Instructor qualification question

[Knifefighter]

How many hands-on, in-person hours did your instructor spend with the instructor who taught him WC?

If you are an instructor, how many hands-on, in-person hours have you spent with your WC instructor?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I would calculate that I have spent more than 200 hours altogether with William Cheung - in a hands on, in person atmosphere.

Have no idea how many hours he spent with Yip Man - quite a bit though, I'm sure.

Also spent at least 400 hours of actual private classtime with Moy Yat, previous to my training with William Cheung.

And again - have no idea how many hours Moy Yat spent with Yip Man.

[Phil Redmond]

I'm not sure how much personal time Moy Yat got with Yip Man. Duncan Leung got private lessons but I don't know for how long. Alan Lee got private lessons also. William Cheung went to Yip Man's school during class hours and lived and trained in Yip Man's house for over 3 years so I would assume many hours. Yeah, I know 'many' isn't a number :)

As for me with Moy Yat I can't count the hours but way less than Victor. With Lee Moy Shan maybe 50, Duncan Leung/Alan Lee maybe 100. With Alan Lamb 100+(?) Henry Leung, over 2000. (I worked in his restautant and we lived in the same apartment building in Queens.) With William Cheung 500-600+ (and I'm not counting seminars). This is just off the top of my head. If I have to edit these hours I will.
PR

[duende]

Conservatively speaking... I've spent around 3000 hours of classtime with GM Gee. And that's not counting seminars or private lessons. And there are quite a few students who spend more time with him than I.

Kung Fu is very hard work as you all know. We have a saying... the mind understands... the body knows.

It takes a long time to both understand it in your head, and own it in your hands.

[t_niehoff]

In my view, how many thousands of hours one spent with their instructor(s) isn't very significant (although it does make me wonder how dense a person is to need to spend that much time getting instruction!) -- it's not how much time you spend training, how much time you spend with your instructor, how much time you have been practicing WCK, etc. Quantity is not the issue. Quality is. The quality of one's training, which is reflected by the quality of one's own WCK fighting skill (which doesn't come from one's instructor).

A good boxer doesn't talk about how much time he spent getting instruction on boxing; he knows that his skill came from how much time he put into quality training: sparring, conditioning, etc. And he won't even talk about that -- because the issue is never "how much time" but what he can do. Same with any fighter. Frankly, I think folks use the "quantity" claims when they have no "quality" proof.

I don't care how much time my sigung spent with my sifu -- all I care about is whether my sifu can help me produce results. Again, it all comes down to results.

BTW, it doesn't (or shouldn't) take a long time to develop good skill in WCK (put it into your head and hands); if it does that means your method of training is not effective. Once again, results tell.

[Phil Redmond]

Terence, you asked the question and your question was answered. We didn't know you had a hidden agenda. You say it doesn't matter but I'll ask anyway. How much personal time have you had with your Sifu? Quailty time with a Sifu should count for something right?
PR

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Quantity is not the issue. Quality is." (Terence)

QUANTITY...(when it's a significant amount)...has a QUALITY all it's own.


"The quality of one's training, which is reflected by the quality of one's own WCK fighting skill (which doesn't come from one's instructor)." (Terence)


DON'T KNOW about that...the quality of one's fighting skill is often DIRECTLY related to the training skills of your instructor.


"...the issue is never 'how much time' but what he can do. (A boxer) (Terence)


AGAIN...the amount of time spent getting quality instruction is very important in determining what he can do.


"I don't care how much time my sigung spent with my sifu -- all I care about is whether my sifu can help me produce results. " (Terence)


AND THE AMOUNT of time my sifu spent with my sigung can directly reflect upon how much positive results I get. (If he spent 10 hours with my sigung - I clearly won't be getting the same results than if he had spent 110).

Now I agree that there will come a point of diminishing returns on what one learns by continuing to spend time with their sifu...but this typically will only come after a very significant amount of time was spent with him in the first place.

And the other factor to consider is that some students will learn quicker than other students...but again...there still has to be a significant amount of time spent with your instructor for this to occur.

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Terence, you asked the question and your question was answered. We didn't know you had a hidden agenda. You say it doesn't matter but I'll ask anyway. How much personal time have you had with your Sifu? Quailty time with a Sifu should count for something right?
PR

Just a quick comment to note that Terrence didn't start this thread, Knifefighter did.

[duende]

I think if one wants to truly become a PROFESSIONAL martial artist. BOTH quality and quantity of time matter. If I wanted to just be a good fighter I could learn just the san sao portion of the system...


Terence, did you not spend thousands of hours getting your education to become a lawyer??? Are you saying you'd be a better lawyer without spending those years in law school??? Perhaps I'd agree with you if all you want to be is just an ambulance chaser lawyer in St. Louis. But if you want to become a corporate lawyer in NY or SF you gotta put in the time.

Perhaps you just want to be the equivalent of an ambulance chaser in your WCKF? That's your decision.

I think most people would be honored to spend more time with their Sifu/Instructor, but can't due to time or logistical constraints.

FWIW going to class 3, 4, 5 times a week really isn't that much if you're really training.



Like I said in my original post it takes time for the knowledge to transfer from your brain to your body. In KF you have to go through the various seasons of learning until ultimately you and your KF our one. You own it, don't have to think about it.... it is YOUR nature.

You can build a strong bridge out of mortar and bricks, but don't go trying to walk across it until the mortar has had time to dry.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
In my view, how many thousands of hours one spent with their instructor(s) isn't very significant Quantity is not the issue. Quality is. It should be both. Quality comes from quantity, although quantity does not guarantee quality.



Originally posted by t_niehoff
The quality of one's training, which is reflected by the quality of one's own WCK fighting skill (which doesn't come from one's instructor).Since many people in WC don't have a true test of quality in terms of testing themselves against others outside of their own schools, the quantity of time spent with a good instructor might be the next best indicator.


Originally posted by t_niehoff
A good boxer doesn't talk about how much time he spent getting instruction on boxing; he knows that his skill came from how much time he put into quality training: sparring, conditioning, etc. And he won't even talk about that -- because the issue is never "how much time" Very true, but he will have an easy time figuring out how much time he has spent with a quality coach and usually it will be a pretty significant amount of time


Originally posted by t_niehoff
BTW, it doesn't (or shouldn't) take a long time to develop good skill in WCK (put it into your head and hands); if it does that means your method of training is not effective. Once again, results tell. I'm not talking about being an effective fighter, per se. I'm talkng about teaching. It takes a much longer time to be an effective teacher than it does to be an effective fighter.

[Knifefighter]

If the average student goes to class three times per week and trains for two hours per session for 50 weeks per year, this comes out to about 300 hours per year.

At this rate, how many years would it take for this person to learn the entire WC system and be able to teach in an effective manner?

Two years? That would be 600 hours
Three years? 900 hours
Five years? 1500 hours.

I think it would be reasonable for a person to expect to have their instructor to have had a minimum of 1500 hours of hands on instruction under his belt (unless the training is free). For me personally, I'd expect at least 2000 to 3000 hours.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Sandman2[Wing Chun]
Just a quick comment to note that Terrence didn't start this thread, Knifefighter did.
Oops, my bad I meant to type Knifefighter. :(
sorry Terence.
PR

[t_niehoff]

Duende wrote:

I think if one wants to truly become a PROFESSIONAL martial artist. BOTH quality and quantity of time matter. If I wanted to just be a good fighter I could learn just the san sao portion of the system...

**Anyone can be a professional martial artist -- all they need to do is take money for teaching. ;) Lots of that going around. But I agree that it takes -- or should take -- a lot to be a competant profesional teacher. Actually having fought superior fighters would be part of that.

Terence, did you not spend thousands of hours getting your education to become a lawyer??? Are you saying you'd be a better lawyer without spending those years in law school??? Perhaps I'd agree with you if all you want to be is just an ambulance chaser lawyer in St. Louis. But if you want to become a corporate lawyer in NY or SF you gotta put in the time.

Perhaps you just want to be the equivalent of an ambulance chaser in your WCKF? That's your decision.

**Becoming a skilled fighter or coach (a physical activity) doesn't involve the same things as becoming a "professional", like a physician or an attorney. For one thing, we are required to prove we actually have some competance, and we can't claim we got our diploma from some secret source. ;)

I think most people would be honored to spend more time with their Sifu/Instructor, but can't due to time or logistical constraints.

FWIW going to class 3, 4, 5 times a week really isn't that much if you're really training.

**Whatever.

Like I said in my original post it takes time for the knowledge to transfer from your brain to your body.

**Sometimes you can spend a life time and not have that happen. ;) While some others are getting it in a few years.

In KF you have to go through the various seasons of learning until ultimately you and your KF our one. You own it, don't have to think about it.... it is YOUR nature.

**I guess good fighters don't do that?

You can build a strong bridge out of mortar and bricks, but don't go trying to walk across it until the mortar has had time to dry.

**Theoreticians always have excuses why their mortar hasn't dried.

[t_niehoff]

Victor, Phil,

I'm sure you both got loads from all the time you spent with your various sifu -- my point is just that IMO and IME WCK is a fairly simple method with relatively few stategic, tactical, and technical aspects and as such, to learn them doesn't take much time. On the other hand, developing skill using these things is extremely difficult and takes a great deal of intense training. That sort of training doesn't come from our sifu but from ourselves.

In my view, a good instructor should just give their student the fundamentals and then get out of the way. And then give them a pointer or two to help them when they run into problems. Anything else actually harms the student and their development.

[duende]

**Becoming a skilled fighter or coach (a physical activity) doesn't involve the same things as becoming a "professional", like a physician or an attorney.



WRONG! Typical naive street fighter mentality. Go tell that to your UFC fighter who spends hours upon hours studying the science of combat.

Heck just turn on your tv and listen to the way Couture and Liddell teach and discuss the art of fighting on SpikeTV. Stupid show, but those guys are no street fighters!

Terence... you're the only theoretician here. No proof, no walk, just alot of silliness.

BTW, How come you won't tell us how many hours you've spent training with your Sifu??

Truth hurts huh!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Victor, Phil,

I'm sure you both got loads from all the time you spent with your various sifu -- my point is just that IMO and IME WCK is a fairly simple method with relatively few stategic, tactical, and technical aspects and as such, to learn them doesn't take much time. On the other hand, developing skill using these things is extremely difficult and takes a great deal of intense training. That sort of training doesn't come from our sifu but from ourselves.

In my view, a good instructor should just give their student the fundamentals and then get out of the way. And then give them a pointer or two to help them when they run into problems. Anything else actually harms the student and their development.


COULDN'T disagree more, Terence.

The finished product may look simple and direct (ie.- when sparring/fighting)...but it's NOT simple...and does not entail JUST A FEW strategic, tactical, and technical aspects to learn.

At least not with TWC, anyway.

[old jong]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun


At least not with TWC, anyway.

:rolleyes:

[Wayfaring]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I don't care how much time my sigung spent with my sifu -- all I care about is whether my sifu can help me produce results. Again, it all comes down to results.


Translation:

Training with sifu - A couple weekends a year.
Sifu with sigung - A couple of years in the 90's.

[Ernie]

T-
In my view, a good instructor should just give their student the fundamentals and then get out of the way. And then give them a pointer or two to help them when they run into problems. Anything else actually harms the student and their development.

sorry partner can't flow with you on this one !

if I'm paying some one to train me they better **** well get in and train me

if some one is paying me to train them , I need to get off my A$$ and work with them

sure you create environments so they can find there way , but you have to give them an imprint , felling , timing , position

hell even a boxing coach [ unless there old ] gets out the focus mitt's

how do you get better by working with people better then you , so if your there coach get in there and pass it on .

it's why I don't like the whole big school lineage thing , stuff gets watered down , or robotized cookie cutter style

[duende]

Originally posted by Ernie

it's why I don't like the whole big school lineage thing , stuff gets watered down , or robotized cookie cutter style

I hear ya! That's why I train so much. So that when I open a school. I have it down, and it's not just my own interpretation/watered-down version.

Mann... I never thought I'd get such grief for training too much.

And FWIW... I really cherrish the profound effect KF has on the lives on students beyond just fighting abilities.

Say what you want, but there's nothing wrong with helping people find positive strength, dicipline, and focus that they can apply in other areas of there lives as well.

[Knifefighter]

I've spent thousands of hours with my standup instructors, but I really don't know how much time they spent with their instructors.

I've also spent a total of about 3300 hours with my three BJJ instructors, but I do know that they each have spent thousands upon thousands of hours with each of their instructors.

Hmmm... maybe that's why my BJJ game is better than my standup game.

[KPM]

Terence wrote:
In my view, how many thousands of hours one spent with their instructor(s) isn't very significant

---I agree with this in spirit. Just logging hours is no guarantee. Spending 100 direct contact hours receiving personal instruction is much different that 100 hours where you are part of a class with 20 other students present. Quantity does not necessarily ensure quality. I have also found that some of my biggest steps forward in understanding and ability have taken place during my own practice sessions when Sifu is not around where I have taken his instruction and finally been able to "make it my own." KPM


I don't care how much time my sigung spent with my sifu -- all I care about is whether my sifu can help me produce results. Again, it all comes down to results.

---And besides, in most traditional CMA circles, it would be considered very rude to starting asking your instructor all kinds of questions about how many actual hours he spent with his instructor. :-)

BTW, it doesn't (or shouldn't) take a long time to develop good skill in WCK (put it into your head and hands);

---Again, I agree with this in spirit. Terence will consider this theoretical nonsense, but WCK was developed to be a more streamlined version of CMA and to be a vehicle to produce good fighters in a shorter amount of time. It shouldn't take 10 years plus to learn the system and do that. In many cases there has been too much "elaboration" on the system and too much stretching out of the curriculum to keep paying students coming back for more. Compared to other CMA's, IMHO WCK is more simple and straightforward. We should try to keep it that way. :-)
KPM


Keith

[Vajramusti]

Crimsonking sez:

Terence is way off the mark IMO - wing chun is not a simple art. It has to be taught hands on with as much student-teacher contact time as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very true.!

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Some scary scary stuff on this thread... glad i'm nothing to do with any sort of big commercial wing chun organisation.

As knifefighter said, 2 hours 3 times a week = 300 hours a year. My guess is that should be how much an average 'serious' student in any martial art should go be training, and that's nothing for the obsessive trainer! 5 years training should be the bare minimum before teaching. That's 1500 hours. That should be for your average 'black belt' first or second dan instructor in an mass-production art like judo or karate. Not exactly the same thing an experienced wing chun sifu with decades of experience."
(crimsonking)



GIVEN THE NATURE of his previous posts...I have to assume I'm one of the people crimsonking is talking about here. The numbers I listed were hours that I've spent ALONE with my Wing Chun instructors (or maybe with one or two other students present)...so when I include all of the time spent in a big class or seminar atmosphere with my instructors - then the number of hours I listed multiplies many time over.

[t_niehoff]

OK, here goes . . .

1) Many take exception to my "WCK is simple" view. And I understand why (as with many things, I used to believe differently). But what I've found from experience (vs. what I've been told or want to beleive) is that when WCK practitioners really fight (and not demo or do chi sao or whatever) especially against good opposition what they do *becomes very simple* because IT HAS TO BE to work. And I'd bet money that if we taped and watched all those "WCK is complex" guys actually fight good people (or if they tape themselves and watch), we'd see exactly what I'm talking about; they'd be relying on relatively few things over and over and over. The reason boxing, muay thai, etc. are all great (standing up) fighitng methods is because they are simple, with relatively few strategic, tactical, and technical elements. It can't be complicated when you fight or you can't make it work. The complications just "get in the way". In fact, IMO there is an inverse relationship between how complicated a method is and it's effectiveness (the more you complicate things, the less chance they will work). This is why, for example, the more complex the theory you have, the less effective you'll be.

My view is that WCK has become "overly complex" because of a number of reasons but essentially it boils down to not fighting (not doing WCK). When you do, you begin to cut through the mess and get down to the fundamentals.

As some of you know, my teaching and training method is to focus on producing results. One way I do that is by "eliminating the inessentials", that is not spending time on things that a trainee won't use (that just takes time away from his working on the things he will need). So I just focus on those things that are part of that particular individual's "game". This comes from giving him the fundamentals and letting him fight so I can see his "game", how it develops, what he needs to do to make it better, etc. FWIW, this is how they train boxers and muay thai boxers, etc. I didn't reinvent the wheel.

2) Many take exception to my view that an instructor doesn't (and shouldn't) need to spend "loads" of time with a trainee. In part, my view is based on my distinction between teaching someone and training someone (learning vs. developing skill). I was referring to the teaching aspect (it doesn't take much time). With regard to training, my view is that a good instructor makes their student independent from them as quickly as possible (not a good way for a commercial school to run ;) ). I always say that a person is responsible for his own training. So part of what I try to do is give my students the ability to train themselves, so that they don't *need* me looking over their shoulder all the time. In other words, they become "self-correcting." Certainly I train them, and I train with them, but they also train together, train alone, etc.

3) I've come to my views based on my experience, training myself, and others, and using my and their results (increased fighting performance using their WCK tools) as a guide. I've also "stolen" the training methodology of other skilled fighters. In other words, my views are informed by results, not what I've been told or want to believe -- theory. If someone else is doing something different and getting *results*, that's cool and I respect them. It all comes down to results. Two good boxers/coaches can disagree on some things but they are both getting results.

4) I agree wholeheartedly that one needs to spend lots of time *training*.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"But what I've found from experience (vs. what I've been told or want to beleive) is that when WCK practitioners really fight (and not demo or do chi sao or whatever) especially against good opposition what they do *becomes very simple* because IT HAS TO BE to work. And I'd bet money that if we taped and watched all those "WCK is complex" guys actually fight good people (or if they tape themselves and watch), we'd see exactly what I'm talking about; they'd be relying on relatively few things over and over and over." (Terence)



BUT WHAT it seems you fail to understand, Terence...is that what might look simple and direct - and what might look like just a relatively few things being repeated over and over...are in fact things that utilize numerous variations and improvizations on a theme...and there are at least a dozen different themes.

And in order to really "GET" all of that down...to the point that a student has truly become a good fighter - well that takes many hours of both training and teaching by the instructor.

[t_niehoff]

Victor,

I do understand that -- and yes, it does take loads of training time to develop skill (I said these things were simple, not easy!). As I often say, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.

Our disagreement seems to stem from our views on exactly what an instructor does. I don't "spoon feed" my students or try to make them dependent on me (and I'm not saying you do) but try to help them learn to "eat" on their own; teach them to fish rather than give them a fish, as the saying goes. Sure it takes some time to get them to that point -- a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they're out of the nest.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Our disagreement seems to stem from our views on exactly what an instructor does. I don't 'spoon feed' my students or try to make them dependent on me (and I'm not saying you do) but try to help them learn to 'eat' on their own; teach them to fish rather than give them a fish, as the saying goes. Sure it takes some time to get them to that point -- a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they're out of the nest." (Terence)


PERHAPS our disagreement has to do with what you mean by "a few years"...

It's got to take at least 5 years, imo.

(And those 5 years would have to be in a small class training structure).

[t_niehoff]

CK wrote:

Learning\teaching and training\developing are really part of the same thing - embodied learning. If you think that teaching is the verbal or intellectual part of it - that explains your view. IMO the real teaching\learning is non-verbal (ie hands-on). We're all familiar with the problems inherent in trying to communicate wing chun verbally.

**Let me use an example (nonWCK) to clarify my meaning -- a BJJ instructor can teach you the elbow-escape (one of the core escapes), and go into the details, etc. in a relatively short period of time. And you can drill it and get corrections on your mechanics, etc. That is all part of what I consider "learning". To develop skill *using* it requires loads of rolling/sparring (which for the most part won't be with instructor) as well as continued drilling. That is what I call "developing".

[duende]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Our disagreement seems to stem from our views on exactly what an instructor does. I don't "spoon feed" my students or try to make them dependent on me (and I'm not saying you do) but try to help them learn to "eat" on their own; teach them to fish rather than give them a fish, as the saying goes. Sure it takes some time to get them to that point -- a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they're out of the nest.

Nice quote... ODDLY FAMILIAR HOWEVER!

Anyways, what takes more time??? Giving a student a fish?? Or teaching them how to fish??? Your logic doe not compute.

It must serve your argument better to NOT tell us how much time you spend training with your instructor.

[canglong]

-- a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they're out of the nest. Some details about the training involved concerning those "few years" would be helpful in understanding your ideology of training as it pertains to instructor qualifications.