A modest proposal [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

byond1

01-27-2003, 01:15 PM

T--with respect, as you are my senior, but...come on!!! how silly....that misses the entire point of the seminar.....i go to learn what ever the teacher wants to share.....nnot to beat him up or to be beat up myself....that is also disrespectfull due to the persons position in the family( i belieive in the traditional method of challenging....redmond sifu taught me years ago that the proper way to challenge is to....for example...if i have a problem with moy yat....i issue a challenge.....if he meets my challenge he sends someone , of the same generation as me, to meet me in combat....this way... everyone keeps face...we handle things like warriors...with honor......) or i can be a faceless gwai lo and jump someone from behind....or have my gang of 10 back me up....
.i believe that this also is respecting ones self as well as ones elders.......
so if i go to a seminar....i go to learn and humble myself (which im going to do with hoffman sifu in may!!!!!!!).....if he wants to show everyone his skill after the learning....its all good......or if someone wants to issue a challenge through the proper channels after the learrning..lol....more power to you.......

brian

hunt1

01-27-2003, 02:02 PM

I dont think T was serious but in any event this still wouldnt prove anything. It whats in the head not that hands that counts. Old example Mike Tyson I am sure could tear apart those who taught him how to box yet who would you go to for lessons. Mike or those that taught him?

t_niehoff

01-27-2003, 02:09 PM

I'm not surprised by the responses. A couple of points though . . .

Byond1 wrote:

the misses the entire point of the seminar.....i go to learn what ever the teacher wants to share. B1

What makes you think that whatever the teacher has to "share" (other than stories, for example) has any value if they can't make it work to some degree? If they have some skills, what is the problem with them showing what they can do? If they have poor skills, should they be teaching? Doesn't their skill level go to the credibility of their teachings? TN

-----------------

that is also disrespectfull due to the persons position in the family( i belieive in the traditional method of challenging....B1

What is disrespectul with expecting someone who puts themselves out as an authority on a kuen faat (otherwise, why would anyone be attending their seminar? unless to hear stories) to demonstrate in a small way their expertise? This is not a challenge; a challenge is a fight. TN

------------------

this way... everyone keeps face. B1

That's really the issue, isn't it? And that's the shame of it all IMO. Think about your assumptions here. TN

-------------------

believe that this also is respecting ones self as well as ones elders....... B1

Helio Grace still rolls with folks at 90. He may not have the level of skill he had when he was younger, but he earns respect by demonstrating that he is not afraid to show his present skills; and everyone can tell by his present standard that he was a monster when he was younger. If Helio isn't afraid to lose face, why would our "masters" be? TN
-------------------

so if i go to a seminar....i go to learn and humble myself. B1

I go to learn as well. But I would expect someone with skill would feel confident in showing me his/her skill. I'll bet you that Andreas Hoffman would have no problem with my proposal. TN

Terence

byond1

01-27-2003, 02:16 PM

hi T---well i beleive its up to me to find its worth....if i dont believe in it, i dont need to use it or learn it....or its on me to train it and than try it in combat...ym said not to believe him...go out and try it....
demonstation is one thing....you said real gor sao...that is a fight...
shame??? only to a westerner

anerlich

01-27-2003, 02:42 PM

I don't think Helio rolls with anyone outside his family these days, and I doubt he goes full tilt, nor do any of his partners. Certainly though most of the Gracies and Machados are happy to roll with all seminar particpaints. In the early days of BJJ outside Braizil at least, BJJ schools took on all comers - the purple belts were expected to respond to any and all challengers.

The trouble with such things is that they are always open to interpretation and spin. The Cologne incident has very different storylines depending on who's doing the story. I can hear the choruses of "Yes he hit me but I didn't want to hurt him" or "he swept me but I was wearing slippers on a slippery floor" now.

The guy in the hot seat won'y know whether a particular "tester of skills" just wants a relaxed encounter of whether the other guy wants to take his head off to make a name for himself or take what he considers as revenge for some insult the guy under the microscope laid on his Sifu. Gee, that sounds awful familiar (C-O-L-O-G-N-E). And THAT really did WC a lot of good, didn't it?

Do we start university lectures off with the participants grilling the lecturer to determine whether he knows the material or not?

The legality and related consequences and ability to get insurance for such activities would be rather tricky, I would imagine.

It sounds like recent events have set this train of thought in motion, Terence. If so, how about some details so we're not just talking hypothetically?

shame??? only to a westerner

LOL. No sale on that one, sport.

TwoManSaw

01-28-2003, 12:29 AM

This topic makes me think of a recent article that was published in the Australian Martial Arts magazine Blitz. The article was an interview with a female instructor of the Wing Chun system here in Australia, part of the article reads

"There is a strong tribal element to the martial arts world, with its hierarchies, politics and competition between schools and styles. In this environment, some may believe that an instructor should be able to 'show the way' with their superior technical and fighting abilities. Should a female instructor feel that she must be able to 'defeat' any student in her class to gain respect? the instructor in the article disagrees as do I.

I think you are depriving yourself of a big slice of the Wing Chun Pie if your measurement of Wing Chun Skill is whether or not the Instructor, Master or Grandmaster can kick your or arse or not.

What would happen if you went to a seminar in another style of Martial Arts for e.g BJJ, and the instructor whipped your butt would that mean that your Wing Chun stinks, not necessarily and on the other side would it mean the instructor was a kick arse BJJ practioner?.

Again it is all about balance but I would never forsake one side over the other, ie. fighting ability over Technical knowledge and comprehension of the system, especially if i was going to be giving seminars which by nature are teaching and learning environments (in which I consider the tech knowledge and system comp of paramount importance, this is not to say you cannot have both).

At my club there is generally a division in how students understand W.C, there are some that understand both halves of the circle but they are few. Most either understand W.C via fighting and application or those who understand it through concepts and Forms, we need all three types for the future of the system.

Sorry for the ramble

YungChun

01-28-2003, 01:03 AM

Have someone fight with EVERYONE? That's just a bit nuts. Like someone else said: Someone doing a seminar should be thanked if you feel you got something out of it.

Now on the other hand, if someone claims they are Grand Master of the system and all the other master's Wing Chun is wrong they should have to prove it as in the old days. With proper guidelines and terms:

1. Win by KO or throwing in towel only
2. Fight cannot last for more than 2 minutes or else called a draw
3. No eye attacks
4. No throat attacks
5. No equipment except a cup and mouthpiece
6. Light shoes or sneakers may be warn
7. Any tactic allowed except those named

Send the top three students from each family to compete in challenge matches with any other families wishing to participate, if a family loses they are eliminated from the challenge and must shut up. The winning family will set the standards for Wing Chun Kuen for the next 100 years after which time we can all meet up and do it again :D

Sure would be interesting to see who would win....eh?

canglong

01-28-2003, 01:08 AM

Are we talking about a seminar or an ambush?

mun hung

01-28-2003, 02:18 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kj
[B]

And what if you learned something you could utilize from someone who failed to demonstrate they could handle themselves exceptionally well? Would you still be happy you learned it?

Please don't get me wrong, KJ. I would be happy to learn anything from anyone...if i can.

I would just be skeptical about learning a "fighting art" from someone with zero experience in real fighting or worse hands than myself.....

canglong

01-28-2003, 02:47 AM

This hypothetical seems far fetched so if I might suggest if you care to attend a seminar do a little research on the person lecturing and instructing and if their credentials meet with your approval attend that seminar and if they don't then don't go.

01-28-2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by mun hung
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kj
[B]Please don't get me wrong, KJ. I would be happy to learn anything from anyone...if i can.

I would just be skeptical about learning a "fighting art" from someone with zero experience in real fighting or worse hands than myself.....

Hi Mun Hung. No worries, and doubtful of misunderstanding. I count it as dialog and constructive exploration of viewpoints, not insult.

IMHO, teaching is something bestowed upon us by others; learning is something we do for ourselves. From this perspective I can learn from many sources and input of all kinds - as sentient beings naturally do from birth. From this perspective, and as a resourceful learner, I gain a great deal from many external sources, even those most junior to me in class, for example.

Furthermore, I am grateful to those from whom I learn (whether they are teachers in a formal sense or not), and those who are gracious enough to share with me regardless of my agreement. Thus I see no call to insult them, nor necessarily to beat them up at every greeting (or other way around). Even if something was seemingly proven today (questionable), tomorrow is another day and we'll all be a bit different by then on this constant path of growth and learning called life.

Still as good learners, and I think you and I will agree on this part, the onus is indeed on us to use critical examination and the utmost care in selecting our primary and most trusted sources of knowledge, no less when it comes to learning and practicing martial arts. The caveat is that my criteria for selection would be based more strongly on my potentials and what I am capable of doing rather than what they are capable of doing.

As reasonable and intelligent beings, I believe (and hope!) most of us begin with at least a modicum of capability for discerning what is worthy to learn, what is not, and from whom, on the basis of many many factors. Naturally our discernment will change over time. But again, what seems most reasonable (to me) is a) to find a means of learning that is consistent with our own values, and b) someone who is capable of delivering to that set of requirements.

In this, and most things, I see no black and white, rather many shades of gray and color worthy of consideration. It always boils down to balance.

Cangalong: Yes, what you said. Hypothetical, LOL.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

burnsypoo

01-28-2003, 06:58 AM

What if the guy's like 80 years old? Was a terror in his younger days, but now has honed his understanding into becoming a better teacher. Bet it'd sure feel good knowing you didn't waste your time learning from a man you could beat up.

azwingchun

01-28-2003, 07:50 AM

My take on this, is if I am willing to pay or just even attend this person's seminar, I am not there to disgrace this person. I am there to learn. Not to mention that I wouldn't be attending a seminar unless I felt that person had something to offer.

I am also a very, very big believer that every dog has his day. Just because I beat you today, does it mean that I can do it tomorrow? And as mentioned earlier, does this mean that you are a bad figher? Does it mean I am better than you are? Not always!

I also have to agree, that I am willing to learn fom anyone, regardless of skill level. I learn more from my students on a daily basis than anywhere else. In fact, half joking I tell people that I learn my most practical stuff from the beginners.

This also brings me back to an old Sensei I once had, who told me that his dream was to have students that could beat him up. Reason being that if he could make someone better than himself he was a great teacher.;) So, once you can beat your teacher up do you leave in the search for someone better or stick it out, because he still has more than enough knowledge and experience to share?:)

Spectre

01-28-2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by TwoManSaw
The article was an interview with a female instructor of the Wing Chun system here in Australia, part of the article reads:

"...Should a female instructor feel that she must be able to 'defeat' any student in her class to gain respect?"

Is respect really the issue here? I would hope that an individual would pursue instructing for the sole purpose of helping others and not simply to have respect shown to them.

And in my opinion, I do think that an individual should be able to 'defeat' me if they are in a position to teach me. This would apply to any physical 'techniques' being shown and not the theory or structure behind it. Example: If an instructor could not effectively stop my attack with a 'technique', how can they, with any credibility, criticize or correct my execution of said 'technique'?

I think you are depriving yourself of a big slice of the Wing Chun Pie if your measurement of Wing Chun Skill is whether or not the Instructor, Master or Grandmaster can kick your or arse or not.

I think this would depend on an individual's reason for learning Wing Chun. If they want to learn Wing Chun for the sole purpose of learning how to fight or defend themselves then I see nothing wrong with this expectation.

What would happen if you went to a seminar in another style of Martial Arts for e.g BJJ, and the instructor whipped your butt would that mean that your Wing Chun stinks...

In simple terms, yes. It means that the individual's Wing Chun is not where it should be. The problem not being Wing Chun, but the individual's understanding and execution of it.

I think that if anyone is putting themselves in a position to teach others that they, or one of their direct students, should be able to effectively use what they have been taught.

Many posters on this forum constantly tell newcomers that they should make sure they find a 'good' and reputable sifu. Why would seminars be any different?

Kevin

t_niehoff

01-28-2003, 08:11 AM

Hi all,

First, gor sao is not *fighting* by any stretch of the imagination. Gor sao is sort of like judo's randori -- an exercise, but at least one that can give us some idea of a person's skill since her/his partner is being non-cooperative to *some* extent. If you think it is fighting or a challenge, then you have no idea of reality. TN

Second, we need to ask ourselves what it is we expect from our "leaders" -- the sifus, masters, and grandmasters. KJ wrote: that "my criteria for selection would be based more strongly on my potentials and what I am capable of doing rather than what they are capable of doing". You are missing the whole point IMO: how can they teach you something if they can't do it? Is this criteria you would use for a teacher in any other area of your life? How aboout learning to fly a plane? Or learning to read? Or mathematics? Imagine a bjj "master" that says, "I always get choked out when I get on the mat, but I can teach you how to do bjj". If the teacher doesn't have the skills that they are teaching, then their teaching is either hearsay or nonsense. Look at the "qualifications" most teachers of WCK use -- who they studied with, whether they received a "certificate" from them, that they had some fights when they were a teenager 50 years ago, etc. How did Wong Sheung Leung choose Yip Man? YM tossed him around. How did YKS prove to Sum Nung that he had the skills to teach him? He tossed him around. It is only recently that "association" is the primary criteria to become a "sifu" or "master". And I think that's why the general skill level of our art has gone into the toilet. I submit that if we want to turn this around, we should *demand* to see skills from the folks teaching us. If they have skill, it won't be a problem; if they don't have skill, then we know. TN

Along these lines, Canalong writes: "I might suggest if you care to attend a seminar do a little research on the person lecturing and instructing and if their credentials meet with your approval attend that seminar and if they don't then don't go." Good idea, but what "credentials" can tell me whether or not a certain "master" truly has any skills if they never show their skills? Why is it that in *some* other arts that the "masters" have no problem showing what they can do? And, how is it that these other arts are the ones that develop skilled fighters? TN

Third, TwoManSaw writes about "fighting ability over Technical knowledge and comprehension of the system" -- this is *nonsense*. One can't have technical knowledge or comprehension of the system unless they can use it. Can you imagine, for example, a bjj "expert" saying "well, whenever I go out on the mat I get choked out but I have good technical knowledge and comprehend the system?" LOL! What demonstrates their technical knowledge and comprehension other that their ability to use it (against noncooperative partners)? Does a "demonstration" -- where a cooperative stuntman feeds an expected attack that is easily dealt with -- prove anything? TN

Fourth, EB writes: "What if the guy's like 80 years old? Was a terror in his younger days, but now has honed his understanding into becoming a better teacher. Bet it'd sure feel good knowing you didn't waste your time learning from a man you could beat up." Helio is 90, and while many may have greater skills now due to his age, his past actions prove that he "has it"; he has *demonstrated* his skill over-and-over again when he was younger. What 80 year old WCK master has demonstrated his skill over-and-over when he was younger (do you consider beating up some teenagers when the "master" was a teenager as proof of high-level skill?)? Sum Nung, on the other hand, had no problem demonstrating his skill for all to see all the way up to his death (when he was in his mid70's); and he had demonstrated his skill again-and-again his whole life. But then, Sum had great skill and so nothing to hide. ;) TN

Terence

01-28-2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KJ wrote: that "my criteria for selection would be based more strongly on my potentials and what I am capable of doing rather than what they are capable of doing". You are missing the whole point IMO

No, I am not missing the point. And I think you are too sharp to be missing my point altogether as well.

What we seem to share most in common is a penchant for reason. I confess you are far more skilled in the rhetorical arts than I am, and appropriately so given your education, profession, and experience. Where we primarily differ appears to be in core values, conscience, personal needs, personal style, and predilections for divergent versus convergent thinking. This will inevitably land us on different sides of debate from time to time, yet in agreement at others.

Regardless of agreement or disagreement, I do indeed learn from you and so many others. At the very least you provide me with the opportunity and incentive to clarify my own viewpoints and reasoning, however similar or different they may be from your own.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

reneritchie

01-28-2003, 09:13 AM

Crazy as this sounds, there is something to this. Most of the best WCK people I've met tossed me around at least a little to show exactly what they were saying. Some were nicer than others about it, to be sure, but each and every one of them were 'hands on' and I never had to doubt for one minute if they knew what they were talking about or not.

By contrast, some other folks (no one from the VTM lest they get all agro) have talked me ear off for hours about how great they were, yadda, yadda, yadda, and then not been able to show any of it.

In BJJ, Rickson would line up everyone at the seminar and tap each and every one of them, but in some ways BJJ is "easier" to show like that - no concusive injury results and few real experts are jerks enough to choke you or lock you beyond safety. I'm not sure how that would translate to mid-level WCK people and their thinking one striking=WCK (the really good ones control your balance from the outset making it never really a question).

Hmmm, a lot to ponder here, and not the easy answers, or simple solutions one might think...

Another perspective, of course, is that some people may do WCK with not the slightest interest in fighting. They may do it as a form of exercise, as a form of health nurturing, as a form of hobby or social activity, as a type of "kenetic chess", etc. And while some may argue WCK is not designed for that, or there are better ways to acomplish other goals, individuals are entitled to do what they like, and if they like WCK, they're entitled to do it regardless of their reasons. And they would obviously be looking for something other in their seminars.

planetwc

01-28-2003, 09:36 AM

I totally agree with your concepts Terrence.

The fact that BJJ guys like Rickson engage in this kind of gor sao activity via BJJ randori speaks volumes. And if someone wants to try and take it to another level they'd get their butt handed to them. But THAT is not the point of what Rickson is doing.

Rickson isn't pounding people into mush, but he is able to show demonstrably to each and every person who is paying money to learn from him WHAT kind of skill he has.

There is such a reluctance (it seems on this forum at least) to see if teachers have what they say they have and treat Wing Chun as if instead of it being a fighting art is a religion. Lots of faith in for the most part dead guys.

It is not one extreme or the other folks.
The seminar instructor doesn't leave you a bloody pulp, nor do you go to his seminar trying to take his head off or ambush him.

Can the current generation of WC teachers walk the talk?
Can their students?

If those were true, then Wing Chun would be more of a force to be reckoned with.

azwingchun

01-28-2003, 09:38 AM

I completely understand where you are coming from. But I disagree in some areas. As you can probably get from my last post I don't feel that I can only learn from those who can beat me. Maybe I take a realistic point of view of fighting, that just because you beat me one day doesn't mean you will beat me another. Even if your Wing Chun is great, we are human and errors or mistakes can happen. This is impossible to get around. My question to you is, if I we were to do gwo sau and you beat me, would you think that I had nothing to offer you as a teacher? I realize this question is somewhat sarcastic, but no less a question on the subject.

I don't belive in the unbeatable master, I believe (as mentioned above) that as humans we are not perfect and one slip up could end a gwo sau match or more so a real fight. So, with that in mind, if one of my students gets in on me one day, should he reconsider me as a teacher. I personally think not. This doesn't make me or you a bad teacher.

We could line up all the teacher fom around the world and have one huge match and eventually we would be left with one winner, does this dicredit the others. I think not. There is always the chance for error, or the fact that there will always be someone more skilled with their Wing Chun. So, as great as a topic as this is, I don't compare my skill with anyone. Thpugh I can admit the greatness of a Wing Chun practitioner when I see it. But, I never downgrad my skill by their abilities. Or think less of myself, it just inspires me.

I am one of those few who believes that there are great teachers who can teach well, but may not be the best fighters. I also believe there are great fighters who can't teach. I strive to hopefully be both, but it would probably depend on who I am up against at any moment in time. I am not invincible, and I accept this point.

This brings me back to a statemnt that was made by I believe Ip Chun (I think, could have been Ip Ching though), he said that he was undefeated. Then goes on to say he never had a fight in his life. Does this make him any less a teacher?

T_niehoff I have read many of your post and find you as KJ mentioned(though in my own words) very knowledgeable and understand what you are getting at. Though, I think I may see things slighlty from a different point of view here. Great post by the way!;)

t_niehoff

01-28-2003, 11:08 AM

Rene wrote:

Crazy as this sounds, there is something to this. Most of the best WCK people I've met tossed me around at least a little to show exactly what they were saying. Some were nicer than others about it, to be sure, but each and every one of them were 'hands on' and I never had to doubt for one minute if they knew what they were talking about or not. RR

Imagine a seminar where the "master" gets up in front of everyone and says, "I want to do gor sao with each and every one of you; just a couple of minutes each. Please, don't hold back. I want to get a good idea of your skill level because it will help me teach you. And I want to give you an idea of some of the things I'm going to be talking about and teaching." Compare that with what normally happens at seminars. TN
-----------

AZwingchun writes:

As you can probably get from my last post I don't feel that I can only learn from those who can beat me. Maybe I take a realistic point of view of fighting, that just because you beat me one day doesn't mean you will beat me another. A

What I'm talking about has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with being able to "beat someone". It has to do with truly having the skills that you are claiming to teach. I may, for instance, visit someone that has a different personal expression than I do. Perhaps I have better overall skills. So what? I am still interested in their approach (perhaps it will help me get even better?). But what I want to see is whether or not they can make their approach work, i.e., what skills they have at their approach. For example, a while ago I saw James Demile (WCD from Bruce Lee) at a seminar. He did gor sao with everyone, and tossed some folks around. He could make what he did work very well; he had skill. But his approach is different than mine. Yet I learned some valuable things from him because he had skill. Whether or not I could "beat him" wasn't an issue. TN
----------------

planetwc writes:

There is such a reluctance (it seems on this forum at least) to see if teachers have what they say they have and treat Wing Chun as if instead of it being a fighting art is a religion. Lots of faith in for the most part dead guys. DW

Exactly. It is all "skill by association." As I see it, lineage is very important in that it shows whether or not we've had access to the teachings (certification just proves lineage). But, it doesn't tell us whether or not we understood the teachings, have developed skill, etc. (do we want to learn from a "d" student?). For example, if I claim to be a Gracie JJ "master", then I should be able to prove my lineage back to Carlson or Helio; if I can't, that's red flag #1. But this association doesn't say anything about my skill. And there is no true knowledge without skill. I demonstrate my skill by what I do on the mat not with my mouth. If I always get choked out, it doesn't matter if I studied with Carlson or not; I shouldn't be teaching others "how to do bjj." Period. If I won't demonstrate my skills then that's red flag #2 IMO. TN
---------------

Finally, going back to Rene, he writes:

Another perspective, of course, is that some people may do WCK with not the slightest interest in fighting. They may do it as a form of exercise, as a form of health nurturing, as a form of hobby or social activity, as a type of "kenetic chess", etc. RR

That's all well and good. While I think there are better ways to get these things, if someone wants to do that certainly I can't stop them. But, they should be honest about it and say that is what they are doing ("I do WCK to nourish my chi"). But they can't have it both ways: "I'm not doing it for a martial art but I understand the martial aspects." If they think they understand (and can teach) the martial aspects then they should be able to demonstrate those skills. The only way that WCK can survive and grow as a *MA* IMO, is by putting emphasis on developing skill - demonstrative skill (against real resistance). Otherwise, we're just playing games. The only way to learn those skills if from folks that truly have them. IME folks that truly have skills will be more than happy to show that they do. TN

Terence

Terence

mun hung

01-28-2003, 12:06 PM

Terence - excellent post!

Without application - it's wushu!
:p

01-28-2003, 12:13 PM

Terence,

Your POV seems far more reasonable and certainly more palatable at present, as you have iteratively moderated and expounded upon your opening proposition. While I would still defend the right to self-determination and the possibility of legitimate exceptions, I in large part agree with your fundamental concerns and your (now more reasonable) expression of one method to overcome the dilemma. It is at least something for the serious student to contemplate as they evaluate and seek instruction and guidance.

I do find it interesting that in practice on such issues, some are quite close where they otherwise differ greatly in words. OTOH, there are times when words agree, but realizations could hardly differ more.

Planetwc,

WRT "Can the current generation of WC teachers walk the talk?
Can their students?"

You gonna make 'em?? ;):p

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

burnsypoo

01-28-2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Fourth, EB writes: "What if the guy's like 80 years old? Was a terror in his younger days, but now has honed his understanding into becoming a better teacher. Bet it'd sure feel good knowing you didn't waste your time learning from a man you could beat up." Helio is 90, and while many may have greater skills now due to his age, his past actions prove that he "has it"; he has *demonstrated* his skill over-and-over again when he was younger. What 80 year old WCK master has demonstrated his skill over-and-over when he was younger (do you consider beating up some teenagers when the "master" was a teenager as proof of high-level skill?)? Sum Nung, on the other hand, had no problem demonstrating his skill for all to see all the way up to his death (when he was in his mid70's); and he had demonstrated his skill again-and-again his whole life. But then, Sum had great skill and so nothing to hide. ;) TN
Terence [/B]

Hey, at least you didn't write "someone calling themselves Burnsypoo" heh. :)

Anyways, you didn't answer my question. I mean, obviously your point has merit, so I'm not debating that. I just think there's a lot more goin on. And I'm sure you see my point too. If he was a terror, but *now* is frail... does that make his knowledge or ability to help you understand any less valid? So what if he never was a terror in the first place? Does that mean that his words and his ability to help inspire you to better your wing chun are somehow less that worthy of listening to? What if the speaker has never been in a fight in his life, but he says something to you that REALLY clicks? Do you "lalala, I didn't hear that" because of your bias?

Having the speaker do Gor Sau with everyone would be cool indeed. But if he couldn't get in on me, does that mean that he has nothing to offer?

I don't care about the "expert" or "master" or whatever. If someone's got something to say to me, I'll listen. If it's good, I use it. If it's not, I don't. Whether or not I can whoop him in gor sau is not proportional to the gaining of knowledge... which would seem like the point of going to a seminar.
Thoughts?

azwingchun

01-28-2003, 12:19 PM

Maybe I am just reading to deeply into what you are saying. But when I go to meet another Wing Chun practitioner I am not there to challenge his abilities or to see if he can back up what he preaches. I am there to share ideas and hopefully walk away with a new idea or perception on what I already do.

If I go to a seminar and I am the one that is choosen to demonstrate a certain technique or skill on, then so be it. If the demonstration doesn't live up to my expectations, then so be it. I don't walk away dissapointed or with any lack or respect. Maybe, I will even walk away with a new idea and be able to make it work for me. We see this in Wing Chun all the time, what works for me may not work for you.

Mun hung-
I do agree with you, though I don't feel the need to test or have my kung fu brothers/sisters/elders to prove it to me. I would like to think that if I am there training with them, it is because I am there with an open mind to what they have to offer, good or bad. I believe we can learn even from the bad.;)

t_niehoff

01-28-2003, 01:08 PM

azwingchun wrote:

Maybe I am just reading to deeply into what you are saying. But when I go to meet another Wing Chun practitioner I am not there to challenge his abilities or to see if he can back up what he preaches. I am there to share ideas and hopefully walk away with a new idea or perception on what I already do.

No, apparently I'm just not getting my meaning across. What does it matter if some WCK practitioner "shares his ideas" if they have no real value (ideas in and of themselves aren't of value -- there are stupid ideas, wrong ideas, misinformed ideas, etc.; they could be pointing you in the wrong direction)? If you go to a bjj seminar (I'm using them as an example so as to not unintentionally bring any WCK folks into this) and someone "shares his ideas" of how to escape the mount, how much value does his ideas have if he can't escape a mount (make his own ideas work) against someone resisting him? Are you just interested in the theoretical ramblings of folks with no real skills? They are not worth $0.02 IMHO. In fact, they are worse than worthless -- they can be dangerous; like when you find yourself mounted and try using that guy's "teachings"! Now if they can show you that their ideas have merit -- and the only way to really show it is by being able to do it (against resistance) not by "demonstration" (with cooperative stuntmen) -- then it is something worth considering. Once again, it has nothing to do with "challenging his abilities". TN

There is no such thing as "technical knowledge" without skill. They go hand-in-hand. If you can't do it, you don't know it. Many people refuse to accept this obvious fact. Is there such a thing a "a good technical boxer" that can't box or a "good technical wrestler" that always pats? If someone teaches a seminar (or a class) they are holding themselves out as an authority or expert. If they began the seminar with "I stink but I want to teach you all how to . . . " everyone would start leaving! So if they hold themselves out as knowledgeable enough to teach, they should be willing and able to show that they have the requisite skills. TN

Terence

t_niehoff

01-28-2003, 01:40 PM

KJ writes:

Your POV seems far more reasonable and certainly more palatable at present, as you have iteratively moderated and expounded upon your opening proposition. KJ

Well, I don't know how I've "moderated" my POV although I'm glad you see the reasonableness of it. :) TN

--------------

And now to "Burnsypoo" ;)

Hi Eric,

Anyways, you didn't answer my question. EB

Sorry, I thought I did indirectly. The idea is not to beat up on old guys or challenge anyone; I'm not suggesting we adopt the tactics of the "brave" WCK "master" that challenged 80 year old Pan Nam. ;) Nor am I suggesting we throw out common sense, civility, or manners. I've attended numerous seminars and never once have I "called anyone out" (even when treated really poorly and felt like doing it!) or "put anyone on the spot". As I see it, in this "Age of Marketing" there is no longer any quality-control in WCK; anyone can call themselves "master" or "grandmaster" or whatever -- or hell, even make up anything. How do we separate the sheep from the goats? There is only one way IMO -- by lineage (showing you had access to what is recognized WCK) combined with performance (that you really know it); its the same way you show it in bjj or anything else. These other fighting arts don't have a problem, only the "nonfighting" ones do. ;) TN

Terence

Marshdrifter

01-28-2003, 01:40 PM

I seem to be middle of the road on this topic.

A few thoughts:

I believe that a good coach doesn't necessarily have to be able
to do what they're teaching others to do for those others to
become effective. At the same time, most Wing Chun teachers
are not trained to be coaches or athletic educators (something
I think would be useful in teaching Wing Chun -- in addition to mad Wing Chun skills :) ).

I think being able to touch hands with the teacher does add
credibility to his statements, but this doesn't have to be a
"try to beat me up" sort of thing, or even gor sao. Just by taking
the time to demonstrate what he's talking about, he can show
if he has the tools behind his words. To a certain extent, that is.

A student at a seminar isn't necessarily able to give an accurate
assessment of an instructor even if the instructor touches hands.
A really strong person with only a cursory understanding of chi
sao, could feasibly be better than a weak beginning student.
The instructor may not be helping the student learn good Wing Chun at all. Sure this shows that the student had poor Wing Chun skills, but that student probably already knew that, which would be why he's going to a seminar.

azwingchun

01-28-2003, 01:46 PM

Ok, maybe I was a little off track from what your point was. I was reading that if someone wasn't up to your expectations or couldn't beat you they had nothing to offer. My apologies if I was mistaken.

I understand that if I go to a seminar and they aren't able to demonstrate what they teach. This would be disappointing to me as well. But that would have to come out of my view of the seminar after attending, I wouldn't expect for him/her to immediately walk up and say 'come here, let me show you I know what I am talking about' , to give credit to themself. Or for me to walk in and say let's see if you are as good as you say before I pay for this. I find this would be disrespectful for me to do so. Even if at the end I find this person to be a fraud or have a lack of knowledge/experience in what they teach. And if they did it to me at the start of a demo or class I might think of them as a little ****y.
But in a scenario as I believe you mentioned earlier, to gwo sau to see the level of each participant, then that is fine. As long as it was done in a matter as mentioned above, not to mention this would give you some understanding of the teacher as well.;)

Marshdrifter

01-28-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
As I see it, in this "Age of Marketing" there is no longer any quality-control in WCK; anyone can call themselves "master" or "grandmaster" or whatever -- or hell, even make up anything. How do we separate the sheep from the goats? There is only one way IMO -- by lineage (showing you had access to what is recognized WCK) combined with performance (that you really know it); its the same way you show it in bjj or anything else.
I have a friend who can beat me up. He does a form of jj (not bjj though). Does this mean my Wing Chun is weak? Yeah. While working with this guy may improve my overall fighting skill and
knowing what he does, I can work within the Wing Chun repertoire to learn how to strengthen my weaknesses, but taking a seminar from this guy wouldn't improve my Wing Chun (in the direct manner that I feel we're talking about learning at seminars).

IMO, a good way to check on the quality is through independent
corroboration. Go see (and preferably touch hands with) a
number of Wing Chunners. The more people you see, the better
idea of what Wing Chun should be.

I've often seen this advice for knowing whether your school is
good or not. There's not reason this couldn't apply to seminars as
well.

burnsypoo

01-28-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff

And now to "Burnsypoo" ;)

Hi Eric,

[/B]

Hey Hey, what's shakin.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Anyways, you didn't answer my question. EB

Sorry, I thought I did indirectly. The idea is not to beat up on old guys or challenge anyone; I'm not suggesting we adopt the tactics of the "brave" WCK "master" that challenged 80 year old Pan Nam. ;) Nor am I suggesting we throw out common sense, civility, or manners. I've attended numerous seminars and never once have I "called anyone out" (even when treated really poorly and felt like doing it!) or "put anyone on the spot". As I see it, in this "Age of Marketing" there is no longer any quality-control in WCK; anyone can call themselves "master" or "grandmaster" or whatever -- or hell, even make up anything. How do we separate the sheep from the goats? There is only one way IMO -- by lineage (showing you had access to what is recognized WCK) combined with performance (that you really know it); its the same way you show it in bjj or anything else. These other fighting arts don't have a problem, only the "nonfighting" ones do. ;) TN

Terence [/B]

Hmm, I'm not really clear on the original question then. What does this have to do with someone giving a seminar having to gorsau with everyone? Their lineage doesn't necessarily make them good, even combined with decent individual performance it doesn't mean I'll learn anything. Is the question "How do we separate the sheep from the goats?" ?

I'm not really concerned with who calls themselves what, If other people think WCK is going the way of Hippies, If I can beat up the guy who's seminar I'm attending.

Guess I'm selfish, just want to be good (eventually, cough). Spending time going after the fakes seems like an awful waste, doncha think?.

azwingchun

01-28-2003, 03:46 PM

First of all I would like to say, I feel really weird calling you burnsypoo....LOL!

But, I have to agree with you 100%, I don't really care who can actually perform what they preach. I think it is usually obvious, in most situations who these people may be (at least for the more experienced). And it is up to you to distance yourself if you would like. And I don't feel that it is up to me to expose the frauds. I am only concerned with my training and what I have to offer my students, in all honesty anyway. I don't want to be the Wing Chun police...LOL.

T_niehoff I can see your point in possibly preserving good Wing Chun, but I believe these people usually weed themselves out anyway and aren't around long. As for the less known Wing Chun frauds, well they are not completely in the worlds eye and I don't feel they hurt us at all. Just my opinion anyway. ;)

burnsypoo

01-28-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by azwingchun
First of all I would like to say, I feel really weird calling you burnsypoo....LOL!

No worries, just picture a cute little pink kitten, and that's about what I look like.
:)

azwingchun

01-28-2003, 04:11 PM

Yeah.....right.......LOL! :confused:

planetwc

01-28-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by kj

Planetwc,

WRT "Can the current generation of WC teachers walk the talk?
Can their students?"

You gonna make 'em?? ;):p

Regards,
- Kathy Jo [/B]

More to the point I mourn that they may not be able to walk their talk. I'm not advocating the development of Thug Wing Chun by any means. Just the preservation and transmission of fighting skill.

I think that is what Terrence is after as well.

If I had the training time and most importantly the acquired skill of my si-gung and 25 years less of age on me, then I might very well go on the "show me your skillz world tour" and see just what was up out there on Planet Wing Chun.:D

Given that right now only one of my arms can even form a proper bong sau, the world can rest easy. LOL.

anerlich

01-28-2003, 06:13 PM

First, gor sao is not *fighting* by any stretch of the imagination. Gor sao is sort of like judo's randori -- an exercise, but at least one that can give us some idea of a person's skill since her/his partner is being non-cooperative to *some* extent. If you think it is fighting or a challenge, then you have no idea of reality. TN

Reality's a pretty relative concept, expecially where WC's concerned ...:)

I do think it's right to expect people proclaiming themselves as something should be able to back it up.

The problem to my mind is that "gor sao" can be a pretty relative concept. Whereas in judo or BJJ a throw, pin, or submission is pretty unequivocal, with WC even an average student may get a touch or two in occasionally on someone with considerably greater skill. Conversely, a "master" may just give someone a light touch which in a real fight might be delivered with focus and power to cause serious injury. Too often people claim, "None of his shots had any power," or "I pulled that shot to the floating rib, but he just ignored it and kept going even though it would have killed him if I'd done it for real".

I remember way back in my WCML days when a short term poster came on and claimed that someone had done chi sao with Ken Chung and bested him, whereas in reality the guy had porbably just come in and rolled with KC a few times and told himself and his mates that "KC's structure felt weak, I coulda taken him." This sort of stuff goes on all the time. I remember someone else on that list mentioned someone asking Emin Boztepe to chi sao and the latter saying "What for? If you want to see who's better, let's fight." Some would say the Cologne incident originally started with the seminar participant's request to "gor sao".

OTOH, some would have it that anything less than a full on no rules fight resulting in KO or submission proves nothing.

I rhink the problem with "gor sao" in such a setting is that too much spin can be put on what may be an inconclusive event to suit whatever the storyteller's agenda is. A KO or vicious beatdown is unequivocal, but only the insane will attend seminars if that's going to happen every time.

Judo and BJJ are also different in that they have regular competition to test their skills. All the well known Gracies and Machados now have high profile wins in international grappling or MMA contests.

BTW, the subject of the Australasian Blitz article about the female instructor, was my sidai, Deborah Peart a student of Rick Spain. She is a fine athlete with fast hands and hits very hard for her weight. Often the female perspective on such issues is more rational (I include kj in that).

Grendel

01-28-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by planetwc
More to the point I mourn that they may not be able to walk their talk. I'm not advocating the development of Thug Wing Chun by any means.

Another MMA? Joy, any more thoughts on the Thugs? Dave, maybe you should copyright the term before someone else does in S.F. :p Bruce Lee is not around to stomp it out anymore. :D

Just the preservation and transmission of fighting skill.

Up to a certain extent, aging Wing Chun practitioners should be able to deliver, myself a case in point. Yip Man was no youngster when he began to teach in Hong Kong. (Yes, Rene and Terence, I know about his mainland stoonts.) :D

I think that is what Terrence is after as well.

I think Tereence is trying to convince us he has the goods by taking a belligerent stand relative to the peace-loving among us. :D

If I had the training time and most importantly the acquired skill of my si-gung and 25 years less of age on me, then I might very well go on the "show me your skillz world tour" and see just what was up out there on Planet Wing Chun.:D

Given that right now only one of my arms can even form a proper bong sau, the world can rest easy. LOL.
The old "let's you and him fight," stand-by. :D I'll stand by and watch too. :D

I think that there may something to be learned from a master past his prime. Surely some such person could coach in such a way as to show you how to perform properly from yours and the master's perspective without being the one to demo it.

At some point, loss of flexibility and bone and muscle strength will limit us in the process of aging. On the other hand, if a "master" cannot deliver well into middle age, then they probably never really had it. And in addition, one should be able to see the fighter in the old master at any age. I'm reminded in this regard of Jack Dempsey, running through New York's Central Park in his 70's. He had no call to be concerned about his safety from ordinary thugs.

Regards,

yuanfen

01-28-2003, 07:25 PM

Grendel asks:
Another MMA? Joy, any more thoughts on the Thugs? Dave, maybe you should copyright the term before someone else does in S.F. Bruce Lee is not around to stomp it out anymore.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David should not call the real Thugs name in vain. They were real scary folks- and they didnt live in SF!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grenedel also:
I'm reminded in this regard of Jack Dempsey, running through New York's Central Park in his 70's. He had no call to be concerned about his safety from ordinary thugs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some 70 year olds who ask no quarters and give
none. Judo Gene Le Bell(Sp?) among others come easily to mind.

S.Teebas

01-28-2003, 11:04 PM

Good post Anerlich!
Pretty much what I was thinking about comparing BJJ or judo to a WC challenge. The BJJ guys can go really hard and stop with a choke, but what can a WC guy do? Suppose the WC guy holding the seminar goes as hard as he can; what’s going to happen......plenty of striking! And some powerful strikers cause LOTS of damage.

"...who's next to test their skills?" SMASH!!..."next!"... SMASH..."next!"..SMASH!

I don’t see this as feasible or likely to happen.

t_niehoff

01-29-2003, 05:49 AM

Grendel writes:

I think Tereence is trying to convince us he has the goods by taking a belligerent stand relative to the peace-loving among us. G

Here we go . . . the personal stuff begins. It always seems that when folks can't respond intelligently - yeah, I know that I'm asking a lot - they start with this stuff. :( FWIW, I'm not trying to prove anything about myself; I don't need to. I don't need to because I'm not holding myself out as a "master" or "sifu" or "grandmaster" or any other type of authority. Nor am I selling anything. ;) What I am saying is simple: we shouldn't accept "repuation" or association (lineage) alone when seeking instruction (whether seminar or class) since *WCK is a learned skill* (anyone care to argue that point?). If someone hasn't developed "the skill" to at least some degree of proficiency, they can't teach it to anyone else. TN
--------------

anerlich wrote:

The problem to my mind is that "gor sao" can be a pretty relative concept. AN

IMHO it is "a pretty relative concept" until you meet someone with real skill. ;) I've done gor sao with several folks that were IMO very good; there was never any doubt left in my mind as to what they could do. TN

Terence

Fresh

01-29-2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
FWIW, I'm not trying to prove anything about myself; I don't need to. I don't need to because I'm not holding myself out as a "master" or "sifu" or "grandmaster" or any other type of authority. Nor am I selling anything. ;) What I am saying is simple: we shouldn't accept "repuation" or association (lineage) alone when seeking instruction (whether seminar or class) since *WCK is a learned skill* (anyone care to argue that point?). If someone hasn't developed "the skill" to at least some degree of proficiency, they can't teach it to anyone else. TN

Now I am confused. I thought you or somebody said you have students. :confused:

t_niehoff

01-29-2003, 07:29 AM

Fresh wrote:

Now I am confused. I thought you or somebody said you have students. F

Confusion is often a good start; now I suggest you try thinking (that rare quality in our art). ;) My point was that I'm not trying to prove anything *about my skill* (or lack thereof) to anyone here (you can't do that over the 'net anyway!). Whether I teach or not is irrelevent to the logic of my stated position (it either makes sense or it doesn't). But if you're interested, I do have a very few private students (IMHO WCK can only be taught one-on-one) that I charge nothing (I tell them the only dues I expect are hard work, and if they don't pay the dues, they're out); and I train along side them. They see and know my skill level, and I have no pretensions about it (I've met too many good folks to have them). As for others, anyone interested in seeing what little skills I have (for whatever reason), are always welcome to pay me a visit; and I've had a few over the years. I have nothing to hide. :)

Terence

canglong

01-29-2003, 09:06 AM

Before I was hearing what do you mean you can’t tell me, you need to show me, well if you can’t explain it well enough to make me want to see it shown in person then I am unwilling to bother with said application being shown in person. Now I am hearing why would I want to listen to someone explain an application that they themselves can’t sufficiently apply in a face to face setting. There will always exist different needs of different people some like to hear it to learn it some like to see it to learn it.
I personally though I have to admit have not been to a large amount of seminars I have been to a few and on those occasions I have not experienced an instructor unwilling to touch hands with those in attendance and demonstrate the applications of the topic of discussion. That said though I believe we are arguing that there are bad instructors out there in the world and to me that is a given and now Terence you sound as if you want to challenge all those sifus, masters and GM whom we know have skill for the sake of outing those without. Most of the time we on this very board prefer to discuss application over principle and technique a seminar discussing these things could never be considered a bad thing regardless if the person teaching these things has “developed "the skill" to at least some degree of proficiency” to apply them or not . More people than not that post to this forum would say they know good kung fu were they to feel it, the same could probably be said were they to see it and so I believe those same people will also know good kung fu when they hear it. So yes I believe there are some out there that can teach you something without having to show you something because they too are not out to prove anything about themselves but rather teach you something about the art form which they study and the value of that art and their study can be discerned through their words just as well as their actions.

anerlich

01-29-2003, 02:38 PM

IMHO it is "a pretty relative concept" until you meet someone with real skill. I've done gor sao with several folks that were IMO very good; there was never any doubt left in my mind as to what they could do. TN

I too know when I've met someone with real skill. The problem is many lie to themselves and others about what really happened in a "controlled" exchange when there is any room for more than one interpretation of the outcome. I've given you several examples above (Lawyer Mike/Ken Chung, the Cologne incident).

I think you need back off a little. You complain about personal attacks, and then tell someone to "try thinking for a change" (I paraphrase). I don't regard Grendel's line as anything other than an attempt at humour (and not a bad attempt either IMO). You haven't said anything out of order to me, though (not on this thread, yet, anyway ;) )

If your argument is that people shouldn't teach what they can't do themselves, I can go along with that about 98%. But what you suggested was that anyone conducting a seminar should be prepared to match skills with everyone there before the seminar begins. What if someone else there has higher skills? Do they then take over the seminar? Or should they gor sao everybody again to make sure? How about best 2 out of 3? If that goes on for an hour or so, how much time is left for the seminar (assuming the question of who is meant to teach it eventually gets resolved and there are enough participants left fit to continue).

I'm sure that was said tongue in cheek. If so, just cop to it and move on. If not, expect people to argue.

In other sports requiring skill, e.g. boxing, athletics, juggling, etc. it is not always seen as necessary for a coach to be more skilled himself than his students. If that were mandatory, no world records would ever get broken. I do agree that in combat sports or arts it is highly unlikely that anyone could become a competent coach or instructor without having done some hard yards him/herself. But I'm not convinced it's impossible, just unlikely.

byond1

01-29-2003, 04:07 PM

hi phil----did that gathering ever take place? i havnt been on wcml for awile and didnt recieve an invite.....and never heard if it going down
brian

cha kuen

01-29-2003, 08:53 PM

Beyond1 said

i belieive in the traditional method of challenging....redmond sifu taught me years ago that the proper way to challenge is to....for example...if i have a problem with moy yat....i issue a challenge.....if he meets my challenge he sends someone , of the same generation as me, to meet me in combat....

I think that's even more ridiculous. This is not the old days and America is the last place that this type of "tradition" should live. That crap doesnt even go on anymore in Hong Kong or China!

KenWingJitsu

01-29-2003, 11:36 PM

Interesting post...but what in the blue blazes is "gor-sau"???? LOL. description please.........Anyways, I wholeheartedly concur with renerritchie. The best way to determine someone's skill is by performance.

I would feel better knowing that the person teaching has the skill set necessary to convey what it is they are teaching. It's time we brought wing chun into the 21st century and face reality. Facing off with some kind of resistance is the ONLY way to REALLY tell if the person teachng is worth their salt. This ain't ancient China. This is the western world..."SHOW ME!" Prove it...for real..not play.

The BJJ guys can go really hard and stop with a choke, but what can a WC guy do? Suppose the WC guy holding the seminar goes as hard as he can; what’s going to happen......plenty of striking!
Actually, there are ways...and it can and has been done. Whenever Sifu Emin comes around, he often spars with everyone at the seminar. Sometimes but not always. What we do is simple. everyone wears the fingerless gloves, maybe chest protectors, and he'll either go into a 'freestyle chi-sao...or....begin with lot-sau and then...it becomes a sparring session . basically, he encourages you to fight back with whatever. Anything goes, BUT the contact is light. Takedowns, groundfighting, kicks punches, wing chun structure or not, and I've seen him go through all members of the seminar like this. So....it can be done and should be done. With him, it left NO BOUBT in my mind about his skill. None whatsoever.

"
"I remember someone else on that list mentioned someone asking Emin Boztepe to chi sao and the latter saying "What for? If you want to see who's better, let's fight." That doesn't surprise me. :D

Redd

01-30-2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
This ain't ancient China. This is the western world..."SHOW ME!" Prove it...for real..not play.

Ah, so it's the old West.

Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
Actually, there are ways...and it can and has been done. Whenever Sifu Emin comes around, he often spars with everyone at the seminar. Sometimes but not always. What we do is simple. everyone wears the fingerless gloves, maybe chest protectors, and he'll either go into a 'freestyle chi-sao...or....begin with lot-sau and then...it becomes a sparring session . basically, he encourages you to fight back with whatever. Anything goes, BUT the contact is light. Takedowns, groundfighting, kicks punches, wing chun structure or not,

That explains a lot.

Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
" That doesn't surprise me. :D

Nor me.

t_niehoff

01-30-2003, 05:58 AM

Hi Andrew,

AN wrote:

If your argument is that people shouldn't teach what they can't do themselves, I can go along with that about 98%. AN

That's it in a nutshell. So how do we know they can do it themselves? Performance against some form of resistance; not "deomonstration" with a cooperative stuntman. TN

But what you suggested was that anyone conducting a seminar should be prepared to match skills with everyone there before the seminar begins. AN

Exactly - to show what they can really do. TN

What if someone else there has higher skills? Do they then take over the seminar? AN

I answered this before. Let's take this outside the realm of WCK for a moment. Andrew, you practice bjj. Let's say you go to a bjj seminar and you roll with the person teaching the seminar. Now, how would you feel if almost everyone at the seminar tapped the guy out? Would you feel differently if he tapped everyone out? What if he tapped some and not others? Either way it gives you an idea of the guy's credibility; what you personally decide to do with that info is up to you. But at least you have that info to use in considering what the "master" has to say. I think the concern so many have - but don't want to say openly - is that this will do away with all the marketing crap; "masters" will be judged on performance not who tells the best story. TN

I've noticed that many people in WCK think WCK has to do with *knowledge* and that someone without skill can pass on valuable knowledge that they will be able to use; IME that is pure nonsense. WCK is a skill, a learned skill. There is no real knowledge in any activity without skill. Now I see that there are skills in different areas, so this bjj guy may be great at a certain thing (and suck at others) and so attending the seminar may be worth my while, but again he should be able to demonstrate skill at that thing I'm interested in learning from him. TN

Or should they gor sao everybody again to make sure? How about best 2 out of 3? If that goes on for an hour or so, how much time is left for the seminar (assuming the question of who is meant to teach it eventually gets resolved and there are enough participants left fit to continue). AN

I answered this before too. It will only take a few minutes with each participant, and it will benefit both instructor (who gets an idea of where each person is at and so it may help tailor his teaching) and the participants (who most likely will love the opportunity and get to see what is going to be taught in action). If someone has skill, what objection can they have to demonstrating it? TN

Terence

burnsypoo

01-30-2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I've noticed that many people in WCK think WCK has to do with *knowledge* and that someone without skill can pass on valuable knowledge that they will be able to use; IME that is pure nonsense. WCK is a skill, a learned skill. There is no real knowledge in any activity without skill. Now I see that there are skills in different areas, so this bjj guy may be great at a certain thing (and suck at others) and so attending the seminar may be worth my while, but again he should be able to demonstrate skill at that thing I'm interested in learning from him. TN

But you can't get taught skill, only a transfer of knowledge can take place. I attend a seminar to help me get a better understanding of the theories and principles of the system, not how to get out of an arm bar or something. From that day I can direct and understand my own training better to help improve my "skill, a learned skill".

Have you ever learned anything from a sidai? That alone should make the case that the fact you can lopda the hell out of someone doesn't overshadow their ability to help you grow.

It's like going to an artshow, seeing some work and saying "pssh, I could do that easy", and then somehow that negates their work of having any substance.

I answered this before too. It will only take a few minutes with each participant, and it will benefit both instructor (who gets an idea of where each person is at and so it may help tailor his teaching) and the participants (who most likely will love the opportunity and get to see what is going to be taught in action). If someone has skill, what objection can they have to demonstrating it? TN

Terence

Absolutely. I went to a Yip Ching seminar in October and he took the time to get around the entire room to touch hands with everyone who wanted at one time or another. It was defintely appreciated, but for me it didn't make his points about ways of training co-ordination any more or less valid. It was just a nice added bonus, and helped give me a bit of a sense for the way his hands felt that day.

t_niehoff

01-30-2003, 08:26 AM

Hi Eric,

EB wrote:

But you can't get taught skill, only a transfer of knowledge can take place. I attend a seminar to help me get a better understanding of the theories and principles of the system, not how to get out of an arm bar or something. From that day I can direct and understand my own training better to help improve my "skill, a learned skill". EB

You can be taught a skill -- glassblowing, tennis, carpentry, etc. are all examples of this. Any activity requires skill; an apprenticeship was the means in the past to teach a skill. One can't simply learn these things from books (knowledge), they are learned essentially hand-to-hand, by the doing (performance). This is true of all activities, including fighting (and WCK). Certainly we can learn a great deal by our doing them -- making mistakes, training with our juniors, etc. -- but we learn much better when guided and trained by a skilled hand (I may, for example, be able to study a bjj manual and just start rolling with some friends and through trial and error make progress; but it will come much faster if I learn from a skilled source). "Theories and principles" are useless without skill to put them into action; anyone can have a theory or principle -- do you really want to learn the "theories and principles" of woodworking from someone that can barely splice to pieces of wood together? Or from someone that is a master woodworker - his mastery definded by his ability to perform (not by a relationship). If we try and learn from someone without skill, maybe they're right and maybe they're wrong -- they can't tell you either way or from firsthand experience. And wouldn't you rather know from which category of person you're learning? TN

Terence

burnsypoo

01-30-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
You can be taught a skill -- glassblowing, tennis, carpentry, etc. are all examples of this. Any activity requires skill; an apprenticeship was the means in the past to teach a skill. One can't simply learn these things from books (knowledge), they are learned essentially hand-to-hand, by the doing (performance). This is true of all activities, including fighting (and WCK). Certainly we can learn a great deal by our doing them -- making mistakes, training with our juniors, etc. -- but we learn much better when guided and trained by a skilled hand (I may, for example, be able to study a bjj manual and just start rolling with some friends and through trial and error make progress; but it will come much faster if I learn from a skilled source). "Theories and principles" are useless without skill to put them into action; anyone can have a theory or principle -- it is by our action that they are expressed. If we try and learn from someone without skill, maybe they're right and maybe they're wrong -- they can't tell you either way or from firsthand experience. TN

Terence [/B]

Hey bud.

Maybe it's just semantics at this point, as I don't think you can get taught skill. Having skill will be the result, but someone can't just give it to you. They help direct you, so that you can put in the time and effort to achieve the skill. Theories and princples are what direct us towards this skill of WCK, they are afterall, the root of WCK. Someone who can help me question and better understand those theories and principles is always welcome.

It sounds like a matter of trust is what you're talking about. How does one know , show me the proof. If you trust yourself, then you can't be lead astray. Go to a seminar, listen to what's being said and think about it. Play with it. If it's good, keep it, if it's not, don't. To me, it's a separate issue from whether you can control them in gor sau or not.

t_niehoff

01-30-2003, 09:03 AM

EB writes:

If you trust yourself, then you can't be lead astray. EB

Lots of people trust themselves and are lead astray. You can't get good information or training from a poor source. How do we determine how good a source is? Just like we do in everyday life. First, we determining that the person in question had access to the information (lineage/apprenticeship/training) and isn't just pulling our leg. Second, they need to show that they can do what they are teaching (performance). How do you pick a piano teacher? Doesn't it help to hear them play? Merely having studied piano doesn't mean they can play well. And if they can't play the piano well, can they teach you to play the piano well? Certainly even with good teaching, you still need to put in the hard work. But poor instruction won't help you even if you are willing to put in the work; actually you'll find it a hinderance. It's the same in WCK. If they don't have skills, they can't impart them to you -- unless you believe in magic. ;) TN

Terence

reneritchie

01-30-2003, 09:19 AM

The difference between martial arts and most trades is that you really don't have to be an expert to make a living. In the case of a carpenter or a glass blower, if they can't make furniture or create blown glass, their shop will fail and their family will starve. Thus, successful shops are the ones that flourish because of the skill of the tradesmen there, and their reputation spreads, and apprentices are attracted to that reputation, and end up studying from those masters that earned it.

In martial arts, you do not sell the trade, only instruction in the trade, or often instruction in how to instruct the trade (the bread and butter for those who want to make a living at it).

Since you do not sell the trade, your reputation is then not based on the quality of your trade itself, but how well you can convince others it exists. Due to the pseudo-culture that exists in the West, fed by Kung-Fu Movies and "ancient chinese secret" commericals, most tradesmen cannot easily make legitimate appeals to such consumers, so innevitably resort to pandering to the stereotype. This, of course, is also what the less than legitimate tradesmen do, since it provides a safety layer to make their less-than-legitimacy harder to detect, and less likely to be believed even by people who begin to realize it (no one likes to think they've been fooled).

People like Yuen Kay-San and Yip Man honed their skills for decades before they took any apprentices, and that was still in a time when they applied their trades, and had reputations because of it. Now we have 2 year students of 2 years students of 2 year students taking students who are already desirous to teach. And many of these students have been influenced by the pseudo-culture, with all the misconceptions and distortions it involves, dress in their yellow track suits, with their "grandmaster" cards freshly minted, and thier tape series all but ready to go.

RR

01-30-2003, 09:39 AM

Hi Burnsypoo.

Originally posted by burnsypoo
Maybe it's just semantics at this point,

Probably.

as I don't think you can get taught skill. Having skill will be the result, but someone can't just give it to you.

Correct.

They help direct you, so that you can put in the time and effort to achieve the skill. Theories and princples are what direct us towards this skill of WCK, they are afterall, the root of WCK. Someone who can help me question and better understand those theories and principles is always welcome.

Yes, I experience this sort of thing all the time; sometimes even from people who are struggling through their own learning and development even as I am.

It sounds like a matter of trust is what you're talking about. How does one know , show me the proof. If you trust yourself, then you can't be lead astray.

I think Terence's debate is largely centered on trust or dis-trust of others. I do believe, as you suggest however, that trusting ourselves and our own discernment and judgment is more the more relevant issue.

In that regard, if our own judgment is poor, or our abilities to critique underdeveloped, even someone soundly trouncing us can be misleading - we can be soundly trounced by someone without any Wing Chun at all. So even the gor sau experiment remains relative and subjective to degrees. Building and improving our own critical abilities is a prerequisite for properly gauging others.

Go to a seminar, listen to what's being said and think about it. Play with it. If it's good, keep it, if it's not, don't. To me, it's a separate issue from whether you can control them in gor sau or not.

In point of fact, most workshops I attend incorporate Terence's ideas to a degree (on the friendly side, thank Goodness). Nonetheless your point is valid. When I attend a workshop, I don't presume to dictate the agenda, but I do presume to get the most out of what is offered that I can.

Good discussion. BTW, I am not the least uncomfortable addressing you - burnsy, poo and all. :)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

burnsypoo

01-30-2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by kj
In that regard, if our own judgment is poor, or our abilities to critique underdeveloped, even someone soundly trouncing us can be misleading - we can be soundly trounced by someone without any Wing Chun at all. So even the gor sau experiment remains relative and subjective to degrees. Building and improving our own critical abilities is a prerequisite for properly gauging others.

In point of fact, most workshops I attend incorporate Terence's ideas to a degree (on the friendly side, thank Goodness). Nonetheless your point is valid. When I attend a workshop, I don't presume to dictate the agenda, but I do presume to get the most out of what is offered that I can.

Good discussion. BTW, I am not the least uncomfortable addressing you - burnsy, poo and all. :)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

I think that our own critical abilities is fundamental to continued personal growth. IMO one of the biggest things that Wing Chun shows us, is how to ask the right questions.

I think that Moy Yat said it the simplest, "if you want to be good, you will be".

01-30-2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by burnsypoo
I think that Moy Yat said it the simplest, "if you want to be good, you will be".

That's what it boils down to.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

Grendel

01-30-2003, 05:05 PM

Hi Burnsypoo,

Originally posted by burnsypoo

I think that our own critical abilities is fundamental to continued

are

personal growth. IMO one of the biggest things that Wing Chun shows us, is how to ask the right questions.

Oh yeah? What are the right questions? Quoting Moy Yat doesn't give me confidence in your statement. I think Ren and Ter are corrent that there is too much fraud, deception, and delusion among self-proclaimed experts, including some well-known Wing Chun names.

I think that Moy Yat said it the simplest, "if you want to be good, you will be".
He said that? What if you want to taller or smarter or Swedish? :rolleyes: If you want to be good, choose your parents carefully, work hard, find a good mentor/teacher. Don't take success for granted.

If you want to be evil, you will be. But good, nah. :D

Regards,

01-30-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Grendel
If you want to be good, choose your parents carefully, work hard, find a good mentor/teacher. Don't take success for granted.

If you want to be evil, you will be. But good, nah.

I believe you just agreed with Burnsypoo, albeit by adding implied detail back in. It's kind of like when someone has to explain the punchline of a joke. ;)

Of course I could be wrong. Nah. :p

Regards,
- Kathy

Wingman

01-30-2003, 06:43 PM

It's kind of like when someone has to explain the punchline of a joke.

If you explain the punchline of a joke, it is no longer funny.:D

burnsypoo

01-30-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Grendel
Hi Burnsypoo,
are
Oh yeah? What are the right questions? Quoting Moy Yat doesn't give me confidence in your statement. I think Ren and Ter are corrent that there is too much fraud, deception, and delusion among self-proclaimed experts, including some well-known Wing Chun names.

That's ok though man, it was just a little back and forth between Kathy Jo and myself, I'm not trying to convince anyone.

He said that? What if you want to taller or smarter or Swedish? If you want to be good, choose your parents carefully, work hard, find a good mentor/teacher. Don't take success for granted.
If you want to be evil, you will be. But good, nah. :D

I think it speaks more to a state of mind in this regard. Sorta like if someone wants to find a point to argue with, they always will.

nvisblfist

01-30-2003, 09:15 PM

What would you do if you were at a seminar, and you notice glaring inconsistencies from the seminar leader? Do you ask for your money back? or?

Shadowboxer

02-01-2003, 04:03 PM

How do you pick a piano teacher? Doesn't it help to hear them play? Merely having studied piano doesn't mean they can play well. And if they can't play the piano well, can they teach you to play the piano well? Certainly even with good teaching, you still need to put in the hard work.

A question for you...using your piano teaching example. Let's say you want to learn to play the piano better and you find a teacher that has , let's say, 40 years of playing the piano experience but, unfortunately now has arthritis and can no longer play that well or at all. Are you saying your piano playing skills cannot be helped by studying with this teacher either privately or at a seminar (master class)? That is, that their theories/info about playing the piano have no value?

I studied classical guitar for several years and the private lessons consisted of me playing my pieces while the teacher listened with a critical ear and made suggestions for improvement. Sometimes, he would demonstrate with his guitar sometimes not. Me practicing what he said and the techniques he told me about
and/or showed me are what made me better. He was/is a knowledgeable guide. Most of the time he knew the pieces I was playing and could say try that at the seventh fret or play the "E" on the open string, for example.

I would say in answer to your question, one could teach you to play well even if they cannot for whatever reason play well.

t_niehoff

02-01-2003, 08:05 PM

Shadowboxer writes:

A question for you...using your piano teaching example. Let's say you want to learn to play the piano better and you find a teacher that has , let's say, 40 years of playing the piano experience but, unfortunately now has arthritis and can no longer play that well or at all. Are you saying your piano playing skills cannot be helped by studying with this teacher either privately or at a seminar (master class)? That is, that their theories/info about playing the piano have no value? SB

Why pose hypotheticals where the answer is clear but is not relevant to any WCK "masters"? The point I've been trying to make is that if we want to learn a skill then we need to find folks that have *proven* ability in that skill -- either proven in the past or the present -- but not rely on reputation or stories. I had a friend that took fencing lessons from a 80 year-old fencing master who had seen better days, but he had earned the title of "master" by winning international fencing competitions. In WCK, in contrast, folks "earn" the title of master without ever demonstrating any skill. It is our art, and if we are satisfied with that IMO it speaks volumes about us. TN

Terence

Shadowboxer

02-01-2003, 08:15 PM

Other than gor sao, what kind of proof would satisfy you? Just curious.

t_niehoff

02-01-2003, 08:35 PM

Shadowboxer asks:

Other than gor sao, what kind of proof would satisfy you? Just curious. SB

Would you expect someone teaching fencing to be able to actually fence? Or does it satisfy you that they say (though they can't prove it) that they've had all kinds of bouts, or were related to or studied with a true fencer, or actually had a few bouts when they were teenagers against other teenagers, or claims that they alone have the "true fencing", etc.? Personally, I would expect anyone teaching a skill to be able to demonstrate that skill, and by demonstrate I mean use it against a resisting opponent (not show how it should work with a cooperative stuntman). TN

Terence

yuanfen

02-01-2003, 09:16 PM

Dunno TN- how far to carry the analogies. I recognize that there are folks who have no business teaching. But the requirement that a teacher show skills( I have no problems with that personally) has serious problems. Among other things- a beginning student wouldnt often not know enough to judge real skills and may mistake a superficial display of athleticism as skill.
On the other hand a novice would not go wrong if they had gone
to a certain old man who himself may not have demonstrated skill to the young novice-the novice may hear that the old man fought some in the streets as a teenager. But the old man was the
key factor for the emergence of Floyd Patterson, Jose Torres, Mike Tyson and trainer Kevin Rooney another great trainer/teacher named Teddy Atlas.

KenWingJitsu

02-02-2003, 04:51 AM

I would expect anyone teaching a skill to be able to demonstrate that skill, and by demonstrate I mean use it against a resisting opponent (not show how it should work with a cooperative stuntman). TN

Oh My God.
That was just beautiful. Tear-to-my-eye beautiful.:o

t_niehoff

02-02-2003, 06:58 AM

Hi Joy,

I've previously discussed with several folks the WCK-instructor-as-boxing coach analogy as they tried to explain why they thought some WCK instructor with no real skill could teach good WCK, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. If that were the case, then we'd expect to find some Floyd Pattersons, etc. among his students but of course, we never do. What we do find instead is that it takes a skilled instructor (like Yip or Sum for example) to produce (some) skilled practitioners. Now I'm not suggesting that all these folks with little skill should stop teaching; rather I think we as practitioners need to understand that there are varying levels of skill/understanding (just like there are grades of education). And we need to have some way of distinguishing whether some "master" is really a grade school teacher or a university professor. If we're a beginner, it doesn't matter. But as our own skill progresses, we need to be able to discern the wheat from the chaff, and there is only one way to do that IMHO. Of course, if obtaining real skill isn't an issue (Rene's chi nuturers, for example) the issue is moot. TN

Terence

yuanfen

02-02-2003, 09:45 AM

Now I'm not suggesting that all these folks with little skill should stop teaching;

(( Not a bad idea for many of them to stop teaching. Not just in wing chun. Lots of scams ina commercial civilization. You can geta Harvard honorary degree or a Yale BA and another honorary degree without learning much.Then there are the lower middle class diploma mills. Authenticity is a pervasive problem))

rather I think we as practitioners need to understand that there are varying levels of skill/understanding (just like there are grades of education).
And we need to have some way of distinguishing whether some "master" is really a grade school teacher or a university professor. If we're a beginner, it doesn't matter.

((Sure-but I dont think that there is a fixed "way". Searching for a really knowledgeable teacher is a journey in itself))

But as our own skill progresses, we need to be able to discern the wheat from the chaff, and there is only one way to do that IMHO.

((testing what one knows? Sure))

Of course, if obtaining real skill isn't an issue (Rene's chi nuturers, for example) the issue is moot. TN

((Skill and "chi nurturing" are not necessarily mutually exclusive
phenomena))

02-02-2003, 09:51 AM

Hello Terence.

Advance apologies for intruding in your reply to Joy with a few random observations.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
What we do find instead is that it takes a skilled instructor (like Yip or Sum for example) to produce (some) skilled practitioners. Now I'm not suggesting that all these folks with little skill should stop teaching; rather I think we as practitioners need to understand that there are varying levels of skill/understanding (just like there are grades of education). And we need to have some way of distinguishing whether some "master" is really a grade school teacher or a university professor. If we're a beginner, it doesn't matter. But as our own skill progresses, we need to be able to discern the wheat from the chaff, and there is only one way to do that IMHO. Of course, if obtaining real skill isn't an issue (Rene's chi nuturers, for example) the issue is moot. TN

I now fail to see where your POV differs in any significant way from what most the rest of us have been saying. So what is your point of contention really, other than to contend?

Unless ... you're suggesting the issue is actually the "standard" itself; the only remaining possibility I see in the logic of your debate and lecture. If so, it's a circular argument which continues to neglect so many points so many have made in the course of this thread alone, and even many of the concessions you cite above.

There is an old saying, relevant as ever ... "Be careful what you measure [and thus reinforce], because that's what you'll get." In that vein, when it comes to matters of any importance, it behooves everyone to use their own good judgment and suffer their own errors in learning and growth, IMHO, rather than over-rely on the judgment, standards, or rhetoric of others, and at the very least, trust in their own judgment regarding whose judgment to rely on. Thinking for oneself and making one's own choices is a big responsibility, but with potentially astounding payoffs.

Or, perhaps the debate merely boils down to an expression of your own core values which, as I alluded earlier, necessarily differ between us humans. If this is the point, then I dare say it's a stalemate, though it has been fun.

My apologies to any readers if my level of abstraction seems too detached from the subject at hand, as is so often the case.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

Grendel

02-02-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by kj

My apologies to any readers if my level of abstraction seems too detached from the subject at hand, as is so often the case.

Hi KJ,

You make many good points. I don't think it's easy to define good Wing Chun. :D Too many folks think they know what it is.

In terms of Terence's analogies, is there such thing as a master in boxing? Would that apply to the coaches and managers or to the boxers themselves.

Would former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson qualify as a boxing master? Not in my judgement, but his early coaches would.

I find Wing Chun to be different from boxing. In Wing Chun, the longer one is with the art, the better one's Wing Chun. If they were masters in youth, they'd be masters still in mid and later years. And if they cannot present in their "declining" years, they probably never really had "it."

Regards,

t_niehoff

02-02-2003, 05:37 PM

KJ writes:

I now fail to see where your POV differs in any significant way from what most the rest of us have been saying. So what is your point of contention really, other than to contend? . . . Unless ... you're suggesting the issue is actually the "standard" itself; the only remaining possibility I see in the logic of your debate and lecture. If so, it's a circular argument which continues to neglect so many points so many have made in the course of this thread alone, and even many of the concessions you cite above. KJ

I am sorry that you can't seem to fathom what I am saying. The idea I'm trying to get across is simple enough, but I'll outline it so that you can follow: (1) WCK is a learned skill; (2) we can only learn that skill from someone with it; (3) there are varying degrees of skill; and, (4) for us to evaluate for ourselves the skill level of someone holding themselves out as an authority, we need to actually see that person use the skill (against some form of real resistance). If you find that "a circular argument", I think you might also find it "a circular argument" that fencing/piano/etc. is a learned skill, that we can only learn fencing/piano/etc. from someone that knows how to fence/play piano/etc., that there are varying levels of ability among fencers/piano players/etc., and that to evaluate their ability (to see if it fits our needs), we need to see it actually demonstrated. Of course, some of us just see this as the way folks actually learn a skill and can't understand why many see WCK as something different in kind than other activities. TN

You ask why I make this point. I make it because presently WCK has a large number of folks calling themselves "masters" or holding themselves out as authorities and are teaching seminars, writing books, making videos, etc. -- and IMHO there needs to be some way for us to determine who knows what they are talking about. As far as I can see, the only way to do this is by seeing them actually use their "skill" against real resistance; if you or someone else can think of another way, I'd love to hear it. ;) Now I can understand why some folks may find this threatening -- it may demonstrate that their teacher hasn't got the goods. But IMO if someone holds themselves out as authority in WCK they should be willing and able to prove it (the fencing master should be willing to fence; the piano teacher should be willing to play the piano; etc.). It seems to me that if they aren't, it reveals much. TN

Unfortunately, KJ, despite your calls to "it behooves everyone to use their own good judgment and suffer their own errors in learning and growth, IMHO, rather than over-rely on the judgment, standards, or rhetoric of others", we do -- and need to -- rely on others to teach us WCK. And in order to "use our own good judgment", we need to have information. My point is that even when people are trying to "use their own judgment" that without the most important information -- the qualifications (the skill) of the person they are relying on to teach them -- they can't make informed decisions. TN

Terence

yuanfen

02-02-2003, 06:17 PM

TN sez:
As far as I can see, the only way to do this is by seeing them actually use their "skill" against real resistance; if you or someone else can think of another way, I'd love to hear it. Now I can understand why some folks may find this threatening -- it may demonstrate that their teacher hasn't got the goods. But IMO if someone holds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence- I dont think that there are fixed indicators- evident to all.
Perceptions on what is skill, what is athleticism, etc can vary- as a lawywer you know of the wide variance among expert witnesses on what they saw before their very eyes. BTW-
I dont find your generalization threatening- but simply not clear enough to constitute uniform and invariant litmus paper tests.
If hypothetically I had an opportunity to study with Ip man- I wouldnt ask him to demonstrate his skills before taking lessons.

Rolling_Hand

02-02-2003, 06:58 PM

Yuanfen wrote:
Terence- I dont think that there are fixed indicators- evident to all.
Perceptions on what is skill, what is athleticism, etc can vary- as a lawywer you know of the wide variance among expert witnesses on what they saw before their very eyes. BTW-
I dont find your generalization threatening- but simply not clear enough to constitute uniform and invariant litmus paper tests.
If hypothetically I had an opportunity to study with Ip man- I wouldnt ask him to demonstrate his skills before taking lessons.

-------------------------------------------------------

Yuanfen,

That's a good observation!

This is a bumpy time, be tactful when pointing out that Mr.T man's argument has yet materialize into the action.

Hm...

reneritchie

02-02-2003, 07:56 PM

Saw an HBO special that featured Ice-T, the rapper, talking about his rise to fame and fortune. He said he was a hustler who'd been shot twice and heard about rap and thought it might be a better way to make a living. He met with some Warner execs and they asked him for a sample cut. He refused, said either they believed him and signed him, or they didn't and let him go. He likened it to selling grenades. He wasn't going to let them throw a grenade. Either they believed they were real or they weren't. And even if he let them throw one and it was real, who was to say the rest of the box wasn't duds? They gave him a cheque for 500K and he went and bought himself a career. The execs said he had good business sense and asked him if he went to business school. He said no, but he'd sold a lot of grenades. He said to this day he can't sing and can't act, but has sold millions of albums and has a steady role on TV (Law & Order). But he can talk. He says most people don't realize this, except for a few fellow hustlers who come up to him every once and while and chuckle with him over what he's pulled off.

anerlich

02-02-2003, 09:05 PM

Kind of ironic that someone so anti-establishment in his music now plays a cop on Law and Order SVU.

Was Body Count his band or someone else's?

Still, if he can laugh all the way to the bank good luck to him.

Zhuge Liang

02-02-2003, 10:17 PM

On one hand, we have the argument that people who teach WCK should have some demonstratable skill in WCK. Who disagrees with that? Anyone?

Ok, on the other hand, there is the point that developing skill in WCK requires many factors, amongst which is to be able to think and act critically about your own training. Now who disagrees with that?

So what's the argument about? Should WCK instructors be able to practice what they preach? Yes. Is there more to being a WCK teacher than being able to kick someone's ass? Yes. Is the ability to kick your ass the most important quality in your teacher? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on what your goals are and how you prefer to attain them.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

Redd

02-03-2003, 02:48 AM

It is obvious what the argument is about. It is an attempt to paint others as illogical or stupid.

reneritchie

02-03-2003, 05:43 AM

Body Count was a band he produced and 'sang' with for a time. And yes, very ironic that the 'cop killer' is now a network detective.

t_niehoff

02-03-2003, 05:56 AM

Hi Joy,

JC wrote:

I dont think that there are fixed indicators- evident to all. JC

Don't you think being able to do the thing, at least to a fairly high degree, one teaches is important? TN

Perceptions on what is skill, what is athleticism, etc can vary- as a lawywer you know of the wide variance among expert witnesses on what they saw before their very eyes. JC

If some person teaches something but they can't do it themselves - and in WCK that means being able to use their method against real resistance - I can't see the argument for suggesting they know what they are talking about. WCK is a kuen faat. Being able to do the forms or the drills or spout some theory doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that one has any real skill in what WCK prepares us for. I do understand that skill is relative, i.e., what you can make work against me may not work against someone highly skilled, but this is exactly why we need performance-based exchanges. TN

BTW-
I dont find your generalization threatening- JC

This wasn't directed at you (or anyone in particular); I didn't think that was the case. :) TN

but simply not clear enough to constitute uniform and invariant litmus paper tests.
If hypothetically I had an opportunity to study with Ip man- I wouldnt ask him to demonstrate his skills before taking lessons. JC

As would I. But that is because we already know something of his skills -- his trouncing of Leung Sheung and Wong Shun Leung, and his producing fighters like WSL, WC, BL, etc. But there was a time when folks wanted to see his skills before taking lessons (as Yip had not yet proven his skills), hence the exchanges with LS and WSL. It is revealing that YM had no problem demonstrating his skill, nor did Sum Nung or other of the folks that had real skill. TN

Terence

nvisblfist

02-03-2003, 07:25 AM

I agree Terrence, you have to be able to walk the walk, instead of talking. I don't care if a piano teacher or art teacher were not the best in their field ( they usually aren't going around spouting off either), but if some one claims to be able to teach me something that will save me or my family, then they had better be able to make their techniques work. If they can't make them work using WC principles, then how can I make them work if I'm getting the knowledge from them. I would lose all confidence in that person, and part of my mind would shut down, making it more difficult to learn from them. I want to make a journey, but I would like directions, I don't have the time to keep trying to find the right path.

UltimateFighter

02-03-2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I propose that when any "master" or "grandmaster" or "sifu", etc. teaches a seminar, he or she begin the seminar by facing every attendee in gor sao (it doesn't need to take very long) in front of everyone present. And I don't mean the "polite" gor sao where because I don't want to "disrespect the master" I really do nothing to challenge him, but where each participant tries - really tries - to do their very best. Don't you think that if someone is holding themselves out as an expert that they should be willing to show a bit of their expertise?

And, at the next Friendship Seminar every person attending, presenters and participants alike, get up in front of everyone and do gor sao (as above) so that everyone gets some idea where each person stands w/r/t skill.

Any thoughts?

Terence

I think it is a rather silly proposal. If the 'Master' is of any rank and is well known he will have nothing to prove to the people he is teaching. If you want to test skills with high level wing chun fighters ask to spar with some of them 'full out'. I doubt you would find the expreience veryt pleasent after being hit a couple of times.

At the Keith Kernspecht seminar I was at recently he picked out many randowm people throughout the seminar to 'touch hands' with him and go at it in chi sau. He periodically destroyed everyone who he 'rolled' with, in a controled manner of course. But it left no one in any doubt that his skills where on a level that we can only imagine reaching one day.

We also know about a seminar that Kernspecht did where a Japanese Sumo wrestler attended and tried to use strength to attack Kernspecht in an attempt to show him up. He recieved an elbow to the face for his efforts which left his eye swollen for many days and needing stitches.

So in summary, if you want to 'test your skills' against the top guys you can ask to spar with those of a higher rank than you. But don't expect to be able to do it with any 'Masters' or 'Grandmasters', as they are reserved for spanking the guys who will in turn teach people such as yourself.