Got YEE?

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey there,
I was just curious as to when you guys would introduce Yee (intent) in your teaching.
Or maybe a better question is how you introduce it.
Is it with realistic sparring?
Chi Sao?
Talks about intent?
Maybe some metaphors that you guys have when describing it?

Why can your mom who is smaller and weaker still swat you if she wants. That's intent! :p

J

[AmanuJRY]

I wonder what your meaning of 'intent' is. Is it 'forward intent' as is (or should be) always present in practices like chi sau? Or, is it more situational, like in sparring?

Either way, it would be something I would teach from day one.

What is your 'intent' for learning MA?
What is your 'intent' while doing SLT?
What is your 'intent' while doing dan chi?
What is your 'intent' doing chi sau?
...when sparring?
...when defending yourself?

And,

What is your opponents intent in all of the above situations?

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey Justin,
I was really being general when talking about yee so as not to stop any points of discussion.

In part, I'm talking situational like when you hear, 'the butcher's mentality' and being able to turn it on like flipping a switch.

Also forward intent like with footwork, techniques, stance etc..

So you would go into intent on day one as you show them the technique?

I'm just curious as to what people think is best to get your message across when showing someone something.

Is it best to describe the movement with a hollow interpretation and as they get robotic (for lack of a better word), start to describe the intent behind the things they're practicing

OR

The opposite, start by describing the intent of a movement prior to showing proper alignment, hand placement, shifting, elbows etc.

Almost like what's better, learning your forms first and then applications or the other way around applications first and forms second.

J

[Hungfutkune]

I can only speak for myself, but when learning, I always find it easier to learn the intent of a move from the begining. I think learning forms and it's application at the same time has always worked better for me. When I know why I'm doing a certain move it helps me remember it. Also when I learn the new move it should be done with proper technique including alignment, hand placement, shifting etc.

I have seen many students learn forms, but never learn applications and if you watch closely you can tell that there is something wrong - maybe they are lacking "Intent"

Just my .02cents

[AmanuJRY]

Jeff,

I think if you browse some of the older threads you may find that some of these details have been discussed, even fairly recently. But that is no excuse for not bringing them up again, as they are important.

I often think of these things as they relate to specifics. When teaching forms, I see them as empty and without 'intent' at first. An analogy I use is that they are like a workbook waiting to be filled. When teaching application and specific techniques, it would be intent first (the form should have already taught basic shape and structure), this is the info that the student uses to 'fill in' the workbook. Anything outside of forms - drills, chi sau, sparring, etc. - is application, either in whole or isolated aspects, therefor intent is first. So to simplify, forms = technique first, then intent, and application = intent first, then technique.