'Teaching Exchange' - Why are we so rigid?

[TwoManSaw]

Hello Everyone

I am new to posting on this forum, although I have been browsing the various posts here since I began my journey down the Wing Chun path over 2 years ago.

The previous post on Wing Chun and Grappling Development which mentioned Chinese wrestling master Chang Tung Sheng gave me the idea for this post. Last year an article was printed in Blitz magazine which is our ( Australia's ) main martial arts publication. The article was on the famed Chang Tung Sheng and his life. The key piece of information from this article that I wish to share with you before I pose my question is this

" While he was in the army, he travelled around China and came into contact with many top martial artists. He estimated that he studied with 50 different martial arts masters. Most people consider 'cross training' and 'mixed martial arts' a modern concept. In this respect, Chang Tung Sheng was way ahead of his time. He learned other martial arts systems such as Tai Chi, Hsing yi, Ba gua, Tong Bi Chuan and others. In those days, however, it was not as simple as signing up for a class to learn a system. The common method used was 'Jau Huan', which means 'Teaching Exchange'. Chang would 'test' skills with another martial artist rather than fight challenge matches." By Mark Miller.

Since i began reading the posts on this forum i have read the ongoing lineage and grappling debates. I come from the William Cheung lineage, but are not affilliated with the WWCKFA. And i am well aware of the controversy surrounding this system none of which i care about.

My question for everyone here is this - On a personal level why is it that we as martial artists specifically devotees to the W.C, W.T, V.T, V.C (I apologise if I Missed any ) system, find it hard to embrace a concept such as 'teaching exchange', not only within our specific art but with other arts such as grappling or whatever you choose?

There will always be those who are considered a single system 'specialist' and there will also be those who are multiple system 'specialists' and the 'Jack of all Trades' people. To me neither of these individuals are better than the other.

[TkdWarrior]

good question twomansaw,
it's an intresting article u just hav mentioned about chang tueng.
i m very much of TKD but i hav learnt(better cross trained) with WC stylist(not sure about lineage, i guess it's Yip Man's)
the crosstraining or"teaching exchagne" is no way new concept it was done always but without any name attached to it.
i hav said one thing in one of another thread i'll say same thing here ...

"if u think closely every art is very much a MMA(mixed MA)
most of shaolin styles originated in early times were very much influenced with each other,
Cross training is the key in every martial art
of course u can't box with boxer, kick with kicker and grapple with grappler..u hav to device ur own methods...

In early times there were so many diff styles which Monks used to learn and practice, some emphasis on kicks some on punches some on grappling (shui chao??) that was big reasont to learn different styles becuase they too knew that one art can not be complete in itself so they tried to move that deficiency out of their system by practicing no of arts
that why u hear most Old Ma'ist knows more than one Martial art. "
well i guess why ppl find hard to understand this concept is because of their teaching(traditional) in traditional teaching u only learn from one teacher and learn full time when he think that u r good enough then only he let u go loose. in early times it was done purposely in china, because master were not sured that if their student go out n come back alive, so student were not allowed to mingle with rest of community(too much) in some amount of time(some say around 10 yrs, not sure) there was reason because of fudalism in china, anyone powerfull than u will end up killin u in fights, so Master never allowed there students to go out and learn other arts untill and unless they were proficient in their respective arts, this trend has been there up till now but the thing is teachers hav become single art specialist so pupil doesn't end up learning about diff arts.
that was my idea
hope u r not sleeping...i ranted way too much

-TkdWarrior- :cool:

[{i^(]

I look at wing chun itself as a synthesis of various other arts (in fact, one of the creation stories of WC states that it is). As a synthesis, it seems that it should be able to fit other arts/techniques into it's own method of use. The question is whether or not that method (really fighting theory, body movement, etc.) is the most flexible to profitably use other techniques, or if the technique is really needed. I like longfist methods, for example, but it isn't needed for WC.

The other side is that people don't think there is a need to add, instead they feel that there is a need to simplify. Maybe. It might be that these are searching for the ultimate simple set of theories to account for all circumstances in fighting, but- "there are no silver bullets".

And, last, in both cases, there are traditionalists who respond "not!" to both attitudes. To each his/her own.