t_niehoff
12-12-2004, 07:19 AM
Hendrik,
You and I (and Jim) probably are in agreement on how many things *need* to be done in order for WCK to be effective. I respect your knowledge, experience, and involvement in WCK. Nevertheless, I don't agree with your deference to tradition or strict interpretation of what is WCK. I think you'll agree that WCK, like any fighting method, is a set of principles, some for body use and some for strategic applications in martial encounters/fighting. Many of these, like the mechanical principles of power generation, are in my view encapsulated and expressed in the WCK tools. In other words, the tools come to us with built-in "power requirements." Take the jik chung choi from YJKYM for one example. How many ways are there to generate excellent power with that punch using that body mechanic (YJKYM)? A person can't just get good solid stationary power (no rotation or stepping) doing "anything at all." What is it that tells us when we are doing it properly, when our mechanics are good? Results. Your punch hits like a sledgehammer. That result tells you. What tells you that you are doing it wrong? Results. Your punch is weak and ineffective.
I agree that a trainee needs someone to teach them WCK -- they need to teach them the jik chung choi in YJKYM. Then, however, it is up to the trainee to find for himself, using results, both good and bad, to guide him, using trial and error, to find the mechanics that give him that power. No one can show you that. They can help you find it -- if they themselves know how -- but they can't give it to you and you can't get it from aping someone else. We're not human copy machines. We find the "feel" of it by practicing the punch (hitting things), by experimenting with how we do it, exploring, etc.; you find the feel of the mechanics for yourself and you know when the feel is right because *your punch* -- done as only you can do it -- hits like a sledgehammer. And, if someone doesn't have a punch like a sledgehammer, how can they expect to guide someone else to developing one? Results are what matter, and this training process is the only way to find those results.
I'm not saying you learn everything from fighting (even though it is an essential part of the training regimen). As I've said before -- ad nauseum -- you learn the form/tool/strategy/whatever, then you drill it until you feel comfortable with it, *then* you put it into fighting practice. With the jik chung choi in YJKYM -- learn it, drill it until you have developed good power, then try putting it into fighting.
The difference in perspective between a fighter and theoretician is that the fighter will focus on the result. He has to. He'll not do something that won't produce good results simply to adhere to some "theory". And, when he teaches, he won't say "do it like this because this is how it must be done" or "do it like this because some ancestor did it that way" or "do it like this to conform to theory"; instead he'll say "do it like this because it is the most effective way of doing it." The focus is on the result. And you'll see the result for yourself. In BJJ, your instructor will teach you how to to a spinning armbar from the guard. You'll drill it. Then you'll put it into rolling. If you aren't doing it correctly, it won't work well. (Just as if you're not doing your jik chung choi correctly it won't work well). Your instructor won't say "you must do it like I'm telling you because you're not using BJJ DNA", he'll tell you "you're not getting good results because you're not doing such-and-such; try that and see if it makes a difference." And, if you hit on a way to make the spinning armbar work that is different than you were taught, your instructor may adopt it -- because they are always looking for effective ways of doing things: results.
Rene is correct that theory and application go hand-in-hand. But if you are not fighting (the application part), then all you have is theory (is that balanced?). The sole objective of theory is to aid us in application (fighting). Our understanding of the theory can only be judged through application. Our mechanics can only be judged through application. It all comes down to application.
You and I (and Jim) probably are in agreement on how many things *need* to be done in order for WCK to be effective. I respect your knowledge, experience, and involvement in WCK. Nevertheless, I don't agree with your deference to tradition or strict interpretation of what is WCK. I think you'll agree that WCK, like any fighting method, is a set of principles, some for body use and some for strategic applications in martial encounters/fighting. Many of these, like the mechanical principles of power generation, are in my view encapsulated and expressed in the WCK tools. In other words, the tools come to us with built-in "power requirements." Take the jik chung choi from YJKYM for one example. How many ways are there to generate excellent power with that punch using that body mechanic (YJKYM)? A person can't just get good solid stationary power (no rotation or stepping) doing "anything at all." What is it that tells us when we are doing it properly, when our mechanics are good? Results. Your punch hits like a sledgehammer. That result tells you. What tells you that you are doing it wrong? Results. Your punch is weak and ineffective.
I agree that a trainee needs someone to teach them WCK -- they need to teach them the jik chung choi in YJKYM. Then, however, it is up to the trainee to find for himself, using results, both good and bad, to guide him, using trial and error, to find the mechanics that give him that power. No one can show you that. They can help you find it -- if they themselves know how -- but they can't give it to you and you can't get it from aping someone else. We're not human copy machines. We find the "feel" of it by practicing the punch (hitting things), by experimenting with how we do it, exploring, etc.; you find the feel of the mechanics for yourself and you know when the feel is right because *your punch* -- done as only you can do it -- hits like a sledgehammer. And, if someone doesn't have a punch like a sledgehammer, how can they expect to guide someone else to developing one? Results are what matter, and this training process is the only way to find those results.
I'm not saying you learn everything from fighting (even though it is an essential part of the training regimen). As I've said before -- ad nauseum -- you learn the form/tool/strategy/whatever, then you drill it until you feel comfortable with it, *then* you put it into fighting practice. With the jik chung choi in YJKYM -- learn it, drill it until you have developed good power, then try putting it into fighting.
The difference in perspective between a fighter and theoretician is that the fighter will focus on the result. He has to. He'll not do something that won't produce good results simply to adhere to some "theory". And, when he teaches, he won't say "do it like this because this is how it must be done" or "do it like this because some ancestor did it that way" or "do it like this to conform to theory"; instead he'll say "do it like this because it is the most effective way of doing it." The focus is on the result. And you'll see the result for yourself. In BJJ, your instructor will teach you how to to a spinning armbar from the guard. You'll drill it. Then you'll put it into rolling. If you aren't doing it correctly, it won't work well. (Just as if you're not doing your jik chung choi correctly it won't work well). Your instructor won't say "you must do it like I'm telling you because you're not using BJJ DNA", he'll tell you "you're not getting good results because you're not doing such-and-such; try that and see if it makes a difference." And, if you hit on a way to make the spinning armbar work that is different than you were taught, your instructor may adopt it -- because they are always looking for effective ways of doing things: results.
Rene is correct that theory and application go hand-in-hand. But if you are not fighting (the application part), then all you have is theory (is that balanced?). The sole objective of theory is to aid us in application (fighting). Our understanding of the theory can only be judged through application. Our mechanics can only be judged through application. It all comes down to application.