Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Push Hands(really different then ChiSau in the long run?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Is Push Hands(really different then ChiSau in the long run?

    (clipped from a Clinch thread somewhere else on the site)

    another general difference between push hands and chi sau is the grabbing. Chi Sau is meant to develope tactile feelings for when you are throwing many combos of punches. So you do not grab the others limb to much. No seizing. Push hands is more of push/pull soit does have some seizing

    Chi Sau is also a very tightly restricted movement set. It is very difficult to stay within the narrow confines of the footwork along the I pattern. This is to keep you in range to strike in a fight but it also forces you to the edge of unbalance more often and forces you to maintain balance without stepping to outside of the pattern. You can always step outside the range to gain balance again but why not develope internal correction measures too. Push hands in contrast plants both feet in a quadralateral front stance and then does not move the feet. You move the torso forward and backward and twist offline ect.. but the feet stay planted. Same concept of forcing unbalance on you and correcting it with in a tight pattern. So the Chunner will be in IRAS then step into Arrow step to turn the other guy while PushHanders will move in and out over two planted feet.

    Pushhands looks like it is a bigger system in the beginning and Chi Sau seems to be a "lesser" or smaller isolated set of Push Hands. This is incorrect. They both merge to share the others aspects in the advanced programs.
    Last edited by Dr._Tzun_Tzu; 7/27/2007 1:53pm, .

    #2
    At some point in push hands, after basic structure and movement is taught, it becomes a bit more freeform, in that both parties can move around and "take" what opportunities occur. It seems that chi sao does not get to this point, and instead stays focused on that particular reference frame. Is that a fair understanding?

    Comment


      #3
      No, Chi Sau gets that, atleast WT chi sau does. Its just most people either quit or never get that far so they think Chi Sau is just 2 people in IRAS slapping eachother. Same with Tai Chi push hands. as you said its not just two feet planted, thats just the start to learn whats going on internally, then you move the internal structure around.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Locu5
        At some point in push hands, after basic structure and movement is taught, it becomes a bit more freeform, in that both parties can move around and "take" what opportunities occur. It seems that chi sao does not get to this point, and instead stays focused on that particular reference frame. Is that a fair understanding?
        I would suppose that whether or not it ends up more freeform is more a function of the teacher's training philosophy. A crappy teacher (well, in my opinion) will force his students to keep doing the exact exercise and nothing else. A better teacher recognise that the exercise is not as important as the learning. For instance, if during a push hand exercise (my style does a kind of push hands that fall somewhere between tai chi's push hands and Wing Chun's chi sao) I notice that my partner has dropped the hand that protected his hips/body, then I'll punch him there with my back hand. Totally not in accordance with the exercise's goal, but the result of the training is more important than the training method itself: it's more important that we learn to keep our guard on at all times than to do 5 seconds more of moving our hands around.

        If I train with a partner I'm confortable with and I get to a point during sparring or push-hands where I can get a throw in, I go for it. And if my opponent contests (keep struggling) when I start the throw, then I complete it to check if it was indeed working.

        The most important part is that lessons are learned.

        Comment


          #5
          Exactly. I do think that the Chun is alot more into restricting movements to confined training sets and not so into freestyle mixing it up. WT does have throws, takedowns, kicks, knees, elbows, moving, and most importantly ESCAPES from holds in the chi sections.

          The Section is to Program responces so it should stay structured. Then Free Chi Sau is more lose and Sifu's will punch into your holes to teach you plug them up. Then you go back to the section that works covering that hole. Laut Sau is basically Chi Sau like but with more initiating contact phase and with punches and kicks instead of rolling. But the same thing here too, Laut sau has sections, you go freestyle to find your holes and then work the specific program to fix it.

          Eventually though the chi sau is all freestyle, built on previous sections, and so when you learn a new section is must be learned within the freestyle aspect of the previous stuff.

          Comment


            #6
            I think they are pretty much the same, just emphasize different range and strategy. Both worthwhile drills, but not the end-all-be-all taht too many practitioners obsess over. I like to combine the two drills now kind of like Guizzy describes.
            Last edited by Arbiter; 7/27/2007 2:41pm, .

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Dr._Tzun_Tzu
              Exactly. I do think that the Chun is alot more into restricting movements to confined training sets and not so into freestyle mixing it up. WT does have throws, takedowns, kicks, knees, elbows, moving, and most importantly ESCAPES from holds in the chi sections.

              The Section is to Program responces so it should stay structured. Then Free Chi Sau is more lose and Sifu's will punch into your holes to teach you plug them up. Then you go back to the section that works covering that hole. Laut Sau is basically Chi Sau like but with more initiating contact phase and with punches and kicks instead of rolling. But the same thing here too, Laut sau has sections, you go freestyle to find your holes and then work the specific program to fix it.

              Eventually though the chi sau is all freestyle, built on previous sections, and so when you learn a new section is must be learned within the freestyle aspect of the previous stuff.
              Yeh I agree there is a method to the madness.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Guizzy
                my style does a kind of push hands that fall somewhere between tai chi's push hands and Wing Chun's chi sao
                I've played something like this with White Crane, CLF, and other non-chunning CMA stylists. In fact, until I met a chunner in person I thought this was the same as their chi sao, and even called it that when talking to those who only knew that term. I later learned that taiji tui shou becomes taiji san shou by way of incorporating more and more techniques and footwork into tui shou until one is simply sparring using the body mechanics and techniques of taiji. The thing I was used to doing, which sounds like what you do, was an exercise at the midpoint of that continuum.

                Anyway, this will probably piss off any chunners who read it (sorry, not my intention), and there's no way to have a decent exchange of ideas about something like this without a friendly in-person crossing of hands, but... it's the body mechanics of chi sao that I don't like. It seems stiff, artificial and too focused on the hands themselves. This leads most of the chunners I've met to make it an arm game without any body behind it, thus the "slap fight" dynamic we so often see. Tui shou, on the other hand, starts with rooting and pushing to help the student learn the body mechanics of power generation and absorption before they get caught up in playing slap tag.

                Comment


                  #9
                  It seems (to me at least) that in push hands, the torso is the center of movement, while in chi sao, the torso is relegated to the center of reference, but the body motions seem disconnected from the (may Helio forgive me) dan tien. Is that an accurate representation?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Locu5
                    It seems (to me at least) that in push hands, the torso is the center of movement, while in chi sao, the torso is relegated to the center of reference, but the body motions seem disconnected from the (may Helio forgive me) dan tien. Is that an accurate representation?
                    No actually not. At least in my experience.
                    The style of wing chun that i learned is a mainland style called Gu Lao , also known as 'turning style' which does direct the movement from the dan tien (ok, i feel silly saying it too). I assume this is the way its supposed to be in wing chun, although it seems most examples i see are stiff, slappy and disconnected by comparison. And this comment is not meant to be a wing chun lineage war commentary, please wc people refrain from making it into one because there's nothing more unsightly and this is a good thread. Hell, i'm not dropping th3 r341 _ing _un thing either, lets stay away from that one too.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Don't worry it won't. As long as you reference your style, like you and DTT, it is cool. If it gets silly the offending posts will be removed.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Most CS, for me is to linear. It should be more free roaming. No, I'm not saying all yet, it is rare to encounter a school that doesn't do the step forward step back chi sau.


                        Yes, in another thread we discuss problems with push hands so, I have problems with both.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Arbiter
                          The style of wing chun that i learned is a mainland style called Gu Lao , also known as 'turning style' which does direct the movement from the dan tien (ok, i feel silly saying it too).
                          Silly dan tien

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Locu5
                            It seems (to me at least) that in push hands, the torso is the center of movement, while in chi sao, the torso is relegated to the center of reference, but the body motions seem disconnected from the (may Helio forgive me) dan tien. Is that an accurate representation?

                            This is exactly the difference in the beginner introduction. Where each style goes from there is different, but I guess if you reverse the roles it is a true statement inthe middle level training too. I wish I could write such short explanations....

                            It simple boils down to whether you keep your centerline lined up constanly(WT) or if you instead rotate our centerline sight on and off target to generate Torque.

                            but wait theres more: In the I-Ching their are 2 sets invovling movement, one which discribes the embolizized spine and only limb movement while the other discribes torso movements while the limbs are held "still" but moved arouund via the twisting of the spine. This is where the ridged distinction comes from, the two starting points.

                            Tai Chi and the Chun are two closely related on one point, that the torso is held stable. Both hold the torso very stableand generate movents from the hip and shoulder socket rotion, it just that of refuses to allow the shoulder to stop being squared up while the other is willing to twist the shoulders for power.

                            In EBMAS we use Latosa Escrima for a comparison point, specifically movemnets over more fixed legs and arms doing movemens generated by the torso. WT can be thought of starting as focused on the movements of the hip sockets and of the shoulder sockets, with rapid extensions of the arms, and driving from the heel instead of the ballof the foot. Latosa Escrima begins with a focus of moving with the knee and ankle, while striking with the arms helded fixed at the elbow to put energy out into a stick. This uses all the twists and bends of the shoulder and upper torso that seems missing from WT, but elbow extension is reduced, and it uses the boobing and dropping via the knee joint and work on the ball of the foot.

                            Tai Chi makes a great third MA to complete the EBMAS triangle but most people are opting for BJJ these days.

                            So my understanding of Push Hands from Tai Chi Chuan is that its empty hand sets also lead into weapons, but the empty hand set has more broad approach. WT has a refined extremely specific approach. Both lead to weapons where you find the core movents of all MA. Latosa Escrima is FMA so it is all weapons. It starts with short stick and works around various lengths and combinatons untill you are left with a simple empty hand set the is common to all MA. It would be like learning Tai Chi Sord first, and then working backwards to learn the push hands and heatlth form.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              We use push hands as a drill that leads to sweeps, throws and joint locks. We still go more physical than we should. It's always easier to take the drill to a harder more bruising experience. Great fun though.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X