You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What percentage of lesson time do you spend on chi Sao?
- Thread starter SaulGoodman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Seeking connection = Arm chasing.
Wrong
It does in Chinese. Kiu has only one meaning and it's neither a verb nor a metaphor for anything other than a path.
A "path" is a connection. The "path" to success certainly doesn't refer to a physical structure. A "path" through the forest isn't a architectural structure.
Kiu = connection,
Kiu-sau = forearm,
Cham-kiu = seeking (forearm) connection
All leading to the strategy of "attached striking".
Sounds like a description of an arm chasing style to me. If it's not, then your terminology is just flawed.
Kiu-sau = forearm,
Cham-kiu = seeking (forearm) connection
All leading to the strategy of "attached striking".
Sounds like a description of an arm chasing style to me. If it's not, then your terminology is just flawed.
KPM?
LFJ asked:
What are we getting out of each section? What parts are unnecessary?
---I don't know what you are getting out of each section of the dummy form. I have stated only that if you are seeing the dummy form exclusively as a way to correct body positioning and angles, and positioning/spacing of techniques and such....essentially using the dummy only as a big protractor....then you could accomplish that with a much shorter dummy form. If you aren't seeing anything in the form as specific techniques and applications, then the form is much longer and more elaborate than needed. There are only so many ways to move....only so many ways to simply "clear a path" and "cycle punches." Therefore it seems to me that the dummy form is much more elaborate than you need....because the dummy form trains some very specific applications in every form of Wing Chun except WSLTV. I have certainly seen Gary Lam teach "applications" from the dummy form.
---Now I know you guys won't agree with this at all. And I believe you when you say that WSLTV is taught this way now. But I truly think if you were honest with yourself and really took a good look at things, you would see what I am saying.
Also what the interpratation leads to in terms of fighting strategy, but we do not even agree on the definition to begin with.
I can agree on the second part, as for interpretation you know nothing.
Kiu = connection,
Kiu-sau = forearm,
Cham-kiu = seeking (forearm) connection
All leading to the strategy of "attached striking".
Sounds like a description of an arm chasing style to me. If it's not, then your terminology is just flawed.
All striking is attached striking. With the exception of air striking I guess, always some crazy thing being an exception to any rule.
---I don't know what you are getting out of each section of the dummy form.
Then you don't know what is needed and have no basis for saying it is too elaborate.
All striking is attached striking. With the exception of air striking I guess, always some crazy thing being an exception to any rule.
Completely meaningless and unnecessary to call all striking attached, also inaccurate.
Personally I don't see how the second form makes sense in terms of Phobius' bridge definition. Seeking what?
As I said, I can agree with your definition of it. But this is a philosophical question and does not change its actual meaning in terms of application. It is just a matter of which point of the bridge is the interesting one, the start or the end. Each bridge has two connections. Some place the term on the first connection, others on the later.
The bridge itself is the goal but that bridge is nothing more than a celestial teapot up until its points are connected.
I guess one can argue that the bridge always exist whether points are connected or not, but such an argument in my view seems meaningless since noone can use it.
Again it depends what is being trained during this kind of chi sau. I have tried to ask what this is but no coherent answer has been provided. Usually Alan derides me for not understanding, which doesn't promote understanding.
-- I provided a pretty detailed and coherent explanation in the other thread. Were not paying attention again?
You appear to suggest that this kind of chi sau training is application based, and that the intention is to develop skills used directly in fighting when arms are joined, in which case yes it would be hand chasing. But I don't know if you are correct, since you are not Alan.
---Only by your definition of "hand chasing" which I don't think anyone else (except maybe LFJ) agrees with.
Alan himself would probably disagree, given that the clips are demonstrations of Force Flow™
---I said my question had nothing to do with "forceflow." Again, I think you don't pay attention very well.
-- I provided a pretty detailed and coherent explanation in the other thread. Were not paying attention again?
You appear to suggest that this kind of chi sau training is application based, and that the intention is to develop skills used directly in fighting when arms are joined, in which case yes it would be hand chasing. But I don't know if you are correct, since you are not Alan.
---Only by your definition of "hand chasing" which I don't think anyone else (except maybe LFJ) agrees with.
Alan himself would probably disagree, given that the clips are demonstrations of Force Flow™
---I said my question had nothing to do with "forceflow." Again, I think you don't pay attention very well.
Completely meaningless and unnecessary to call all striking attached, also inaccurate.
Depends on definition yet again. Is it a striking if you are not hitting something? Otherwise what are you striking? Could be you have a separate definition and that is fine, I am not a native english speaking dude. To me all strikes have hit something. Well except if missing and just hitting air.
Of course it's common terminology. Cham-kiu, right? But we have a completely different interpretation than you guys. That's the issue. Also what the interpratation leads to in terms of fighting strategy, but we do not even agree on the definition to begin with.
So then what do you think the "bridge" in Chum Kiu means or refers to? An actual architectural structure?
All striking is attached striking. With the exception of air striking I guess, always some crazy thing being an exception to any rule.
There is no meaningful commonality between attaching as in hitting someone in the head, and attaching as in making arm "bridge" contact. No reason to classify these things as part of some set other than seeking to interpret the terminology in a way that is not contradictory.
Seeking bridge makes no sense if you interpret it as seeking attachment (however tenuously defined) because all attachment is attachment, there is no differentiation between useful attachment (fist to face) and useless attachment (arms joined). Seeking attachment also entails sticking, because if you become un-attached, then you seek to become re-attached. All of this leads inevitably to hand chasing.
The only interpretation which makes sense of the second form and how it fits into the system in a coherent way is that it is teaching how to find and make attacking lines. And this is what it does, in terms of content.
Kiu = connection,
Kiu-sau = forearm,
Cham-kiu = seeking (forearm) connection
All leading to the strategy of "attached striking".
Sounds like a description of an arm chasing style to me. If it's not, then your terminology is just flawed.
Please explain the WSLVT view on all of this. I think we have just been talking past each other quibbling over terminology rather than getting a real understanding. What does "Kiu" mean to you, and how is it part of "Chum Kiu" and "Kiu Sau"?
There is no meaningful commonality between attaching as in hitting someone in the head, and attaching as in making arm "bridge" contact. No reason to classify these things as part of some set other than seeking to interpret the terminology in a way that is not contradictory.
Seeking bridge makes no sense if you interpret it as seeking attachment (however tenuously defined) because all attachment is attachment, there is no differentiation between useful attachment (fist to face) and useless attachment (arms joined). Seeking attachment also entails sticking, because if you become un-attached, then you seek to become re-attached. All of this leads inevitably to hand chasing.
The only interpretation which makes sense of the second form and how it fits into the system in a coherent way is that it is teaching how to find and make attacking lines. And this is what it does, in terms of content.
This is all your definition of attachment. I have a simpler one, if you dont hit, try again. < This term is seeking attachment if there is none as well.
You are just talking definitions and then making assumptions despite it all being the same. A line is a bridge. It has two connections. Or one connection and a direction. You use path as having one connection and a direction, for me it is two connections and a drawn line between. Meaning of it all? It is all the same.
So path and bridge might be the same thing. Just another definition leading to same end result.
This was pretty much one of the first few times I actually had to bring up something I learned at university level math. Sad isn't it.
I provided a pretty detailed and coherent explanation in the other thread. Were not paying attention again?
I'm sorry KPM, but I'm just not sure if your understanding is the same as Alan's since Force Flow™ is apparently still being developed. Have you downloaded the appropriate Force Flow™ videos from Alan's mentorship programme? Are you sure you understood it all and that Alan didn't hold anything back for Platinum members?
Only joking. But I feel I need to hear an explanation from the people creating Force Flow™, not from a student.
In terms of your explanation already provided then as I said, yes it is hand chasing.
Only by your definition of "hand chasing" which I don't think anyone else (except maybe LFJ) agrees with
What is your definition of hand chasing?
I said my question had nothing to do with "forceflow." Again, I think you don't pay attention very well.
Sorry KPM, it is difficult to know what point you are trying to make sometimes.
I have a simpler one, if you dont hit, try again. < This term is seeking attachment if there is none as well.
Again this does not differentiate between useful contact and non useful contact. Nor does it make the distiction between finding and making attacking lines (always need to be seeking these), and attachment (don't always need to be seeking this).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
