feel are the differences between chisau and BJJ rolling.

We search, strike and manipulate.

BJJ search and manipulate.

We are training to stay upright and take you down so it hurts.

BJJ trains to take you down and smother you to submission.

We back ourselves to walls.

BJJ backs up to the floor!

And from what I have seen first hand, BJJ players tend to take their cardio much much more seriously and the intensity of their floor work and overall flexibility seems to be more than an average chisau player (although the chisau I remember was just as intense and the cardio was trained to a max)

Of course, these are all similarities too to some extent. Both have their reasons and both are worth looking into if that floats your boat. No one way is better than the other imo, they’re just independent ways to achieve the desired result.

And FWIW, a trained WCK fighter will move how he wants to. We are ever-changing, so you shouldn’t expect to see any so-called signatures of WCK when we fight. It would be nice to see strong, accurate fistwork and legwork though, but unfortunately you are right. Once the pressure is on, most WCK players I’ve seen online seem to go tribal and just lose their heads. :o

The practitioners I have seen in front of me do not. They maintain a certain standard and crispness when the spar/fight. And it would be good to get that on tape one day, if they let me! :eek:

6

The LukSao is a completely artificial construct.. (that’s the steering wheel Dale :wink: )

Beyond that, while T would say it is all unrealistic, I would say not really except that you are dealing with Chunners playing by Chunner’s rules… Boxers do that too…

Once you get past the LukSao you see people continue into GorSao.. Again, the only thing ‘unrealistic’ about this is that you have Chunners playing by Chunners rules… Boxers do that too… So do BJJ-ers..

BJJ folks are working to perfect their moves against other BJJ people.. No shock there.. Likewise there should be no shock that Chunners are doing the same thing…

All too often the problem for the chunners comes in application…

Why?

Because in order for the Chunner to play his game he needs to be in his range and to be safe you have to break their structure…

The BJJ folks have more or less an easy time of getting this done.. They take you down..

For the Chunners to get into range, and break them down takes a bit more doing, especially against good outside fighters… Also, when closing range the chunner is still vulnerable to a variety of attacks that they would not have done in the classical training.. And while this is also true for the BJJ guys, they are safer IMO because they are on the ground where they are light years ahead of someone without any grappling experience.

Nevertheless the similarities are there because you have two people each working their art’s particular moves against someone doing the same thing.

7

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1050719]Still, your words seem to highlight a lack of understanding as to what chisau actually is. I don’t know why I’m concerned but I will share what I feel are the differences between chisau and BJJ rolling.

We search, strike and manipulate.

BJJ search and manipulate.

We are training to stay upright and take you down so it hurts.

BJJ trains to take you down and smother you to submission.

We back ourselves to walls.

BJJ backs up to the floor![/QUOTE]

Those are all goals. Goals don’t matter if what you are doing for training doesn’t resemble the way you are actually fighting.

And it would be good to get that on tape one day, if they let me!

WC people who post here have been saying that for years. So far only Victor and Alan have actually posted videos of themselves doing full contact work, so you will more than likely be like the rest of the herd… simply making unsubstantiated claims.

8

[QUOTE=YungChun;1050722]
All too often the problem for the chunners comes in application…

Why?

Because in order for the Chunner to play his game he needs to be in his range and to be safe you have to break their structure…[/QUOTE]

The problem is that they are training in an unrealistic manner to solve their problem.

9

Actually that is half the problem. Wing Chun training was designed to follow a specific general fighting plan. No contact— bridge the gap— finish with a sweep or throw. After a level of skill and understanding has been reached in the chi sao range you are supposed to move out and learn the other 2 ranges, no contact and sweep/throw.

It is the bane and downfall of Wing Chun that the knowledge and practice of how to deal with the other 2 stages of stand up fighting is lost to all but a small few and that chi sao is now for many no more than a patty cake game and the staple training method.

10

[QUOTE=horserider;1050855]
finish with a sweep or throw.
[/QUOTE]

Not as I understand the method…

11

Quote:
Originally Posted by horserider View Post
finish with a sweep or throw.
Not as I understand the method… [QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Yes, thank you! My point exactly!

12

[QUOTE=horserider;1050881]Quote:
Originally Posted by horserider View Post
finish with a sweep or throw.
Not as I understand the method…

Yes, thank you! My point exactly![/QUOTE]

Please supply some evidence for your approach is supposedly done.

13

[QUOTE=horserider;1050881]Quote:
Originally Posted by horserider View Post
finish with a sweep or throw.
Not as I understand the method…

Yes, thank you! My point exactly![/QUOTE]

Right. And my point is that the goal of most modern Chun is not to sweep…or throw it’s something else.

Sweeping does not lend any greater level of anything to anything–no one’s lamenting–‘if only we had those sweeps’. lol Unless you mean breaking their horse and controlling them, which I would not term sweeps and is not the “Goal of Chun” in any case…

What lineage are you talking about?

14

[QUOTE=horserider;1050855]Actually that is half the problem. Wing Chun training was designed to follow a specific general fighting plan.
[/QUOTE]

That is true.

No contact— bridge the gap— finish with a sweep or throw. After a level of skill and understanding has been reached in the chi sao range you are supposed to move out and learn the other 2 ranges, no contact and sweep/throw.

The “finishing stage” traditionally has included – but not required – putting the opponent on the ground via sweep or throw. As I understand it, it was considered a higher expression of skill to be able to do that.

And, you are right that traditionally the contact stage is taught first since if you know what things to do or not do to control your opponent, you can then focus on getting a favorable position directly from your “entry” (and you won’t fall into entering into a poor position). Similarly, if you can’t control your opponent, you won’t be able to sweep or throw him. Finishing depends on having control.

15

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1050907]
The “finishing stage” traditionally has included – but not required – putting the opponent on the ground via sweep or throw. As I understand it, it was considered a higher expression of skill to be able to do that.
[/QUOTE]

What happened to ‘hold them up and hit them’?

I wouldn’t consider Kwai Sat a ‘sweep’ either or most of the other leg moves used to break their horse..as a take down per se..like a sickle sweep for example. As for throwing it’s simply not in Yip’s version IMO although the seeds may well be there.

16

What lineage are you talking about?

All Lineage. Wing Chun is Wing Chun. Again you make my point in your last two posts. The fact that something is lost or not practiced in a line of Wing Chun does not mean it does not exist. It is this very loss that threatens Wing Chun as a viable fighting art in today’s world.

Yes Mr T.Niehoff you seem to understand. However I do not like to say control because it conveys to some a period longer than it’s momentary nature.
You are right of course the ability to do something is always an issue. Thus the need for practice against real resistince to gain the need abilities.

Yes, of course a fight can be finished with a punch,elbow or Knee etc etc. However all one needs to do is watch any UFC and see how many punches are thrown and of those how many actually end fights to see that in the real world, not the ,my version of wing chun is better than your version of wing chun world, relying on a strike to finish a fight is not a truly practical solution.

To Knifefighter I do not understand your question for proof. My family teaches this,all our students learn this what more proof is there?

Look at the last move of the Yip Man dummy form for this. It is a lop sau with a sweep/kick to the supporting leg. A lop Sau done correctly is a throw. The man lands on his face. kicking out the support leg insures this

17

[QUOTE=YungChun;1050915]What happened to ‘hold them up and hit them’?
[/QUOTE]

In the “old days” in China, you were considered the victor in challenge fights when you put the other guy on the ground. Remember the story of Leung Bik fighting the young Yip Man (even if not true, it is illustrative of the culture)? What did Leung do but threw Yip to win.

The last of Sum Nung’s san sik is white crane seizes fox, a quick throw.

But what I have found through experience is that today sweeping someone or throwing them doesn’t end the fight, and often can leave you in a worse position, particularly if you don’t go down with them and establish control.

As the KK says, the method comes from the ancestors, the key is adapting it to conditions.

I wouldn’t consider Kwai Sat a ‘sweep’ either or most of the other leg moves used to break their horse..as a take down per se..like a sickle sweep for example. As for throwing it’s simply not in Yip’s version IMO although the seeds may well be there.

The tools are there but using them to sweep or throw are not emphasized in Yip’s curriculum.

18

[QUOTE=horserider;1050935]
All Lineage. Wing Chun is Wing Chun. Again you make my point in your last two posts. The fact that something is lost or not practiced in a line of Wing Chun does not mean it does not exist. It is this very loss that threatens Wing Chun as a viable fighting art in today’s world.
[/QUOTE]
You come off like just another guy with “The Real Chun”…

There is substantial leg work in Yip’s line of Chun… Most of the moves I would not term a sweep in the disconnected knock them over sense..

There are many moves designed to break the horse…however..

The goal of Chun is not to throw them.

In any case the problem with Chun IMO is not that the throws are missing… (or that the secret way is missing) Not by a long shot..

But if you are going to claim to have the secrets then let’s see it…or even any example of it in actual fighting..

19

[QUOTE=horserider;1050935]To Knifefighter I do not understand your question for proof. My family teaches this,all our students learn this what more proof is there?

Look at the last move of the Yip Man dummy form for this. It is a lop sau with a sweep/kick to the supporting leg. A lop Sau done correctly is a throw. The man lands on his face. kicking out the support leg insures this[/QUOTE]

Proof… of people actually applying these things against resisting opponents… not some theoretical pretend nonsense done in the dummy form.

20

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1050941]

But what I have found through experience is that today sweeping someone or throwing them doesn’t end the fight, and often can leave you in a worse position, particularly if you don’t go down with them and establish control.
[/QUOTE]

Throws are not fight enders.. They are fight repeaters..

They normally do less damage which is why they are emphasized in Aiki..

Not to say you couldn’t throw them into pavement and hurt them badly, still typically not.

For the ‘polite contest’ sure.