Chi Sau & Grappling

[KPM]

In that thread that was recently taken down, one of the side discussions was about whether Wing Chun contained standing grappling elements and whether Chi Sau was inherently a training method for standing grappling in addition to other things. Here is at least one lineage that thinks so! Recent clip from Alan Orr. Notice how he goes from Chi Sau to a standing grapple of some sort about as often as he goes from Chi Sau to striking. Note that the neck control he likes to use is right out of the dummy form.

Chi Sau "range' is a grappling range.

 

[Juany118]

In that thread that was recently taken down, one of the side discussions was about whether Wing Chun contained standing grappling elements and whether Chi Sau was inherently a training method for standing grappling in addition to other things. Here is at least one lineage that thinks so! Recent clip from Alan Orr. Notice how he goes from Chi Sau to a standing grapple of some sort about as often as he goes from Chi Sau to striking. Note that the neck control he likes to use is right out of the dummy form.

Chi Sau "range' is a grappling range.

I would agree that chi sau range can be used to bridge to grappling range. Let me explain, I see 4 ranges from which we can do things empty hand. Kicking>punching>trapping>grappling. So in my mind chi sau is "trapping" range. You can then use trapping to either strike OR to bridge into grappling range, if that makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[guy b]

In that thread that was recently taken down, one of the side discussions was about whether Wing Chun contained standing grappling elements and whether Chi Sau was inherently a training method for standing grappling in addition to other things. Here is at least one lineage that thinks so! Recent clip from Alan Orr. Notice how he goes from Chi Sau to a standing grapple of some sort about as often as he goes from Chi Sau to striking. Note that the neck control he likes to use is right out of the dummy form.

Chi Sau "range' is a grappling range.

In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform. The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there. Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.

WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform. The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there. Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.

WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT.

I've seen you post that before, and it's a reasonable statement (assuming your foundational statements are accurate, something I can't debate). However, I wonder whether some of the basic concepts and precepts of VT couldn't be translated into grappling, as well. By borrowing a few techniques that mesh well with the stances, distancing, and movement of VT (in other words, transitioning between them would feel "natural"), couldn't VT grow to include some basic, effective grappling? Again, I'm not talking about whether it has ever had it originally nor even whether it SHOULD have it, just building off your statement that it doesn't currently include it.

 

[Juany118]

In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform. The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there. Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.

WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT.

I think (or would hope) that we all agree that chi sau is just a drill. I think KPM's point is that the things it brings help grappling. By things I mean...

1. Many people have an instinctive dislike for being that close, chi sau helps to overcome that.
2. It helps us to understand our structure and better prevent another from breaking it. This is the foundation of defending against a grappler.
3. It helps train the ability to feel the weaknesses in the other person's structure, which is a useful skill if you wish to takedown your opponent

 

[guy b]

I've seen you post that before, and it's a reasonable statement (assuming your foundational statements are accurate, something I can't debate). However, I wonder whether some of the basic concepts and precepts of VT couldn't be translated into grappling, as well. By borrowing a few techniques that mesh well with the stances, distancing, and movement of VT (in other words, transitioning between them would feel "natural"), couldn't VT grow to include some basic, effective grappling? Again, I'm not talking about whether it has ever had it originally nor even whether it SHOULD have it, just building off your statement that it doesn't currently include it.

Which concepts of VT would you like to apply to grappling?

In my opinion grappling would be inconsistent with WSL VT strategy and conceptual base, therefore doing it on purpose would not be WSL VT. I think a good idea to train grappling for situations where no longer in VT (i.e. system fail). The best bet would be BJJ.

Adding grappling to VT would most likely break the system, unless done by some kind of genius very carefully over a long period of time. But then I don't really see what the point of trying to add grappling would be when great grappling systems already exist which can be added to VT for situations outside the scope of VT? Why reinvent the wheel at the risk of breaking the system?

 

[Juany118]

I've seen you post that before, and it's a reasonable statement (assuming your foundational statements are accurate, something I can't debate). However, I wonder whether some of the basic concepts and precepts of VT couldn't be translated into grappling, as well. By borrowing a few techniques that mesh well with the stances, distancing, and movement of VT (in other words, transitioning between them would feel "natural"), couldn't VT grow to include some basic, effective grappling? Again, I'm not talking about whether it has ever had it originally nor even whether it SHOULD have it, just building off your statement that it doesn't currently include it.

Guy can correct me if I am wrong but from my study of WSLVT (which is admittedly not as deep as TWC) this is my take away. The principles of grappling are in the forms and, if taught, can be used. WSLVT however is focused on striking. The forms are so comprehensive that, one can do almost anything with WC BUT in WSLVT some of these other options are seen as a distraction from the main purpose, which is being a striking art. I THINK this is what Guy means when he refers to other YM Lineages as lacking coherence. Basically if one is learning to use a fak sau as a takedown, one has taken his eye off the ball of what WSLVT is about.

The reason I left WSLVT and stayed with TWC is basically because of this. In modern society, especially in my career, just striking can get you into trouble if you want to defend yourself. There is a time to strike and a time one has to be "softer" otherwise you can find yourself sitting on the wrong side of a court room and you can do this, with coherence imo, if you look at things not in terms of end purpose (striking vs grappling) but instead the deeper foundational principles such as proper structure, forwarding energy, never meet force with force, etc.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which concepts of VT would you like to apply to grappling?

In my opinion grappling would be inconsistent with WSL VT strategy and conceptual base, therefore doing it on purpose would not be WSL VT. I think a good idea to train grappling for situations where no longer in VT (i.e. system fail). The best bet would be BJJ.

Adding grappling to VT would most likely break the system, unless done by some kind of genius very carefully over a long period of time. But then I don't really see what the point of trying to add grappling would be when great grappling systems already exist which can be added to VT for situations outside the scope of VT? Why reinvent the wheel at the risk of breaking the system?

Adjusting a style to meet current demands doesn't require a genius. It requires a practitioner with a deep understanding of the principles, a good understanding of the changing nature of the "other guy" it should be able to face, and an ability to subtly shift principles to match changing circumstances, without throwing out the core of the art. For instance, finding some movements, stances, and weight shifts within existing VT techniques that translate into a simple takedown with some adjustment. Perhaps adjusting distancing on some few techniques that can bear the adjustment, so as to allow access to or defense from grappling attacks. Adjusting curriculum is a laborious process, but it's not a genius-level task. Believing the originator of any style is an incomparable genius is what leads to styles not adapting as the landscape around them does. Most of them were smart, dedicated men who worked hard and put together a strong system. Adapting that system over time should actually be easier than developing it.

As for which principles, that's what I'm asking you (and others on this thread). I've already stated that I don't have any depth of understanding in WC to speak to specific principles.

 

[guy b]

an ability to subtly shift principles to match changing circumstances, without throwing out the core of the art.

Do you believe that VT needs to adjust to changing circumstances? If so why, and in what way?

For instance, finding some movements, stances, and weight shifts within existing VT techniques that translate into a simple takedown with some adjustment.

Ignoring the fact that aiming for takedowns does indeed violate core WSL VT principles, why make up a second rate takedown using cobbled together bits of VT when top notch grappling with great takedowns exists in almost every city in the civilised world? I think the simplest, most efficient and most direct course of action is simply to learn grappling if you need it?

Perhaps adjusting distancing on some few techniques that can bear the adjustment, so as to allow access to or defense from grappling attacks.

WSL VT isn't a technique based system. It is quite comprehensive and very interdependent

Adjusting curriculum is a laborious process, but it's not a genius-level task. Believing the originator of any style is an incomparable genius is what leads to styles not adapting as the landscape around them does. Most of them were smart, dedicated men who worked hard and put together a strong system. Adapting that system over time should actually be easier than developing it.

I don't believe that VT is the work of a single person. Seeing the way it is designed to work conceptually and strategically in fighting; incredibly complex but simple and mindless to use, the way it is designed to create training partners who can be used in mutually beneficial drills in order to correct errors, build structure, create good habits and eliminate bad, the way the training method is designed to force errors in order that they can be re-trained and eliminated, the way that time and progress dependent stages are linked together, and the way it all connects perfectly together as a system without contradiction or redundancy is quite staggering. It would be a very difficult thing to change without causing a problem.

As for which principles, that's what I'm asking you (and others on this thread). I've already stated that I don't have any depth of understanding in WC to speak to specific principles.

I don't see any reason to alter the system of WSL VT. I don't see what grappling integrated into the system would do (assuming it could be done successfully) that learning an optimised grappling system as an add-on would not?

 

[KPM]

I would agree that chi sau range can be used to bridge to grappling range. Let me explain, I see 4 ranges from which we can do things empty hand. Kicking>punching>trapping>grappling. So in my mind chi sau is "trapping" range. You can then use trapping to either strike OR to bridge into grappling range, if that makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

But is not trapping a form of standing grappling?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you believe that VT needs to adjust to changing circumstances? If so why, and in what way?

Yes, as I believe all arts and styles need to adjust as the kinds of attacks, environments, and weapons they might face change. As to what, I've already stated that I have little exposure to VT.

Ignoring the fact that aiming for takedowns does indeed violate core WSL VT principles, why make up a second rate takedown using cobbled together bits of VT when top notch grappling with great takedowns exists in almost every city in the civilised world? I think the simplest, most efficient and most direct course of action is simply to learn grappling if you need it?

Why need it be "second rate"? There are very simple takedowns that work quite well. If one of those could be mated with the movements and distancing already within the style, it would be a benefit to the practitioner. To take on an entire second art is not, in fact, the simplest approach for the student. It's the simplest approach for the instructor.

WSL VT isn't a technique based system. It is quite comprehensive and very interdependent

Okay. I don't think any coherent system is a "technique based system". They're all based on principles, or they'd feel cobbled-together.

I don't believe that VT is the work of a single person. Seeing the way it is designed to work conceptually and strategically in fighting; incredibly complex but simple and mindless to use, the way it is designed to create training partners who can be used in mutually beneficial drills in order to correct errors, build structure, create good habits and eliminate bad, the way the training method is designed to force errors in order that they can be re-trained and eliminated, the way that time and progress dependent stages are linked together, and the way it all connects perfectly together as a system without contradiction or redundancy is quite staggering. It would be a very difficult thing to change without causing a problem.

So, your claim is that this art that is a combination of the work of multiple people is now nearly impossible to change? That makes no sense. Small changes over time should happen naturally. And those changes - if made judiciously - should be fairly easy to work with and should cause the art to evolve as the environment does.

I don't see any reason to alter the system of WSL VT. I don't see what grappling integrated into the system would do (assuming it could be done successfully) that learning an optimised grappling system as an add-on would not?

It would let the student learn a combined system, rather than having to take on an entire additional art. You are correct, of course, that training in BJJ will provide superior results to whatever might be developed within VT. That doesn't make what's in VT bad. The kicks my students develop are unlikely to be the equal of those in Kyokushin, TKD, or other arts that use them a lot. But I don't send students off to study TKD to learn to kick. I teach them effective, simple kicks that fit in with the grappling and punching work we do. If they want to become great kickers, I suggest they add on a second art, and then I try not to mess with those kicks too much.

 

[KPM]

In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform.

---I think Alan Orr would agree with that statement. After all, you wouldn't expect an opponent to roll in Chi Sau with you!


The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense.

---It just depends on what terminology you use. At the distance in which Chi Sau is practiced, you are close enough to engage his arms as well as reach his head or torso. Therefore you are close enough to grab his arm or his neck, etc.....which is standing grappling. So if you are close enough to do Chi Sau, you are close enough to do a standing grapple of some sort! Sure you can close in to body-to-body range as well. But the standing grapple can take place prior to getting that close.


In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there.

---Who said anyone would try and keep them in that range? Watch Alan in the video. They start in Chi Sau as the drilling and training platform and from there they work at that distance, get much closer, get further apart for longer range strikes and kicks, and even go to the ground.


Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.

---I think of Chi Sau as a training platform. It is a "jumping off" place to many different things, as you see Alan doing. It is a way to engage with your training partner dynamically and unpredictably rather than just standing in front of each other and doing techniques.


WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT.

---Ok. That makes sense when you explain that excluding the standing grapple is in line with your strategic and conceptual approach. CSL Wing Chun has a different strategic and conceptual approach, as does Pin Sun Wing Chun and other versions.

 

[Juany118]

Do you believe that VT needs to adjust to changing circumstances? If so why, and in what way?

Striking isn't always advisable if the opponent has a knife or other weapon (as an example). Also one must consider legal considerations.

Ignoring the fact that aiming for takedowns does indeed violate core WSL VT principles, why make up a second rate takedown using cobbled together bits of VT when top notch grappling with great takedowns exists in almost every city in the civilised world? I think the simplest, most efficient and most direct course of action is simply to learn grappling if you need it?

The first part I will not deny, it does violate certain core principles of WSL VT BUT they aren't second rate. Many of the takedowns, chin na etc. are little different than those I learned in Aikido and Judo. I understand you haven't been taught these techniques (I will elaborate on that word below) but they are still part of the forms and principles. By principles I mean disrupting the structure/center of the opponent. That is the very essence of the take down. It seems to me that since you have not learned this and fervently believe in the WSLVT you have learned that by definition, something outside that vision must be second rate. This is not the case.

WSL VT isn't a technique based system. It is quite comprehensive and very interdependent

here I think we have an argument based on semantics and/or philosophy. Many would say that a bong sau, as an example, is technically a technique. And this I think is the core of many of these debates, semantics and philosophy vs practical ends.

 

[Juany118]

But is not trapping a form of standing grappling?

First I believe there is stand up grappling, it's just that there the only effective strikes are elbows and knees. Trapping is two part in my mind. First you are close enough where you can basically use every tool, even low kicks. Second trapping is transitory. Grappling is to establish control, trapping is to simply create an opening to strike.

 

[KPM]

First I believe there is stand up grappling, it's just that there the only effective strikes are elbows and knees. Trapping is two part in my mind. First you are close enough where you can basically use every tool, even low kicks. Second trapping is transitory. Grappling is to establish control, trapping is to simply create an opening to strike.

But would not an elbow lock or a wrist grab that yanks an opponent off balance take place at "Chi Sau range"?

 

[drop bear]

But would not an elbow lock or a wrist grab that yanks an opponent off balance take place at "Chi Sau range"?

The fence or the equivalent puts you at about chi sau range.

If they can create a straight bead to your head. They have a higher chance of hitting you without you stopping them. So as you are having a talk to a guy he is positioning to sucker punch you you are positioning to stop him.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^ And a standing grapple could easily happen at that distance!

 

[Steve]

I hear often that WC is not a techniques based art, but rather it is based on principles. As an outsider, this could translate a couple of different ways. Are you guys suggesting that WC has no techniques, or that the techniques are informed by principles? Or something else?

 

[guy b]

I hear often that WC is not a techniques based art, but rather it is based on principles. As an outsider, this could translate a couple of different ways. Are you guys suggesting that WC has no techniques, or that the techniques are informed by principles? Or something else?

It isn't based on applications, as for example jiu jitsu is, especially in the early stages of learning. There is no "if you do this, I respond with this"

 

[Juany118]

But would not an elbow lock or a wrist grab that yanks an opponent off balance take place at "Chi Sau range"?

Of course. I am not talking about universal principles. This is more of a KISS principle I would tell to a new guy. In this way if they want to have access to striking and control they go trapping range, if they are prioritizing control go to grappling... etc. There will always be some degree of overlap.

Perhaps a better way to describe each range is the ONLY thing you can do in said range vs all the things you can do?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk