Being tough or technical? (For beginners) [Archive]

old jong

09-20-2002, 02:40 PM

What would you say is the most practical and logical approach in teaching/learning Wing Chun?...
Beginning with a no-nonsense,hard-core,technicaly simple to master set of motions,hard punching and kicking or....
Getting right on with the finesse things,spending lots of times on little details and striving for perfection.

I know that both ways can produce good results in the end but I tend to favor the first for my students in order to give them something usable in the beginnings.I want them to be able to punch hard and fast and be able to deflect a truck with their bong or tan even if their technique could be better.They will then be able to take the times needed to learn about the forms and advanced principles knowing that they can at least use some of it in a real confrontation.I always feed them little corrections anyway so their progression is O.K.
What do you think?...

red5angel

09-20-2002, 02:43 PM

Old Jong, I think training them that way just makes more work for you and the student later on and doesnt do anything but feed greediness when it comes to learning. If you are patient and work at the important things, not worrying about what I can do NOW, or if it works NOW, it will eventually start to fall in place and I think as a martial artist you will be a better person for it.

wtinfo

09-20-2002, 02:50 PM

A thing to keep in my is that some people come there for self defence, in that way I think the first method would be most beneficial to your students (Giving them something they can use right away / or in the not too distant future) good qustions though I'm looking forward to some more views on this.

old jong

09-20-2002, 03:08 PM

I knew I was going to get that exact answer from you!...No problem because I have nothing against the ''long'' way!...But...

I see this as a normal Kung Fu experience were you have to drill something hard for rapid results. If you do Kung Fu, you are not phylosophising in front of your computer about perfection,you are training in a martial art in order to be able to defend yourself.I hope you get my idea right.Why somebody could get so effective in BJJ or whatever in a couple of months, and us in the most practical system of Kung Fu be forced to be ''perfect'' and spend long years of practice before being able to use our style?...We all someday get to the point where we use energy better and are more technical,like virtuosi on their instruments but fighting is hard and dangerous and being too focussed on perfection can let anybody beaten if not worse.

We get to the more suttle things soon enough anyway and there is no problems like you anticipe.

BTW...What is that ''better person'' thing?...Do you know me or can produce an opinion about who I am?...Let's discuss ideas not persons.

{i^(

09-20-2002, 03:52 PM

I'm with Old Jong, from his beginning post. Give the student something first- you never know if they'll stay the course. Why not be generous? Why be lazy and withhold anything useful? Sure, you may have to correct something later- so? Hopefully, your 'perfection' (whatever it's form) won't have taken them too far off course.

But whatever, I'm drinking koff syrup rite now so jes lak nevah mind....

Gandolf269

09-20-2002, 04:25 PM

I would agree with WTinfo that it depends on what your students are looking for. I think that both ways will have aspects of training that will be carried forward in their training (therfore it wont be "OK forget what I have have been teaching you for the last six months, now we are going to learn about power/softness"). For me personally, I wanted to learn the art not neccesarily just to kick a**. I'm 41 years old and haven't come close to getting in a fight for more than 10 years, so the odds of me getting in a fight now is unlikely. But if I was in my younger days I would want to learn to hit hard and fast and then hit the bars. :D

I'm assumming that by training them to hit hard and fast you are talking about teaching them to use structure, body mass, rooting, etc.. (no need to answer that, I already know your answer). ;)

Gandolf269

09-20-2002, 04:40 PM

A couple of things I meant to add.

Have them fill out a questionaire, when starting WC, that includes a question on why they want to take Wing Chun? a. for self defense; b. for health benefit; c. I always wanted to learn a martial art; etc.. You could also weight the answers, instead of multiple choice, so they give you the most reason to the least reason why they want to learn Wing Chun. And then shape the class to fit the majority.

If you teach more than one set of students, you may be able to put the students into the class that most fits their needs and wants. One that learns first to hit hard and fast, and one that learns first to be precise and soft. It would also be an interesting experiment to compaire how their development progresses over the years.

Sorry for the long post.
David

cobra

09-20-2002, 04:43 PM

I think the latter is the best way, but students seem to want something more up front, "just in case". Since you say logical and practical, give 'em both.

old jong

09-20-2002, 06:17 PM

The basic things in Wing Chun can be effective in a relatively short time.It does'nt mean that they have to be sloppy!...I get my students to perform effective tan sau,bong sau,biu sau etc...I have them punch with good elbow power and structure.It does'nt take internal power to do this correctly.All you need is proper body alingment and some coatching to learn fast and good.I do not neglect the stance training,Siu Lim Tao,dan chi sau and all the usual things but they have some kind of jump start in using defensive and offensive motions in case.

straight blast

09-20-2002, 09:19 PM

I like to learn to defend myself right from the start. There is plenty of time to practise perfect technique. But I train so that I can defend myself today, now! Not next year or three years down the track. I imagine it would be most disheartening (and bad for student retention!) if a student was to have the absolutely perfect tan sao and be presented with a situation where it was useless, and then recieve the ass kicking of a lifetime.

I'd prefer to be able to fight and maybe not have perfect form but win than have a perfect structure and go down looking good.

Each to their own...

09-20-2002, 10:41 PM

I see no one else taking the bait, so I'll volunteer as devil's advocate. Or victim, as the case may be. ;)

Originally posted by old jong
What would you say is the most practical and logical approach in teaching/learning Wing Chun?...

Is there one right answer?

Beginning with a no-nonsense,hard-core,technicaly simple to master set of motions,hard punching and kicking or....

That is the largest focus of what I see offered in mainstream adult martial arts training. At least in my neighborhood. My personal endeavor costs me so much and in so many ways, I'd hate to be virtually redundant. ;)

If immediate application, sudden confidence, or instant gratification is the primary concern for an individual, I propose it doesn't really matter if it's via Wing Chun or not. Actually, if being an overnight kicka$$ was my goal, I'd probably indulge in other pursuits outside of Wing Chun for it. Call me a heretic, I dare ya, LOL.

Getting right on with the finesse things,spending lots of times on little details and striving for perfection.

If the interest is more in long term results why put it off - times a-wasting. [Note: I wrote "more" and not "exclusively" … I doubt most of us perceive immediacy and quality as mutually exclusive characteristics, but rather as degrees on a continuum.] If the majority of schools are indeed focused more on immediate street defense, it seems to me a very good thing for at least a few to remain highly focused on core skill building with emphasis on the kind of gung fu that grows with effort over time.

FWIW, my ideas and opinions are heavily colored by my own personal experience, and not just theory. I started off with street-defense focused training, and now focus heavily on core skill building. I recognize all too well the opportunity costs associated with emphasis on either.

[Aside: Wouldn't it be cool if everyone could admit their biases? :D]

One of my very favorite things is having alternatives and choices. And sometimes helping to provide them.

So this is where I'm at. For people interested to share what I'm doing - terrific! I work like heck trying to build up my Wing Chun and to give it away, and happy as a pig in poop to do so. I like to feel we offer something of value, and something that isn't easily found on every other street in town. I also realize our anal retentiveness and attention to detail isn't for everybody. I am delighted when we can help folks find what's best suited to them, even if it's elsewhere. If folks like what we do, great! If not, good luck to them and very sincerely so.

Not trying to be all things to all people helps keep the training well focused; something I highly value in my effort to make up for lost time. Like most others, I'm racing. Just happen to be racing for the long term rather than the short, LOL.

In the end, it all comes down to balance, IMHO. The key is to understand that the right balance for each and all of us may not be the same.

I know that both ways can produce good results in the end but I tend to favor the first for my students in order to give them something usable in the beginnings.I want them to be able to punch hard and fast and be able to deflect a truck with their bong or tan even if their technique could be better.They will then be able to take the times needed to learn about the forms and advanced principles knowing that they can at least use some of it in a real confrontation.I always feed them little corrections anyway so their progression is O.K.
What do you think?...

Diversity's cool. :cool:

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

AndrewS

09-21-2002, 12:07 AM

Tough *and* technical is how I prefer to go.

Personally, I think beginners respond best to a focused 3 hrs, starting with 1/2 hr to 45min form, 1/2 hr to 45 minutes very clean technical application with frequent reference back to form- building a set of options based on a situations (double wrist grab to say, either sucker punch, straight or hook, groin kick, orheadbutt), followed by fairly rough free application of the technical exercises, concluded by about 10 minutes of hard explosive cardio training. 2x a week of this sort of thing for a few months gives a decent foundation.

Beyond that, look at the individual- rough application is unnecessary and counter-productive in people who are already fighters, all you'll do is trigger the reflexes which are already present (which they're trying to detrain). On the other side, non-fighters need some confidence and physical understanding of combat to get a grasp on fundamentals upon which a martial art is based- they need to get in some water before being taught the butterfly, as it were.

In general it seems better to proceed from gross motor skill to finer technical detail, working in cycles of heavy application and various other emphaseses- i.e. from application, to power, to cardio, to *very* technical work on body mechanics and sensitivity, etc., always bringing it back to application eventually.

My take,

Andrew

S.Teebas

09-21-2002, 01:51 AM

I tend to agree with alot of what KJ said.

However; on a side note id add that before doing WC, if self-defence is the issue then take another art first for maybe 2 years (maybe boxing or kick boxing). Then take on WC. This way you have somthign to fall back on.

The beauty of WC is in HOW it works. Why confuse new students by saying: "do it this way." ....Then.... "Now forget everything i have taught you and now do it this way."
I came from a school who did it like this it dorve me nuts that everything i had learnt was wrong! And when im trying to adapt to the more internal way, half the instructors couldnt be bothered putting in the hard work to do it right so were still teaching the external method. (hmmm... i wonder why theres so many interpretions of WC ):rolleyes: Needless to say i moved on.

I say teach WC 100% correct (and honest!) from day one. If i go to a WC calss i expect to learn WC, not the instructors 'quick self defence course'.

Mind that i already leant how to fight before WC, and learning to take hits and getting used to the adrenelin that you will experience in a real fight is extremely necessary if you want to be effective (no matter what you learn).

old jong

09-21-2002, 05:35 AM

Some seem to understand that I don't teach ''Wing Chun'' to my beginners!...:( Maybe I did'nt or could not express my ideas clear enough!
I teach them real Wing Chun as it should be.I ask for good alignment,stance ,structure,elbow line,punching power,steps and turns,lots of two man exercices,dan chi sau and Siu lim Tao....The only thing is; Can they stop a real punch?...Can they give one back?...I can answer yes to both these questions and they don't have to wait for some connection to the planet earth or be able to perform some tai-chi parlor tricks to do it.
And in the meantimes....They are getting deeper in the art!...

(I remember,I started a thread a long time ago.The title was: Are we a bunch of intellectuals!...;)

09-21-2002, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by old jong
Some seem to understand that I don't teach ''Wing Chun'' to my beginners!...:( Maybe I did'nt or could not express my ideas clear enough!
I teach them real Wing Chun as it should be.I ask for good alignment,stance ,structure,elbow line,punching power,steps and turns,lots of two man exercices,dan chi sau and Siu lim Tao....

How long does it take to really understand those things? Is any development required, or is it just a matter of explaining and then anyone can perform on the spot?

The only thing is; Can they stop a real punch?...

Who's punch?

Can they give one back?...

Who is it they are giving it back to?

I can answer yes to both these questions and they don't have to wait for some connection to the planet earth or be able to perform some tai-chi parlor tricks to do it.

Ummmm ... do I detect some inferences or assumptions here? Should some of us take it personally? :p

Earlier I wrote "I doubt most of us perceive immediacy and quality as mutually exclusive characteristics, but rather as degrees on a continuum." Do we live in a world of absolutes? How about Andrew's assertion? On balance, what's your take on this?

And in the meantimes....They are getting deeper in the art!...

Maybe so. I maintain that is not always the case.

I propose there are lots of considerations. Among them, not only different teaching approaches and philosophies, but also vastly different learning styles, goals and values. I'm not a big fan of one-size-fits-all, though I do maintain the importance of careful discernment.

As I alluded, and similar to S. Teebas experience, I was first taught by people who emphasized immediate street defense, not exclusively to, but more so than fundamental core skills. I spent 2 year building those skills. Not that they were much, but they were well ingrained enough that it took my body, sadly, another 2 years to unlearn most of them, and get on the track I hoped to be on all along.

(I remember,I started a thread a long time ago.The title was: Are we a bunch of intellectuals!...;)

I ask again:

a) Is there only one right answer to the question of" tough or technical?"

b) Are those qualities mutually exclusive? You seem to have answered "no" for yourself. Do you assert them to be mutually exclusive for others, and if so how broadly and on what basis?

As always, thanks for the exchange, Old Jong. A conversation such as this is, IMHO, necessarily too general to be much other than philosophical debate. I do consider it an exercise in generosity, sharing, exploration, and provoking of thought - all things I value.

On this account, you may be more intellectual than you may wish to admit. ;) Likewise, if you think I don't value "toughness" you haven't heard my Cobra Kai rally yet. :D

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

old jong

09-21-2002, 06:52 AM

Yes!...And I fell like a cat on the lab's dissection table with all these ''quotes''!...As for the Cobra Kai reference!:eek: I am surely not that type but...I would prefer to be the cobra than the rat!;)
So let's get back to our usual programming! (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=15717)

HuangKaiVun

09-21-2002, 10:17 AM

I think it depends on the student.

Some will want to learn by the details, others will want to learn by jumping in and getting knocked around.

The trick is to teach each INDIVIDUAL.

09-21-2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by old jong
Yes!...And I fell like a cat on the lab's dissection table with all these ''quotes''!...As for the Cobra Kai reference!:eek: I am surely not that type but...I would prefer to be the cobra than the rat!;)
So let's get back to our usual programming! (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=15717)

ROFLOL. Thanks, Old Jong - always a pleasure.
- kj

P.S. Do things sometimes disappear into the ether around here, or what??

old jong

09-21-2002, 04:54 PM

You know I'm an human being!...I'm not an animal!... You know I would'nt dare to make my students pass by the deep side of Wing Chun!...Eh?;) ;) :D

Matrix

09-21-2002, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by old jong
Beginning with a no-nonsense,hard-core,technicaly simple to master set of motions,hard punching and kicking or....
Getting right on with the finesse things,spending lots of times on little details and striving for perfection. What is finesse but the refinement of the basics. Without a strong foundation, the rest is weak. Why move quickly onto details when the fundamentals are not understood?

Matrix

yuanfen

09-21-2002, 08:04 PM

Old Jong- nothing wrong with being an animal. Watch out-
the animal rights folks and the spca may get you. You have insulted their school and their honor.
The mongoose.

09-22-2002, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by old jong
You know I'm an human being!...I'm not an animal!...

LOL. I love that line. :D

You know I would'nt dare to make my students pass by the deep side of Wing Chun!...Eh?;) ;) :D

I hope you don't think I implied that, Old Jong. I don't presume you'd wish it any more than I'd wish to encourage folks to practice parlor tricks in lieu of becoming formidable, no-nonsense exponents of Wing Chun.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

old jong

09-22-2002, 07:36 AM

I want to thank my good friend Matrix for summerizing my thoughts so well!;) He said it all in one sentence and I have only succed in being been incoherent in many posts!:( I will try again...(it is my idea after all!);)
I used to teach classical guitar years ago...Yeah!:cool: And I can compare Wing Chun progression to guitar's.I used to ask my students to be able to perform simple little tunes before trying themselves on Bach's ''Chaconne'' or ''Aranguez Concerto''.Even if I would have insisted on playing perfect one note at the times,their understanding of the instrument and their technical and physical level would have prevented them from doing that.So normaly,they had to work hard to perform a simple little tune effectively.As times passed and with hard work,they gradually were able to play more intricate and difficult pieces.You have to be able to be perfect in simple things before the more suttle ones,and,it goes like that in any fields.
This is why I favor a more simple but effective approach for my beginners.More external if you want to put it this way.I stress correct alignment and structure from the beginning so the progress is linear and we don't bump into technical or conceptual walls later.
Sorry for the parlor tricks KJ!....;) My grumpy androposic side is active sometimes!:( :eek: BY the way,How are you Yuanfen?...:p ;)

{i^(

09-22-2002, 11:26 AM

I'm still finding it difficult to see why it's an issue at all. Nobody can just dump all their knowledge into someone (well, Spock, maybe) so doing something 'external', or even dead simple/explicit, while holding to base principles works just great. The lights are on, but it's just not your house.

'External' techniques are still part of the whole CMA equation, thus still valid- they're just another means. Hard goes to 'soft' after awhile & 'soft' eventually requires hard to function, IMO. Simple, if simplistic. Perfection of technique is part of that refinement process.

Further question tho: how 'tough' are you on your students? Do you beat them up or something? Getting ready for UFC?

09-22-2002, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by old jong
I want to thank my good friend Matrix for summerizing my thoughts so well!;)

Odd as it may seem, I was thinking the same thing.

My grumpy androposic side is active sometimes!

Do you mean andropausic? In any event, no worries. Besides, just think what we've all got to look forward to when I become menopausic. :D

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

{i^(

09-22-2002, 11:45 AM

Hah! You'll just become memnopausic! "Wotwuzthatagin...?"

Ng Mui

09-22-2002, 02:45 PM

Teach tough and technical. The key is balance.
To many styles spend to much time on theory and not enough on application.
Both are needed.

old jong

09-22-2002, 03:32 PM

Hey {i^( (I like the sound of your name!);)
No! I don't beat my students but,I just show them in a practical manner how a good angled tan sau for example can deflect a real punch.I give them a couple of shots going harder as their technique is getting better. They know for sure they can handle a hard shot by experience this way. I do that with all the basic motions.
Hey Kathy Jo
How about you let me finish with my crisis before you get on with your's?....;)

Ng Mui
Are you the real one?...;) You're right BTW:)

Frank Exchange

09-23-2002, 04:07 AM

I prefer the second approach.

In a way, we use SLT as a litmus test to see which students have the tenacity and the understanding to want to learn wing chun.

At a karate school, you feel great after the first lesson, you are dynamic, you have shouted, kicked and punched.

After a first lesson with our school, you would have covered the first section of SLT, the concepts and reasons behind the stance, centreline, and lut sao jik chung. The student goes away in no doubt that it he cannot use it to fight yet, and will not be able to for a length of time.
Power is completely de-emphasised at the beginning, but stance, structure and precision is everything. Jeez, I am sounding like red5angel! I am Wong Shun Leung style, honest! ;)

I think this approach is more honest compared to the karate school, which gives you an undeserved feeling of achievement and superiority in its early stages.

Having said that, concentrating on the punch at the beginning is and extremely good idea, as good striking skills are the foundation of the style. I would just prefer not to let the students think that after a month or two, they can start kicking arses, when they quite blatantly cannot.

red5angel

09-23-2002, 07:48 AM

Old Jong, Like Kj pointed out, a quick fix can be found with other arts. We study wingchun and wingchun is a deep art. to get real appreciable skill you have to put in a lot of time and energy. That is where I would say that hard work is. Not training hard to be better faster. You can kick/punch/block as hard as you want in class but that wont get you anywhere but in trouble if something goes wrong on the streets.

If I were an instructor and I had a student that wanted to learn self defense as quickly as possible I would tell him to stay away from dark streets and strange people, bars, etc... tell him to run every night so that when an attacker is in front of him he can use the best defense possible and turn around and run like hell. Teaching a student a few quick tehcniques is as bad as some of these "Self-Defense" prgrams I see, they are going to get someone hurt and/or killed, and there is a good chance it could be your student. On top of this Jong, what sort of student would this be? Why is he in such a hurry? I she a bully? Is he that impatient, and if he is, is he really going to put in the time to learn the rest of the art?

Martial arts is the last line of defense in Self Defense in my opinion. I would spend time instilling in students who want it now, the skills that hopefully would not bring it to the martial part.

PQS

09-23-2002, 09:50 AM

Old Jong
speaking as someone who is new to WT (I have experince in other styles) I have found by teaching the basics ie form posture plus Lat Sao/ Blitz Defence the school I go to have got it just about right (although nobody is perfect!). Talking to people in my class who have just started MARTIAL ARTS primarily want to learn to defend themselves, people who want to learn WING CHUN are more likely to accept the "classical" method as they would have more idea of what they are getting themselves in for.
Having read your posts for a long time I have no doubt you will get the balance right
regards
Peter

old jong

09-23-2002, 03:06 PM

I think I brought enough nuances throughout this thread to clearly demonstrate that there can be a certain focus on effectiveness and practicality in the beginning of a Wing Chun student's formation without hurting him in the more suttle sides of our art.My students are not bullies or wanabe street brawlers but one of their concerns in learning a martial art is : Does it works?....And how long will it take me to be able to use it if needed?...This is my way and it is as legitimate as your's or anybody's. Don't forget that Wing Chun was created just for one reason: To be fast to learn and effective.
Anyway,I would like very much to see you practicing in your club.I bet there is not so much a big difference between our respective Wing Chun....

[Censored]

09-23-2002, 03:58 PM

How many years did Yip Man make his students wait, before he taught them to be "tough"?

Many months or years would you be willing or able to wait for "tough", if your life depended on your fighting skill?

burnsypoo

09-23-2002, 04:29 PM

technical, or heart. Which is more important as a foundation?

At the end of the day, a martial art is simply a delivery system for your intent. It's why good streetfighters don't need technique, and why a lot of MA's with "great technique" get cleaned up in the street. If you don't have a good engine for you car, it doesn't matter how sleek the body shape is.

We train our structures and our techniques so that we can pass along our intent with as little dilution as possible. A great technique is meaningless without the intent to use it, but having poor body structure/use will only hinder your own potential if you do have heart. They are intertwined, so they actually act as guide rails for improvement to everyone throughout their training. So IMO the difference becomes which question do you ask first? Not which one is more important. Neither is, it's just a personal preference. If you're diligent in your training, they'll lead you along the same path anyways.

a) Can I apply this?
b) How can I refine this?

In my view, I ask application first because that's what I have to bring to the system. The system shows me explicitly how to refine technique as I train, but the heart only comes from me.

And if that doesn't getcha, then maybe this will. Technique is limited to physical contact, and at the end of it all, your intent should be making anyone drop hershey squirts into their shorts long before their raise their hands.

-BP-

{i^(

09-23-2002, 05:44 PM

That doesn't sound bad. You're showing them a way to gain confidence in the particular technique, is all.

I've had (not very, but) varied kinds of experiences with WC. The current school de-emphasizes tan= this, bong= that, etc. thinking. Which is good, but incredibly detailed. Sometimes I just want a 'simple' answer. My taste ;)

I suppose we could do a mathematical justification for it all, what do you think? :rolleyes:
I'll bite:
Take the set of all techniques (@ infinity, sure...);) :A
compared to the set of all 'practical moves' (@ infinity:confused: ):B

And we'd get A>B where A is defined as the 'greater infinity' by virtue of details. :confused: :eek: :p So you just start at B and go to A, and others say 'find your own B'

But I like burnsypoo's answer more....;)

rogue

09-23-2002, 06:46 PM

Don't forget that Wing Chun was created just for one reason: To be fast to learn and effective. Old Jong, from reading many, but not all, of the posts on this thread I'd assume that WC is fragile(if root, structure etc is off it can't work), rigid, difficult to learn and even harder to make street ready. But that's just my outsiders opinion. :)

BTW OJ, I agree with your teaching method, it's the same one my JJJ sensei used. While most of my JJJ skills are gone, I can still execute those practical techniques he taught all students in our first six months of training.

09-23-2002, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by {i^(
I've had (not very, but) varied kinds of experiences with WC. The current school de-emphasizes tan= this, bong= that, etc. thinking. Which is good, but incredibly detailed. Sometimes I just want a 'simple' answer. My taste ;)

The obvious solution is to find a school that suits your taste. That's what I did.

I feel I demonstrated far more respect to my former teachers and classmates by politely and graciously excusing myself than by a) placing my demands or expectations on them, b) telling them what or how to teach or implying as much, or c) asking them to alter their conception of their art to suit my fancy. Or worse, d) sticking it out and nurturing frustration or anger with which to torture my teachers or classmates.

Wishing that people would be or behave in a certain way is one thing. Putting expectations on them to do so in order to suit my tastes is something else.

Furthermore, when I occupy myself in considering all the shortcomings of others, especially those who try to help me, there is this dang little gnawing thing reminding me that, as a student and learner, I have plenty of shortcomings that probably frustrate Hades out of them too.

To this day I remain extremely grateful to each and every one of my former teachers and mentors. Not a one of them ever "owed" me anything, yet they were generous in sharing their art, their time, and themselves.

Despite having found something that suits me better technically, physically and conceptually, I also remain grateful for everything I learned directly or indirectly through the process of their guidance and sharing. Yes, even the stuff I disagree with, as it provided me with an opportunity to learn.

As an adult, I have never assumed that my learning, education or growth is anyone's responsibility but my own, nor that anyone in particular owes me anything. [Except maybe a little peace and quiet now and then.] That no doubt colors my perspective on a great many issues, including this one. This is, at least in my mind, completely consistent with the notion that "having choices is a good thing" in Wing Chun as in other areas of life.

Then again, I'll be about a hundred years old soon, so maybe this notion of "personal responsibility" is just old-fashioned. Kids these days. :rolleyes:

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

S.Teebas

09-23-2002, 08:19 PM

Does it works?....And how long will it take me to be able to use it if needed?...

You said earlier you teach your students to throw good hard punches on the street from the begening. Doing a puch correctly using structure is not an easy thing that can be accomplished overnight, im still trying to et the alignment right before i even think about power. Most students, including myself, finish the punch movement with overt amounts of muscle. Teaching how to use structure is a contradictary powergeneration method compared to muscle.

{i^(

09-24-2002, 04:52 AM

Not exactly sure where all that came from.

I'm not placing demands upon my teachers to alter what they're doing, or their art, just saying that "sometimes, I just want a 'simple' answer". :(

No offense to be found in that statement. :confused:

09-24-2002, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by {i^(
Not exactly sure where all that came from.

I'm not placing demands upon my teachers to alter what they're doing, or their art, just saying that "sometimes, I just want a 'simple' answer". :(

No offense to be found in that statement. :confused:

It was an observation from the thread in general, not an assignment to you in particular. No offense offered, just food for thought. I would still wonder why you would learn from people whose style didn't suit your taste though, and the implications of doing so.

The original question by Old Jong was posed as appropriate ways to "teach/learn" - which, IMHO, speaks to both the teachers' and students' responsibility.

Much of what's been shared so far might be viewed in light of what/how teachers should teach, even if not explicit in that regard. That, at least, appears to be Old Jong's primary angle, even if not his sole one. Balanced consideration of the students' responsibility also seems appropriate. Having been a student in a position of wanting a different answer than what I was given, my experience and perspective, albeit from a different angle, may be relevant to the discussion.

This thread also reminds me of situations (only a few I've seen, but many I've heard about) where a student asked to be taught this or that thing. There used to be stories floating about (I don't know how large or small the grain of truth in them) about someone offering to pay $3000 to a prominent teacher to learn a certain form. Lot's of considerations in situations like that. Asking "what is the nature of a teacher/student relationship" or what are the responsibilities or obligations of each might be an interesting springboard for exploration.

Everyone has pet subjects of interest. Some people like to research weight lifting, others enjoy exploring dance, some like to consider or immerse themselves in science, art, or music. Issues of ethics and personal responsibility happens to be one of my perennial interests.

No less worthy of consideration to the thread at hand, there is probably an "ethics" angle to virtually every thread on this forum. There is immediate relevancy any time we touch on what someone "ought" to do. It's that darn John Muir thing again (apologies to Joy).

For anyone interested in such things, one of my most highly recommended books at present is (perhaps not surprisingly to those who know me) "Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312281188/qid=1032870200/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-4994109-2855120?v=glance&n=507846) by P.M. Forni.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

joy chaudhuri

09-24-2002, 12:11 PM

kj-<g> Muir has settled into my bones. I do learn things.

tiger_1

09-24-2002, 01:12 PM

my friend old jong just to say big HELLo and im thinks you have now good theme for discut. (whan we can see your topic, man can see good sistematic , strategic and progresiv way in your wing chun system of kung fu) just my oppinion and friendly - tiger_1:)

UltimateFighter

09-27-2002, 11:00 AM

Beginners should be technical in order not to develop bad habits. Having said that, too many supposedly 'experienced' practioners have spent so much time on technique they have neglected the hard and gritty side of fighting and cannot apply it. You need both.

Matrix

09-28-2002, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by burnsypoo
At the end of the day, a martial art is simply a delivery system for your intent. It's why good streetfighters don't need technique, and why a lot of MA's with "great technique" get cleaned up in the street. If you don't have a good engine for you car, it doesn't matter how sleek the body shape is. BP, Well said. As in many things in life the opposite is also true, having a good engine in a body that is structurally weak will not take you very far either. You need a balance. A good street fighter does not need technique until he meets someone with superior technique combined with intent. The system shows you what is possible. As you have so eloquently stated, “a martial art is simply a delivery system for your intent.” And the strength of that system will enhance your ability to successfully deliver the full expression of that intent. The refinement of the system opens up new ideas and concepts that you may have never considered in the past, and in so doing your intent becomes that much more powerful.

Regards,
Matrix