Transmission of knowledge

[red5angel]

If the instructor sucks, will the student suck as well? If the transmission of knoweldge is incomplete or incorrect, will the student suffer from this?

[yenhoi]

Yes.

If a student sucks, what does that say of his teacher?;)

[vingtsunstudent]

i'd say that they shouldn't use the same mirror to practice their forms in front of:D
vts

[fa_jing]

What if there are two instructors. They've both studied under a master teacher, they've both been exposed to the same knowledge, technique, etc. But one of those instructors comes to a different conclusion given the same set of data, than the other does. One thinks WCK needs to evolve, the other thinks it's just fine the way it is. One supplements his training with extra grappling and weight training, the other spends extra time on his Chi Sao and studying Kuen Kuit.

Whose student is going to suck?

[jesper]

Being a good teacher is not only about what you know, but how you transfer your knowledge to your student

[aelward]

r5a writes:
> If the instructor sucks, will the student suck as well?

How do you determine whether or not an instructor sucks? Obviously, there are people who shouldn't be teaching in the first place, who do not understand theory, don't do the basics correct. But then, there are those who DO undertsand the theory, can explain it, but can't get their body to do it. And the pople who can do it really well, but can't explain it. There are incredibly detailed instructors who look so much into minutia that even a very intelligent student could not get anywhere with a year's time; then you have people who forsake detail altogether, and have students who learn to fight, but not necessarily with "good" wing chun. So are there degrees to "suckiness"?

Where I am going with this is a student who is really smart and has good body awareness may very well get really good, if his teacher only shows him the bare essentials; just like there are students who never seem to get it, no matter how good their instructor is (but shouldn't a good instructor get ANYONE to be good?)


> If the transmission of knoweldge is incomplete or incorrect, will
> the student suffer from this?

what do you mean by incomplete? If someone has learned three hand forms, the dummy form, and one weapon, and can apply all of these, is he still "incomplete" because he is missing one weapon?

[red5angel]

Aelward, how could you explain a thing you cannot do? I could see a circumstance where you may have experienced some sort of trauma and can no longer do what you used to. I have a hard time seeing someone who cannot do it, understand it well enough to explain it. So far there are concepts that can be explained, and intellectually can be understood, but dont really click or make total sense until all of a sudden you find yourself doing it, right?

Incomplete in that his understanding of what it is he is teaching is incomplete, whether it be parts of the system, how the techniques are used, what have you. Why would you, or should you be teaching anything if you do not understand it all? I could possibly go with the idea of older students holding the hand of younger students as they progress through the system. But you should in my mind, have a very thorough understanding of what it is you are teaching. I will go ahead and say that th ewingchun journey is a constant one and blah blah blah, but I still believe you need to thoroughly understand anything to teach it. I fyou are teaching SLT, are you a teacher of wingchun or just SLT?

[aelward]

r5a writes:
> how could you explain a thing you cannot do?

I know several people who can explain things they cannot physically do. For example, someone with large pecs or breasts might not be able to bring their elbows in too easily, but they sure know, and can explain to people that this is the case. There are people who know you are supposed to relax, and can tell you why, maybe even show you how-- but they can't do it themselves.


> Incomplete in that his understanding of what it is he is teaching
> is incomplete, whether it be parts of the system,

Without mentioning names, one of Yip Man's top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine that Yip Man did not teach him one of the weapons; and that another one of these top four was only taught one of the weapons. Perhaps they both learned it from other sources later, but when they started teaching, they did not have the whole system. But at the same time, they are (were) both recognized as some of the most knowleadgeable and talented Wing Chun instructors of the Yip Man lineage.

[yuanfen]

red 5 sez:I fyou are teaching SLT, are you a teacher of wingchun or just SLT?
-------------------------------

wonders never cease!

[YungChun]

Originally posted by aelward
r5a writes:
> how could you explain a thing you cannot do?


Without mentioning names, one of Yip Man's top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine that Yip Man did not teach him one of the weapons; and that another one of these top four was only taught one of the weapons. Perhaps they both learned it from other sources later, but when they started teaching, they did not have the whole system.


Then OTTOMH I'd say they were not TOP students. If they did not complete the system under Yip and others have how could they be Yip's TOP students? There are/were other students/masters that have the whole system and can do it - seek THEM out.

[[Censored]]

how could you explain a thing you cannot do?

Like the utility of the third form? Or like the physical requirements of grappling styles? ;)

[yuanfen]

Aelward sez:Without mentioning names, one of Yip Man's top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine that Yip Man did not teach him one of the weapons; and that another one of these top four was only taught one of the weapons. Perhaps they both learned it from other sources later, but when they started teaching, they did not have the whole system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont know who you are referring to- but defining the top four can be problematic.
Since this is from a mag. article and presumably public, why not
state the names as given in the article? Doesnt mean that what is published is automatically true but a mag article doesnt need
to treated as a secret.

[anerlich]

Originally posted by yuanfen
I dont know who you are referring to- but defining the top four can be problematic.

Absolutely. What's that burning smell? The beginnings of a flame war :eek:

Who was fifth in line? sixth? Do the "top four" all agree on their relative positions?

If he's talking about "top four" he must be the fourth. Otherwise we'd have "top three", or "one of the two most senior", wouldn't we?

[bglenn]

Does anyone question the ability of a boxing coach in regards to whether or not he can physically do what is needed. I would say no. The only test of his performance as a coach is if he can see the inadequecies of his student, correct those mistakes, and make adjustments accordingly. Success and faliure is more apparent in that sport than in Ving Tsun. No one questioned the ability of Angelo Dundee as a coach regardless of whether he could or could not display boxing techniques physically.

[yuanfen]

No one questioned the ability of Angelo Dundee as a coach regardless of whether he could or could not display boxing techniques physically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
((Yes. but Angelo Dundee luckily by passed the generalizations
of r5a. So did Hawkins who holds the Isaac Newton chair in Physics)))

[Mr. Bao]

red,

If it was the case if the teacher sucks, the students sucks, then that would explain alot within the wing chun family? I agree that you can judge a tree by its fruits. It takes a good teacher to produce good and excellent students, if a retard teacher teaches, what can we expect from his / her student?

It is rare that a poor teacher produces good students, can anyone here speak of any great martial artist who came from a poor teacher?


Bao

[aelward]

yuanfen writes:
> Since this is from a mag. article and presumably public, why not
> state the names as given in the article?

I had an e-mail discussion with Rene a few years back, and he told me he caught a lot of flak from people for quoting said magazine, even though it came directly from said "top student." The magazine is definitely there, for those who can:

1. dig it up
2. read chinese

So if you really want to know, then go find it, get someone to translate it.


> I dont know who you are referring to- but defining the top four
> can be problematic.

As to what I mean top four, I am refering to: Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Wong Shun-Leong, and Tsui Sheng-ting. I have seen this listing time and time again, though usually as part of a "top 5" or "top 6" which mentions these four and then whomever the article is describing.

I would not be surprised if Joy will now go running down a list of merits of Ho Kam Min.....

anerlich writes:
> If he's talking about "top four" he must be the fourth.

No, my teacher is not in that list of "top four."

[yuanfen]

As to what I mean top four, I am refering to: Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Wong Shun-Leong, and Tsui Sheng-ting. I have seen this listing time and time again, though usually as part of a "top 5" or "top 6" which mentions these four and then whomever the article is describing.

I would not be surprised if Joy will now go running down a list of merits of Ho Kam Min.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surprise. No comment - verrry interesting!. There are lists and there are lists. Yip Man left no such list behind.

[anerlich]

No, my teacher is not in that list of "top four."

Don't understand. Before you said:


one of Yip Man's top four students said in the New Martial Hero magazine

and that's who my comments were about.

I made no comments about your teacher.

My instructor's not in that list either, and neither is his teacher, though that latter has stated on occasions too numerous to mention that only he learned real "Traditional Wing Chun" from Yip Man, and is therefore YM's successor.

A line of argument about which I am highly sceptical, as indeed I am about any such lists. as Joy said, YM didn't name a successor nor did he publish any lists.

To the subject at hand, I think it is possible to effectively teach physical skills without a high level of personal proficiency, but not without a high level of knowledge. bglenn is correct about Angelo Dundee. An ability to effectively transmit the knowedge one has and to apply it to a student's situation is arguable more important for the teacher than sheer personal ability.

That said, ex-players usually make the best coaches.

It is rare in CMA to find such individuals, as, rightly or wrongly, CMA instructors are historically expected to have been expert practitioners themselves. I've yet to meet a good KF instructor who is not also a long term practitioner, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. There are plenty of sportspeople whose parents have made excellent coaches without having been outstanding sportspeople themselves.

[Wingman]

In order to have a good transmission of knowledge in kung fu, the three elements must be present:
1. good teacher
2. good student
3. time
A good teacher must be able to impart the knowledge; and his student must be able to digest the knowledge that his teacher is imparting. The student must set aside time to practice; and practice deligently what he is learning.

A teacher is like a carpenter who makes fine furniture. He needs a suitable wood to make fine furniture. Even if he is such a good carpenter, he can't make fine furniture out of firewood. Can he?
In the same manner, a very fine wood cannot be made into a fine furniture without the expert hands of a good carpenter. To be a good carpenter needs a lot of time of hard work and experience.

[hunt1]

I dont mind catching some crap.

Aelward is talking about either Leung Sheung or Lok Yiu. Story is old was told even when Leung Sheung was alive. I will relate the story if there is interest.

[black and blue]

Yes please. What's the story?

[joy chaudhuri]

I look forward to hearing Hunt 1's recollection of the story.
BTW Aelward, I dont care to make a short list of Ip Man's best students. But FWIW- Ho Kam Ming didnt learn from any of those other guys but directly from Ip man in years of private lessons.
He learned both the bot jam do and the kwan do from Ip Man
and his motions in each are very well coordinated.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by fa_jing
What if there are two instructors. They've both studied under a master teacher, they've both been exposed to the same knowledge, technique, etc. But one of those instructors comes to a different conclusion given the same set of data, than the other does. One thinks WCK needs to evolve, the other thinks it's just fine the way it is. One supplements his training with extra grappling and weight training, the other spends extra time on his Chi Sao and studying Kuen Kuit.

Whose student is going to suck?

Nobody bit, so I'll just answer my own question. The one who fails to make the techniques and theory his own.
;)

[red5angel]

Joy, if Ho Kam Ming is well coordinated, shouldnt you be?

[aelward]

Joy says:
> Surprise. No comment

When I said I was expecting a listing of merits of HKM, it was a pre-emptive attempt to keep you from writing things like:

> FWIW- Ho Kam Ming didnt learn from any of those other guys
> but directly from Ip man in years of private lessons.
>He learned both the bot jam do and the kwan do from Ip Man
>and his motions in each are very well coordinated.

Apparently, it failed.

Just to clear the air, I have never met HKM personally, though I have met several students from his lineage, all of who have impressed me. I have nothing but respect for him.

Same goes for a lot of instructors outside of LS, LY, WSL, and TST. I have seen many different interpretations of Yip Man's WC, and all of them have had something positive to add to my own feeble understanding.

However, this is not the point. Perhaps I should have said "senior-most 4" instead of "top 4;" I assumed most people had seen this grouping before. But the entire point of mentioning this group was that before r5a insinuates that his lineage is complete, he had better confirm that it is complete. It was not meant to start a flame war over whose sifu or sigung learned the most, or the best, from Yip Man.

[joy chaudhuri]

red5angel
Jedi Knight

Registered: Dec 1969
Location: minneapolis, mn
Posts: 2248
Joy, if Ho Kam Ming is well coordinated, shouldnt you be?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, r5 doesnt read very well. I was talking about the bot jam do and the coordinated sequences in the form.
Ergo- the second point- my own coordination is another
red5 non sequitur.....the string of r5a non sequiturs now runs to
2248 posts! Walla!

[aelward]

r5a writes:
>Incomplete in that his understanding of what it is he is teaching
>is incomplete, whether it be parts of the system, how the
>techniques are used, what have you. Why would you, or should
>you be teaching anything if you do not understand it all?

In the past, r5a has babbled about the importance of concepts over techniques, yet now talks about someone not knowing all the ways a "technique" can be used.

I do believe that TST wrote that he is always finding some new gem inside the SNT form-- which would imply that his knowledge is incomplete. On the same token, I think this is a good thing-- we can always find new ways to apply principles and concepts, and continue to grow in what is a very broad and complex style. After some thought, to say your knowledge is complete is to say that you have "stopped" learning.

If r5a's forum ettiquette is any sign of what his future students' attitudes may be like, then let us hope that he doesn't start teaching until he has decided his learning is "complete."

[red5angel]

Aelward, your breaking my heart here. If you read thta comment you cut and pasted again you will see it is not out of line with what I have always said. Knowing the ways a technique works and focusing on technique based training are different animals. Would it keep you in your comfort zone if I said, knowing how WC tools are used? It was a good try but back to the drawing board for you I guess. ;)

Joy - I understand very much what you said maybe you have missed what I said, or what the thread is about? IF HKM is that coordinated then shouldnt you be? THATS the subject of this thread and THATS my question to you.

[aelward]

r5a writes:
> If you read thta comment you cut and pasted again you will see
> it is not out of line with what I have always said. Knowing the
>ways a technique works and focusing on technique based
>training are different animals.

I agree with that idea 100%, that technique-based training is different from knowing the way techniques work. However, your previous post was not nearly as clear. It implies that you have to know how all the different ways each technique works.


> Would it keep you in your comfort zone if I said, knowing how
> WC tools are used?

I have a very wide comfort zone, so please don't think that your posts actually do anything more to amuse me (and, on very rare occasions, actually have some thought-provoking content). Also from many different standardized test results, I have excellent reading comprehension. So perhaps it is back to the drawing board on your articulation skills.

But this also diverges from the point of completeness. Ask Carl if he thinks his skills are complete, I would very much like to hear the answer. The last time I talked to your Si-Gung Ken Chung, he told me that learning was a process, and one that he was still in the middle of. Which tells me that if you plan on teaching, but are going to wait until you are "complete," then you will never start. For better or worse :P

[red5angel]

"However, your previous post was not nearly as clear. It implies that you have to know how all the different ways each technique works."

then that was my mistake and I apologize, hopefully it is more clear now?

This is also how I see 'complete' understanding -

Someone used the exmaple of Angelo Dundee, sure he did a great job of training some champions but imagine what he could have done if he had done it himself. Then he would have a Complete understanding of what it is he is teaching. Aelward I believe you were the one who brought up the idea that soe people can teach without doing and some can do without teaching? I believe that if you are teaching without doing, then you have an incomplete understanding of what it is you are teaching.
Sensitivity is a great exmaple of this, do you really believe you could teach someone how to be sensitive, really sensitive, if you had never done sensitivity training yourself?

[hunt1]

ok,ok I'll tell the story.:D If Joy wants to hear it how can i refuse.:D

I first heard this in 1984 long before the WC flame wars (other than Williem Cheungs personal war). Told to me by my first Sifu who learned WC in Hong Kong back in the 60's. Was told just as sitting around talking and giving an example of why WC is different between Yip Man students.


Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu felt that since they were the first students they should be taught everything first.However Yip Man taught Yip Bo Ching the dummy pole and 12 section knives first. LS and Ly used to spy on YBC lessons to learn the dummy. They confronted Yip Man over this issue. Yip Man said he would teach each one weapon Lok picked the pole and Leung The knives however its was said leung never finished learning the knives.

Cant say if its true,I wasnt there,but it was told in HK while everyone in the story was still alive.

[joy chaudhuri]

r5a- you are not a good judge of what coordination in wing chun is about....or transmission- you may need to go back and forth with a tai chi ball from Minnesota to Ohio more often first..

[joy chaudhuri]

I didnt take it as a flame war. Promise. As I mentioned it's justa list.
An interesting one. Lots of opinions in wing chun.
My comments on HKM in no way is an attempt to push for another list.

[joy chaudhuri]

Great story! I enjoyed it. Of course I dont know what's true.
Thanks to Aelward for bringing it up and to Hunt 1 for sharing it.

[aelward]

Since Hunt1 already brought it up, I might as well ad to it. The New Martial Hero magazine pretty much mentions the same; unfortunately, I only saw a photocopy a while back, and I have no idea what issue it is, or how to find one.

Now third hand information: one of my friends, who studied with Lok Yiu, confirmed this-- when he was learning from LY, LY's sons were learning the knives from Tsui Sheung Ting.

In any case, from the long list of exceptional students that these people have produced, how can someone say that they are not good instructors, regardless of how "complete" or "incomplete" their knowledge was/is?

[yuanfen]

All those mentioned are superb instructors.

Best to ignore r5' nonsense.

[anerlich]

Interesting stuff hunt1 and aelward.

No disrespect to anyone mentioned. I just think the "top four" thing was an very unfortunate choice of words, bound to stimulate the controversy it already has.

[hunt1]

This all brings up a question. Is it important to have learned all the forms or is all that matters that you have learned and understand the concepts contained in all the forms.

[anerlich]

There is ample evidence on this forum that some feel they only need to have learned one form, or less, before they feel qualified to lecture, preach, and harangue at length as to how Wing Chun should be practised.

Can you guess who?

IMO, learning the movements of the forms is the easy part. It is understanding and being able to apply, and/or teach the underlying concepts and their associated application that is much more difficult.

[Wingman]

Originally posted by hunt1
This all brings up a question. Is it important to have learned all the forms or is all that matters that you have learned and understand the concepts contained in all the forms.

The forms are like a dictionary of WC techniques. Learning WC is like learning a foreign language. First, you have to build up your vocabulary by studying the dictionary. Likewise, you learn basic WC principles/techniques by studying the forms. Next, you study grammar so that you can use the words in a sentence. Likewise, you learn how the different principles/techniques work thru drills and chi sao.

Going back to the original question, I think you can speak a (foreign) language even if you don't know all the words in the language. Likewise, you can make WC work for you even if you don't know all the forms. I think it is more important to understand the concepts contained in the form and make WC work for you; rather than just learning all the forms.

[rubthebuddha]

aelward pointed out something rather marvelous a second ago -- lok yiu had his sons learn the knives from tsui sheung ting.

i don't know as much about yip man's earlier students, but a gesture like this seems very extraordinary. rather brotherly, which is something rather uncommon in the wc world today.

sorry, i just dislike the politics enough that i relish any time i read about some sihing and sidai actually still liking each other.