Saving Wing Chun by Eliminating Chi Sau

[Danny T]

I don't think that sort of drilling achieves very much.

Okay.

For me it depends on what level you are on. This would be a very low level drill for us and but a start toward much more. We would also be working on re-countering the counter attacker.

 

[Flying Crane]

I used to think as such or maybe a catalog of movements/techniques. However, over the years and with deeper understanding I realized not everything is in the forms but most all is referenced within them therefore, I see forms more as cliff notes or memory minders to much more than is presented.

It contains the theory and the method and how to go about things. In mind, that is a textbook. You still need to handle the real problems yourself, but the textbook showed you how to go about it.

To me, cliffs notes just give the highlights. Not the full method.

 

[Flying Crane]

Where did I say that?

It is in how you present things. It is the subtext. You want to dismiss something like chi-sau but cannot acknowledge its place as one of many tools. You present it as if chi-sau (or forms, in other instances) are the only thing, and it cannot possibly be a successful way to train.

Step back and think about what you have written, before you hit the post button.

 

[Danny T]

It contains the theory and the method and how to go about things. In mind, that is a textbook. You still need to handle the real problems yourself, but the textbook showed you how to go about it.

To me, cliffs notes just give the highlights. Not the full method.

Okay.

I've yet to see where forms gave the full method.

 

[Flying Crane]

Okay.

I've yet to see where forms gave the full method.

Forms give you a way of practicing the method (which is not the same as saying they contain every technique or every conceivable combination).

Have you read a textbook that contains every real-life problem you may need to deal with? No, a text book shows you how to approach and deal with a problem. But you still need to take what you have learned and be able to figure out how to apply it to a real problem.

Maybe the forms in my system are fundamentally structured differently from yours. I dunno.

 

[geezer]

Forms give you a way of practicing the method (which is not the same as saying they contain every technique or every conceivable combination).Have you read a textbook that contains every real-life problem you may need to deal with? No, a text book shows you how to approach and deal with a problem. But you still need to take what you have learned and be able to figure out how to apply it to a real problem.

Maybe the forms in my system are fundamentally structured differently from yours. I dunno.

^^^^Yeah they are to a certain degree. I've watched your impressively performed Crane forms clips in the Members in Motion forum, and would say that the Wing Chun forms, especially those from the Ip Man lineages tend to be considerably more abbreviated than what I've seen you post of Tibetan White Crane. In that sense maybe WC is more "Cliff Note-ish" and Crane forms more like a text. Just guessin' here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you did that -i.e. eliminated chi-sau and used other methods to train the same concepts, you could still have a good fighting system, but IMO it wouldn't be Wing Chun. It would be like training Shotokan or TKD and eliminating all kata. You would have a different art.

Now on the other hand, different WC groups train chi-sau very differently. And frankly, I'm getting kinda fed-up with the way some of the groups in my own lineage train it. But that doesn't mean I reject chi-sau in general as a key training method, along with paired drills, forms, and sparring.

An interesting take. It's my opinion that the forms don't make Shotokan, etc....but I know many people would disagree with that view. If I took out the Classical forms from NGA (which I almost did 10 years ago), it'd still be NGA. Nothing else would change except that this set of drills would be gone. Would it change how people move, etc.? Yes. But I think the changes would be the same ones I'm getting from students with other adjustments I made.

But, as I said, I think a lot of folks likely share your view - maybe most of them.

 

[drop bear]

Okay.

For me it depends on what level you are on. This would be a very low level drill for us and but a start toward much more. We would also be working on re-countering the counter attacker.

Yeah. I would have though chi sau would be a bit more functional because at least it has some sort of timing element.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That depends whether there's a reason (within the context of what I teach) to avoid it or not. If the system needs that contact (or at the very least always seeks it), then the answer could be, "Don't. Use it when it's given to you. It's a gift."

Here is an example that when your opponent tries to control your wrists and switch a striking game into a wrestling game, you may need to respond differently.

Besides the sticky hand (arm) training, should the sticky leg training that your leg make contact on your opponent's leg also be included too?

 

[yak sao]

Besides the sticky hand (arm) training, should the sticky leg training that your leg make contact on your opponent's leg be included too?

Yes, we refer to it as chi gerk (sticking leg).
I've heard that not all Yip Man lineages do this training though.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yes, we refer to it as chi gerk (sticking leg).
I've heard that not all Yip Man lineages do this training though.

As far as I know, that training was not part of Yip Man's school regular daily training. I believe many training were added in by his students later on which is a good thing.

Did I learn that kick and punch before the hip throw from my teacher? I didn't. It was added in later on.

wrestling + kick/punch > wrestling
WC sticky hand + sticky leg > WC sticky hand

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Adding things can violate methodology and consistency.

Can ground game make the WC fight more complete?

WC + ground game > WC

 

[Flying Crane]

Can ground game make the WC fight more complete?

WC + ground game > WC

I don’t know and don’t care, to be honest. I just dont buy into the mainstream concept that everyone needs to mix BJJ with whatever else it is that they are doing.

 

[Saheim]

The purpose of Chi Sau can vary between any given curriculum, school or group depending on their interpretation and overall intended goals. The methods in which a practitioner utilizes Chi Sau can in-turn shape their knowledge and use of the system in general.

Chi Sau is not exclusively for trapping or sticking (sensitivity) to an opponent’s arms, it is also trained to free the arms from obstructions and maintain the attack. Chi Sau develops automatic responses and reflexes for getting back to the center-line when blocked out or entangled by an attack. All of this compliments the idea of Lat Sau Jik Chung, influencing how the system is implemented as a whole.

Training Chi Sau can also be viewed as a way to let the opponent show you how to hit them. It is also often thought of as fixing a problem of access and not gaining an advantage of control. It is paramount to chase the center and never chase hands, Chi Sau should always develop the instinct to chase the center-line and take position.

IMO, these are key attributes to fully understanding the system. No serious Wing Chun practitioner should ever really consider eliminating them... no matter what century it is.

I had to scroll back up and see your name, check if my instructor was posting this, it sounds familiar

OP - let's carry your logic to the extreme. No boxer ever steps into the ring against a speed bag or jump rope, ditch 'em. It's a fight, not calisthenics, no sense in doing any burpees or running. Why hit a heavy bag, it doesn't even have arms. In favt, let's not practice ANYTHING other than the actual act we're attempting to improve - (if that is fighting) just fight.... every class, nothingelse is actually fighting except fighting right? I don't subscribe to that logic. I think there are several important aspect of training - partner drills (including chi sao), bag work, kata, weight training, cardio, stretching, etc.

Do I think one should be careful not to let the drill become the objective? Of course! Eliminate it? Definitely not.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Eliminate it? Definitely not.

The long fist system doesn't have sticky hand like the WC system has. So WC system is already more advance than the long fist system.

IMO, we should not eliminate it but expand it.

WC sticky hand + sticky leg + wrist grabbing + under hook + over hook + head lock > WC sticky hand

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I had to scroll back up and see your name, check if my instructor was posting this, it sounds familiar

OP - let's carry your logic to the extreme. No boxer ever steps into the ring against a speed bag or jump rope, ditch 'em. It's a fight, not calisthenics, no sense in doing any burpees or running. Why hit a heavy bag, it doesn't even have arms. In favt, let's not practice ANYTHING other than the actual act we're attempting to improve - (if that is fighting) just fight.... every class, nothingelse is actually fighting except fighting right? I don't subscribe to that logic. I think there are several important aspect of training - partner drills (including chi sao), bag work, kata, weight training, cardio, stretching, etc.

Do I think one should be careful not to let the drill become the objective? Of course! Eliminate it? Definitely not.

I don't think that's at all the logic the OP is using. He's saying there's a problem directly related to this drill. Imagine if boxers who spent a lot of time on the speed bag turned out not to do well. We could argue the drill's being used wrong (so fix the approach to it); that it's being used too much, so it's taking time away from other drills and is instilling static stances (reduce the use dramatically); or that it's problematic enough that removing it is less harmful than helpful.

Now, we could easily argue that this one correlation might or might not be a clue to causality, and I think that's an important question.

 

[geezer]

I don’t know and don’t care, to be honest. I just dont buy into the mainstream concept that everyone needs to mix BJJ with whatever else it is that they are doing.

Yeah, and now that I'm in my mid-60s with joint issues cropping up, I don't thing grappling is really for me. Too bad -I like it. But for self-defense or all out sparring, it's hard to reject that a striking game and good ground work are both necessary.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yeah, and now that I'm in my mid-60s with joint issues cropping up, I don't thing grappling is really for me. Too bad -I like it. But for self-defense or all out sparring, it's hard to reject that a striking game and good ground work are both necessary.

It depends on what you want to get into. If you want to spar with grappling included in the ruleset, then yes.

For self defense, I do not agree that it is necessary. If one likes it and wants to include it in their training, then they should do so. But no, I do not agree that it is necessary.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

with joint issues cropping up, I don't thing grappling is really for me.

If you compare the

- front kick with foot sweep, the front kick is bad for the knee, the foot sweep is easy for the knee.
- straight punch with hook punch or uppercut, the straight punch is bad for the elbow, the hook punch or uppercut is easy for the elbow.

When you get older, you may not want do too many front kick or side kick, but you don't mind to do more inner hook, or outer hook.

IMO, the wrestling art is much easier on the body joint (more circular motion) than the striking art on the body joint (more straight line motion).

 

[Flying Crane]

If you compare the

- front kick with foot sweep, the front kick is bad for the knee, the foot sweep is easy for the knee.
- straight punch with hook punch or uppercut, the straight punch is bad for the elbow, the hook punch or uppercut is easy for the elbow.

When you get older, you may not want do too many front kick or side kick, but you don't mind to do more inner hook, or outer hook.

IMO, the wrestling art is much easier on the body joint (more circular motion) than the striking art on the body joint (more straight line motion).

I disagree with most everything here. Front kick is not hard on the knee. Straight punch is not hard on the elbow.