The necessity of real fight experience in teaching? [Archive]

william

03-02-2006, 06:03 AM

The necessity of real fight experience in teaching?

I really enjoy Wing Chun, I am a good 5/ 6 years off beginning to teach (relative beginner) but a some point I would think I would like to teach.

Here’s the problem. The main reason I train Wing chun is for self protection purposes. Second is that I just love doing it.

My current instructor has a history of real confrontations, grew up in a rough area, worked on the door, trains doormen etc, so he has seen and experienced that ‘real word’ and knows what works and what doesn’t. He teaches wing chun because he sees it as very useful in ‘real’ situations.

I really think this an important quality in an instructor. The last place I trained was good, but the instructor admitted he had never been a real confrontation. I admired this honesty and lack of BS. He was very good at what he did too, but I just couldn’t get this out of my mind, when he would be showing a technique that would work in the ‘street’.

I much prefer training at my current school, as I have a real trust in my instructor, which I think is really important.

The conundrum is, say I train really hard for the next 6 years, and get to a level where I could start teaching. I see my self as a good fight avoider, I have had seen many start and think pretty much every one I have seen could have been avoided if people had got over egos. I train for the love of it, and for decent ability if that time ever comes where confrontation is unavoidable.

So I want to teach, and I haven’t experience a real fight, I certainly would not go looking for one. I don’t really mean teaching friends, or as a senior student, rather taking money for it, opening a school or whatever.

So what do you guys think? I know the adage that a good fighter can’t always teach, and being a good wing chun teacher doesn’t depend on real fight experience etc.

I prefer learning from some one who has experienced real confrontation. My lineage stems from WSL who is legendary for his ‘experience’ and his wing chun reflects this experience of what works in reality.

Just after some thoughts

W

ghostofwingchun

03-02-2006, 10:00 AM

The necessity of real fight experience in teaching?

William . . . my thought is that if some one wants to teach some thing they should be able to do that thing . . . now if teach wc for reason other than fighting then being good fighter is not issue.

I really enjoy Wing Chun, I am a good 5/ 6 years off beginning to teach (relative beginner) but a some point I would think I would like to teach.

I alway wonder why so many want to teach wc . . . funny thing is that in styles that actually spar a lot . . . like BJJ or boxing or MT and so on . . . people seem more interested in doing it . . . in sparring . . . rather than looking forward to teaching . . . in styles where they do not compete then every one interested in teaching.

Here’s the problem. The main reason I train Wing chun is for self protection purposes. Second is that I just love doing it.

If you love doing it then just do it.

My current instructor has a history of real confrontations, grew up in a rough area, worked on the door, trains doormen etc, so he has seen and experienced that ‘real word’ and knows what works and what doesn’t. He teaches wing chun because he sees it as very useful in ‘real’ situations.

I really think this an important quality in an instructor. The last place I trained was good, but the instructor admitted he had never been a real confrontation. I admired this honesty and lack of BS. He was very good at what he did too, but I just couldn’t get this out of my mind, when he would be showing a technique that would work in the ‘street’.

I much prefer training at my current school, as I have a real trust in my instructor, which I think is really important.

I see two things here . . . first is wc training . . . second is adapting wc to street scenarios . . . like being doorman for instance . . . if the second is important to you than you have answered your own question . . . for others who have no interest in being doorman these things are not important.

The conundrum is, say I train really hard for the next 6 years, and get to a level where I could start teaching. I see my self as a good fight avoider, I have had seen many start and think pretty much every one I have seen could have been avoided if people had got over egos. I train for the love of it, and for decent ability if that time ever comes where confrontation is unavoidable.

So I want to teach, and I haven’t experience a real fight, I certainly would not go looking for one. I don’t really mean teaching friends, or as a senior student, rather taking money for it, opening a school or whatever.

So what do you guys think? I know the adage that a good fighter can’t always teach, and being a good wing chun teacher doesn’t depend on real fight experience etc.

My thinking is that you can not teach what you do not know . . . you can not help others develop skills if you have not done those things yourself. Not everyone does wc to be good fighter . . . there are other reasons. And winning fights on street does not in my view mean one has good martial art or wc . . . or that one is necessarily very skilled . . . lots of tough guys win fights . . . for all kinds of reasons . . . result is important . . . but how one achieve result is more important if skill is an issue. For me street fights are lowest level of fights . . . and do not show much in way of fighting skill . . . if want to really test skill then compete with good trained fighters.

I prefer learning from some one who has experienced real confrontation. My lineage stems from WSL who is legendary for his ‘experience’ and his wing chun reflects this experience of what works in reality.

Just after some thoughts

W

Every one's wc reflects their experience . . . or lack thereof . . . lol . . . WSL is no different . . . his and any one else's does not reflect what works in reality . . . it reflects what worked in reality for them . . . what they found useful or important . . . this does not mean it works for you or me . . . and even if it does there may be better way for you or me . . . this is why wc must reflect your experience. . . at least this is my thought at moment.

Thanks,

Ghost

Sihing73

03-02-2006, 12:33 PM

ghostofwingchun

03-02-2006, 01:01 PM

Hello,

While I would tend to agree that one should have some experience in order to train others to fight, I am not wholly convinced that it is the overriding consideration. There are plenty of examples of great fighters who could not teach others and many fine examples of trainers who could not equal the skill of the fighters they produced. Just take a look at boxing and you will see many examples of both sides.

I am thinking you are right . . . that teaching and fighting are not the same thing . . . and I agree too that being good fighter does not make good teacher . . . and agree that good trainers can produce people better skilled than they are . . . but these good trainers while perhaps not as great of skill . . . still have lots of skill . . . and can or did fight . . . for example since you cite boxing . . . Cus D'Amato was very good boxer . . . not a Tyson . . . but could still tag Ali even in old age . . . lol . . . what you will not see in boxing is any decent trainer that was not golden glove . . . or above.

I think that in order to teach one needs to have a good grasp of the underlying concepts of an art and be able to explain them in a manner others can understand. While it is certainly helpful to have some real life experience to draw on, that is not, IMHO, necessarily a prerequisite to be a good teacher. The ability to break things down into an understandable format is far more desirable in my opinion.

I am thinking some people put too much store on principles . . . principles can help you do something . . . it can help you understand some thing . . . it does not replace doing that something . . . principles are easy and simple . . . doing it not so easy and simple . . . principle of wc defense is jeet or cut off . . . if applying that was easy we would all be great fighters . . . lol . . . same with learning to pass guard . . . it is easy to learn . . . not so easy to do . . . I am thinking if you want to be good at fighting . . . which means being able to do these things while fighting . . . principle is aid and can help . . . but principle will not pass the guard or close opponent down against fighting opponent . . . at least this has been my experience.

Thanks,

Ghost

anerlich

03-02-2006, 02:52 PM

Martial skill is one of the least important attributes in surviving violent crime.

Read "Strong on Defense" and "The Gift of Fear" then decide whether this really matters as much as you think it does.

Sihing73

03-02-2006, 03:15 PM

Vajramusti

03-02-2006, 05:09 PM

Some confusion Dave. The poster was talking about Cud D tagging Ali- not Tyson--
both have homes here in the Valley- Phoenix metro. Cus did not come up through the Golden Gloves ladder to the best of my knowledge. But he was a street fighter in his youth. I dont think he ever tagged Ali. He and Ali had a an old and often playful TV interview on ESPN-where they once appeared to square off san gloves-that was all.
There was talk about Cus possibly training the late Wilt Chamberlain but Chamberlain changed his mind about entering the boxing field. There is the story of Ali irritating Chamberlain when they met to talk about Chamberlain's interest in boxing by looking up at Chamberlain and with perfect timing saying "TIMBER".
Cus's influence was there on quite a few boxers(Torres, Patterson, Tyson...) and famous trainers- particularly Rooney and Atlas. Tyson's decline partly was related
(apart from his loss of discipline) to his dumping Rooney as a trainer (see Douglas fight) and not building further on Cus's foundations. He moved away from the peekaboo etc and became simply a small fighter among bigger people with longer reach.
Trainers and coaches do make a difference- witness D'Amato, Dundee,Srewart, McGirt, Roach, Goldman,Arcel, Clancy, Futch, Bimstein, Gainford, Chappie Blackburn. Some were pretty good boxers themselves- such as McGirt. To be a good coach one has to have a fairly clear idea on the principles involved and how to adpt them to specific people. But good fighters cant often transfer their skills. Frazier Sr and Jr is a good case in point. Putting on gloves does nota boxer make- one needs comptent trainers who know something and can spot strengths and weaknesses
and know how how to correct them.
But boxing shelf life is pretty short-the other night Vargas and Mosely were trying to prove who was on the way down faster.

Back to the usual (MMA?) programming.
joy

viper

03-02-2006, 05:10 PM

Alot of people ask me hey u do like kung fu I say yeah there like whats the best technique to win a fight. I look at them and say run run run after that I explain that skill is no good if your frozen still in fear. I explain about how the brain works in extreme circumstances and most people dont get it because there is a preconcieved notion ma =good fighting. Skill is certainly important to have well derr but what good is it if ur just freakin out ,gota control adreline dump things like that. Just like gaining the physical skills one must gain mental skill to focus be calm but at the same time to be vicious and do what it takes to live because thats what it is about in the end survival. Martial arts does not mean that your given the gift to destroy ne one else it just lays a foundation. In regards to teaching well my sifu is bout the same height, weight as me I tend do alot of things in simaler fashion because were small and what works for him works for me generally but at the same time i think different and every now and again I say well if you do that technique can you do this and he says never thought bout it and now he does it. On the other hand one of my seniors just became a sifu now he is totally different because he is just a different version thats one thing in teaching you teach your version and what you can make work for you but this might not be the case of your students. I appears to me that teachingm is harder then fighting because your not just thinking about yourself you think bout others.

ghostofwingchun

03-02-2006, 10:33 PM

Hello Ghost,

Curious about where you got your info on Cus D'Amato being a Golden Gloves Boxer or being able to "tag" Tyson even in later years. The info I have been able to find seems to always point to him being a trainer not a fighter. He opened a gym at 22 years of age in order to train fighters. Seems to me like, while he may have done some boxing it was never even close to the pro level.

Would love more info on his actual fighting career if available.

If you read some boxing biographies . . . like Bad Intentions: The Mike Tyson Story by Peter Heller or The Black LIghts: Inside the World of Professional Boxing by Thomas Hauser or even Torres autobiography . . . there are references to D'Amato . . . he learned boxing in his youth . . . fought mainly in street not in ring . . . and you are right he opened his own gym when he was in his early twenties . . . used to spar with those he trained until he got older . . . the Ali reference was about when Ali visit him once when he was older. . . Ali says his amazing footwork can beat any punch . . . Cus says that's not so . . . it is just matter of timing . . . Ali says really show me old man . . . Cus puts on gloves and is able to land punch . . . lol . . . not saying he would have beaten Ali . . . just that he was able to tag him. Lots of athletes become coaches . . . they may not be the best of athletes . . . but they have played the game . . . fighting is game too . . . regardless of style . . . difficult to train people in game you have not played.

Thanks,

Ghost

Kapten Klutz

03-03-2006, 03:01 AM

So I want to teach, and I haven’t experience a real fight, I certainly would not go looking for one. I don’t really mean teaching friends, or as a senior student, rather taking money for it, opening a school or whatever.

Just an idea here, maybe you could open a school together with a fighter or experienced bouncer or someone like that. Be partners.:)

Sihing73

03-03-2006, 05:39 AM

Lots of athletes become coaches . . . they may not be the best of athletes . . . but they have played the game . . . fighting is game too . . . regardless of style . . . difficult to train people in game you have not played.

Thanks,

Ghost

Hello Ghost,

An actual fight on the street is far different than fighting in the ring. While I would still tend to agree that if you can find someone with some real life experience they can offer valuable insight, I am not sure that should be your main concern. As anerlich mentions there are other factors possibly more imortant than martial skill. Mental training etc.

Given your perspective, you would not be as effective an instructor, say in Rape Awareness\Defense, unless you had been raped. What I am getting at is that there are several very good programs which teach Rape Defense which are taught by men and are quite effective. Funny since most men are unlikely to be the victims of such an attack. Perhaps it is their understanding of the concepts and mental aspects which make their approach effective rather than their real life fighting experience.

Of course, a woman instructor would be better able to connect on a deeper level with possible and actual rape victims than a man ever will. Does this mean that only those women with real fighting experience or those who have been attacked would make good instructors?? I certainly hope note!!

We no longer live in fuedal eras so many of us do not train to go out and fight every day. We train for other reasons, and I would hope that we have grown beyond seeking out trouble. An ideal instructor would have both real life experience as well as a good grasp of the concepts. However, if I were forces to choose I would take someone who could break down and explain the art to me than someone who had a history of fighting. Indeed one could argue that someone who had less fighting experience may have truly grasped the art better than one with many fights, as they have learned to move beyond physical confrontation. What I would be wary of is anyone who eagerated their claims in an effort to promote themselves as something they were not.

ghostofwingchun

03-03-2006, 06:35 AM

Thank you SiHing73 for your thoughtful and courteous reply . . . it is nice to have civil discussion.

Hello Ghost,

An actual fight on the street is far different than fighting in the ring. While I would still tend to agree that if you can find someone with some real life experience they can offer valuable insight, I am not sure that should be your main concern. As anerlich mentions there are other factors possibly more imortant than martial skill. Mental training etc.

I am quite agreeing with you . . ring and street is not the same . . . only the boxing works in both . . . sort of like saying BJJ instructor did not fight in sport competition but fought in street . . . either is OK in my opinion . . . point is that by fighting they find how to really play their game . . . some very good basketball players play hoops all day in local school yards . . . never play organized ball . . . but they are playing and are very very good . . . this is true of many sports . . . I am just saying that one cannot coach players . . . and fighter is player . . . if one has not played. For self defense sure person may need other things . . . a boxer who wants to defend self may need more than his boxing training too . . . but he won't be able to fight unless he trains to fight will he?

Given your perspective, you would not be as effective an instructor, say in Rape Awareness\Defense, unless you had been raped. What I am getting at is that there are several very good programs which teach Rape Defense which are taught by men and are quite effective. Funny since most men are unlikely to be the victims of such an attack. Perhaps it is their understanding of the concepts and mental aspects which make their approach effective rather than their real life fighting experience.

Of course, a woman instructor would be better able to connect on a deeper level with possible and actual rape victims than a man ever will. Does this mean that only those women with real fighting experience or those who have been attacked would make good instructors?? I certainly hope note!!

I am thinking a woman could coach male boxers or male coach women . . . gender is not issue . . . issue is teaching and coaching . . . and my question is how can some one teach or coach some thing they can not do or have no experience doing? These programs deal with much more that physical ability to fight . . . and much info has been gathered over years about nature of sexual assaults . . . so these programs can provide that info . . . but to get out of headlock for instance . . . this takes training . . . not concepts . . . and grappling can not be taught or coached by someone that is not good grappler . . . other wise it is crappling . . . lol . . . and being good grappler comes from grappling.

As a side . . . I always wonder when I hear about effectiveness of program . . any program . . . how that was determined. I am thinking that any woman interested enough to take program . . . probably is sort that would take steps to be safe adn careful . . . and would thus be less likely to be sexually assaulted.

We no longer live in fuedal eras so many of us do not train to go out and fight every day. We train for other reasons, and I would hope that we have grown beyond seeking out trouble. An ideal instructor would have both real life experience as well as a good grasp of the concepts. However, if I were forces to choose I would take someone who could break down and explain the art to me than someone who had a history of fighting. Indeed one could argue that someone who had less fighting experience may have truly grasped the art better than one with many fights, as they have learned to move beyond physical confrontation. What I would be wary of is anyone who eagerated their claims in an effort to promote themselves as something they were not.

I am thinking that any one claiming to have many many street fights is either psycho . . . if claim is true . . . or liar . . . you are right we live in civilized society today that does not approve or tolerate fighting in street . . . this is why we have sport . . . we no longer have duels with swords either . . . but still have fencing . . . sure fencing is not the same as sword fighting to death . . . but fencing training of today is how old swordfighters trained . . . and sport fencing is closest we get to sword fight . . . fencing teaches person how to handle sword . . . this is what person needs to know if they ever had to fight real sword fight . . . they learn to handle sword by bouting . . . real sword fight I am sure involves other variables . . . but the better a person handles sword the better chances they have in sowrd fight. Let us say that you really wanted to become very good fencer . . . wanted to bout with top fencers . . . who would you go to for training . . . some one that never bouted . . . or some one that had . . . sure fencing has concepts . . . but like all martial arts these are secondary or tertiary . . . not primary. Anyway this is my thinking . . . perhaps I am all wrong.

Thanks,

Ghost

03-03-2006, 07:12 AM

Hi Ghost. Hope you don't mind me popping in for a moment.

I am thinking that any woman interested enough to take program . . . probably is sort that would take steps to be safe adn careful . . . and would thus be less likely to be sexually assaulted.

That's a leap. While participants may "wish" to behave safely, I don't presume it's inherently true that they do. You'd also likely find a fair number of participants that have indeed been victimized in some manner.

Let us say that you really wanted to become very good fencer . . . wanted to bout with top fencers . . . who would you go to for training . . . some one that never bouted . . . or some one that had . . .

I would opt for the person who could most help me to improve. My needs and what is most helpful may change over time. One's "fencing" may even prosper thanks to someone or something unrelated to fencing on the surface.

sure fencing has concepts . . . but like all martial arts these are secondary or tertiary . . . not primary.

That's an interesting comment. Would you mind expounding on it?

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

grashoper

03-03-2006, 07:16 AM

I have been studying Wing Chun for 2 years now and I just wanted to ask a question. I have been to alot of different forums and it seems that most other systems do not like Wing Chun. I was just wonder as to why this is. I have not been in alot of fights in my time but I thought that sparing and drills was what that was for, to teach our bodies to react without thinking by repition. I have always felt that all of the systems has something to offer as far as the "Martial Arts". I have read in many places to use the principles of the system but to make the system fit the individual not the individual fit the system. As far as the teaching I to at some point in my life would like to teach and I have read that if you want to really deepen your understanding of Kung Fu you must at some point teach. I have found this to be true, I have learned more from when new students join our school and I see where I have missed the basic principles (Pak Soa, Lop Soa, etc.)
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

A wise man always keeps an open mind.

Fajing

03-03-2006, 08:11 AM

I have been studying Wing Chun for 2 years now and I just wanted to ask a question. I have been to alot of different forums and it seems that most other systems do not like Wing Chun. I was just wonder as to why this is.

I am not sure why that may be. Possibly a lack of experience in Wing Chun, or maybe a lack of understanding. It could simply be that Wing Chun is not the art they most excel at. :confused: This is why it's good that there's much to choose from.;)

I have not been in alot of fights in my time but I thought that sparing and drills was what that was for, to teach our bodies to react without thinking by repition. I have always felt that all of the systems has something to offer as far as the "Martial Arts".

I agree! I also believe that any martial art has something to offer. Sparing and drills do aid us in our application abilities. However, after listening to some on this forum, it sounds like not everyone spars. :confused:

I have read in many places to use the principles of the system but to make the system fit the individual not the individual fit the system..

Yes! You use the principles to make Wing Chun suit you. Of the practitioners I know, we all have a different spin on the way we use/apply Wing Chun. In reality, Wing Chun is not going to be the style that suits everyone. However, if you love it and it proves successful for you, then you should run with it. :D

Lindley

03-03-2006, 11:44 AM

Grashoper,

First, congratulations on your 2 years study.

It is a fact of life that our system, like many others, has many interpretations under the same name. Unfortunately these may be the ones who make it to the Inside Kung Fu magazines or books. These people, the "haters", will often generalize on what they have been exposed to instead of understanding the whole.

I have been given this book by a student on the Lead Punch by one of Ted Wongs students. She points out how Bruce Lee "abandoned" Wing Chun, using his reference to traditional Chinese Kung Fu in a letter to GM Cheung. Bruce describes traditional Chinese Kung Fu as being incomplete and I believe this statement may have been true in one sense (where Bruce was at the time in his training). I believe Bruce, like most martial arts students, was looking for the "moves" to do everything. When in essense, those who truly study martial arts to an advanced level realize the "moves" from a system provide the foundation for "your own moves". I believe that Bruce would later understand this from his own maturation process.

I have met those who knew Bruce. Wing Chun was his core and he maintained that Jeet Kune Do was this finding of one's self, that is was not a style or a system. Wing Chun is a proven system. The truth was that Bruce, even though he did not complete the Wing Chun system, had great Sihings and enough insight that he did what we should all be doing - moving in a direction of freedom. Not to imitate but to create. I know that many Wing Chun lineages speak in the same terms as Bruce about Wing Chun. Maybe her allegations that Jeet Kune Do was so different from Wing Chun are based on her experiences with Wing Chun people who did not understand or express those philosophies.

What starts out as Wing Chun should be the foundation that evolves into your own Kung Fu ("Jeet Kune do") with Wing Chun concepts. The system starts you out, but the system should not become your ball and chain. Many styles teach the system without allowing the student to build on the system. If one wants to use joint locks and high kicks, this is ok. However, this is not Wing Chun. It is fine as your own Kung Fu. We must make this distinction.

Wing Chun is a system where by many can become better than others studying much longer in a fight. However, like anything else, this ability can make some very pompous and arrogant. This is why I believe that Kung Fu is not all about fighting. It is great to have the skill, but better to build upon being a great person in society with high character. The great martial artist has the ability to face the challenges others run from.

Becoming a Sifu is using your experiences to share with your students, not to take your interpretation and mold them into it. Like being a parent, you can only hope to instill values and the true concepts of the system. How they use it is up to them, but they will see in the results. The beauty of Wing Chun is that it does not really care about method, as the Kung fu is the result.

Teaching is not for everyone. However, what is the value of learning something and not sharing it? Believe me, you are correct in seeing how much you learn when showing others. Especially, if you find that your explanations are well founded and clear. That you are not saying things like "this is the way Sifu showed me", but have good understanding. The process of learning Kung Fu is not the same for all.

BFLesley

03-03-2006, 12:21 PM

Lindley,
So very well stated. I literally could not have said it better myself. :D
Peace to all,
BF Lesley

grashoper

03-03-2006, 01:32 PM

Thanks for your reply. I am glad to see that there are others that feel the same as I do. My daughter who is 8 has started to train in Wing Chun to help build up her self confidence and she loves it. I have gotten with her Sifu, which is my Sihing, and discussed her training. I work with her at home to try to work on some of the details and I really enjoy working with her and sharing my knowledge. I can see how the Sifu's I talk with love to share this art. I can not wait to see how far my daughter can go and learn to apply what she is learning to her life.

A wise man always keeps an open mind.

shammy

03-03-2006, 02:21 PM

What starts out as Wing Chun should be the foundation that evolves into your own Kung Fu ("Jeet Kune do") with Wing Chun concepts. The system starts you out, but the system should not become your ball and chain. Many styles teach the system without allowing the student to build on the system.

It sounds a lot like my Sifu, Dana Wong, who although he was with GM Cheung for a long long time, had WC background from the WSL lineage and others while growing up in Boston. He often said to us that WC was about understanding principles and that what you learned from them was more important than the "techniques". He would say that the "techniques" would come out by themselves, depending on one's personality, body style, athleticism and natural abilities, and other things that an individual would bring to their training. He would encourage us to find our own ways to resolve a situation once we were in a position to do so. He would say that WC was a vehicle to get you an advantage, whether by positioning, or from the energy received at a contact point, or whatever. But once you got that opening, whether you applied pressure with straight punches or a well-placed hook or uppercut or a joint manipulation was up to you. WC helped you to find an opening, to get an advantage, to put you in a good position, but then it was up to you as to how you finished it. Sifu would put forth "situations" and then give us some "what ifs" that could occur from the base situation he gave us, to encourage us to see the options and possibilities that could come from any "technique" so to speak. But then he would encourage us to explore even further, saying that there could probably be another four or five "what ifs" that could happen if we only took some time to play with them. By doing so, he would give us a logical explanation of the whys and hows of what he gave us, but then would give us an opportunity to play with those whys and hows so that we could understand them, and more importantly, assimilate them into OUR own understanding and training, so that we would have that knowledge to do with, what we would.

Becoming a Sifu is using your experiences to share with your students, not to take your interpretation and mold them into it. Like being a parent, you can only hope to instill values and the true concepts of the system. How they use it is up to them, but they will see in the results. The beauty of Wing Chun is that it does not really care about method, as the Kung fu is the result.

This is exactly, I believe, is what made my Sifu such a popular person here in Australia, because he is so willing to share his experiences and understanding with us, his students. He really DOES want his students to become better than him. He often would say that he started his "serious" training too late in life to become the best , but he could still be the best that he could be, from THAT day on in his life. And that's what he also tries to instill in us, to become the best that we can be, from wherever we are at any stage in our lives. He wants us to become better than him, because he said, then people would remember him as a good teacher and one who cared about his students. Sifu Wong has had his share of "real" experiences in his life, but he doesn't use them, I guess, to get people to come and train with him. He has always just tried to put forth logical reasons for what he's teaching, and if one can see the logic, then one can make decisions for oneself. If the logic is flawed, or if someone can present him with a better way to deal with something, he is also humble enough to say "I can see that" and will be the first to want to explore that concept to add to his own knowledge.

Teaching is not for everyone. However, what is the value of learning something and not sharing it?

Again, you hit the nail right on the head. Sifu would say that his WC knowledge was like money; you can't take it with you when you go. Plus he would say that one always got MORE from things, when one gave. Too often, he would say, a lot of WC instructors and contemporaries of his would hold their knowledge, even from each other and not share, for fear of one getting one up on another, much to the detriment of their students and to the WC system as a whole. He believed that to be one of the major reasons for so many factions in the WC family today. It is good to see things like this discussion on a forum like this, where hopefully practitioners and instructors can add CONSTRUCTIVELY to each other's experiences and training.

Thanks again for an encouraging and insightful contribution to this discussion.

Ultimatewingchun

03-03-2006, 07:04 PM

Seems to me that any martial art instructor (of any style - including boxing) that claims to be able to teach you how to fight for real had better have some sort of real life experience that's been significant - otherwise he's a theoretician first and foremost.

Not surprised to hear of Cus D'Amato's streetfighting experience in this regard.

Always believed that this style of boxing is the most ferocious and street-ready.

william

03-04-2006, 03:08 AM

Hi all,

Really good to read the varied posts.

I have to agree with Victor though.

He sums up my point in the first post.

I am looking to be able to do my best if the **** hit the fan for real. Not just to become very good at the ART of wing chun. Therefore I choose to train with a Wing Chun teacher with experience.

I am lucky that my teacher possesses a good balance of skill, ability to teach and experience.

Still leaves the conundrum, that if you are proficient enough in the system, should you teach without ever having any experience in the world of real combat, or should I say prohibiting an attempted assault.

As this is a quality I look for in a martial arts teacher. I feel I would probably refrain from teaching, if I did not possess this quality.

W

Doug H

03-04-2006, 04:22 AM

My advice to anyone unsure of how effective Wing Chun can be is to spar. rules that might have been set in stone soon vanish when faced with an opponent who can move in balance, present fake attacks, attacks all gates and has good timing.
For instance the common mistake of trying to chain punch an opponent to submission as soon as they touch you is complete rubbish if your opponent is presenting a trap for you, a hole if you like that takes advantage of your reflexive reactions. good footwork and taking angles gets you out of this sort of mess.
you might want to first try chi sau whilst moving about your opponent trying to take his or her balance instead of being in a fixed position that some families adopt. then take it a stage further and very slowly attack using much more hip and shoulder work for throws, punches, kicks and locks. if you do this one step at a time you soon learn how exposed you are after making an attack, check you angle, can you be knee struck in the family jewels, can you be swept of you feet or side kicked etc? develop and strategy and then you can speed it up bit by bit.
good luck.

BFLesley

03-04-2006, 06:20 AM

William, Ultimate,
Respectfully submitted:
Do either of you plan on going on to be "Sifu" (if you are allready I mean no disrespect)? And if so, hypethetically let's say neither of you have had that much experience, using W.C. in street fights. So how do you plan on going about getting the experience to truly test the reality of your Kung Fu? And are you willing to put your life on the line in a fight, to gain the really hard core experience, et al, multiple armed opponents, singular armed opponent, and so forth? And if your not willing to seek that out and experience it, then your neither one going to make a very good Sifu, in YOUR own words, you won't be able to teach effectively without the expereince. Your only going to wait for life's battles to come to you? Thats taking a crap shoot no? Unless you secretly plan on hanging out in the wrong places, the wrong neighborhoods and so forth, hoping someone will start some shiite with ya? Then in that case your back to my first thought of actually instigating something. So how do you plan on gaining YOUR experience so you can be the best Sifu possible?
I will state that for the most part I see your point and agree somewhat in theory, but, I do not feel that the lack of actual street combat experience makes a Sifu less qualified to teach W.C. :rolleyes:
Kindest Regards,
BF Lesley

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 06:51 AM

Hello,

No matter what is said some here will retain their viewpoint irregardless. While I would agree that real life experience is helpful I am not sure it should ever be the defining quality.

Lets compare two different perspectives as regards real actual combat.

The US Military does drills and trains and yet seem to do okay when actually engaged in battle. Although todays discipline in the military or lack of it is shocking to me personaly. I could not even fathom refusing an order from my superior. Yet, still they do fine once engaged in battle, even without direct combat experience.

The Russian Military, when there was a Russia :), actually tested and used live fire and chemical agents on their people during excercises. As a matter of fact they also subjected civilians to nuclear testing in order to observe the effects. Did their use of real checmical agents and such, in which a good portion of their people actually DIED during excerices make them a better fighting force? Did their subjection to nuclear fallout give them a better understanding of such things than their American counterparts?

As a matter of fact, someone who has been in actual military combat is not always an ideal instructor, although many tout this experience as some sort of qualification. The needs of actual combat are quite different than those of self defense. Techniques geared for soldiers do not apply to the needs of civilians.

Now if we are talking about the AVERAGE person and their needs for self protection then IMHO, the ideal instructor would not only have the knowledge and skills of his/her chosen art, but they would have the ability to pass that knowledge onto others. They would also, idealy, have some knowledge of first aide and the legal implications of using their art on the street.

Lets be honest, most NORMAL people will be quite happy to never need to use their art in the first place. And, given todays criminal element, there is little one can train for as regards real fights. After all, most reall street encounters will be surprise attacks and often involve weapons and multiple opponents. So all the arguing about this and that don't really stack up to reality. I myself would be cautious of training with someone who pointed to their "real life" encounters as some sort of validity of their method or approach. I would wonder if I was training with some sort of psycho who seeks violence as a means of proving themselves. I would wonder if such a person had a low self image and perhaps would require me to seek out confrontation as well.

The other thing is that no one knows how they will react to a given situation until they are in it, period. No matter how much you've trained you really can't say how you'll react until the sh** hits the fan. And just because your instructor was in 1 million death matches and only lost once ;) is no guarantee that you will be able to apply "their skills" as your own no matter how much training you have under them.

ghostofwingchun

03-04-2006, 06:58 AM

Hi Ghost. Hope you don't mind me popping in for a moment.

That's a leap. While participants may "wish" to behave safely, I don't presume it's inherently true that they do. You'd also likely find a fair number of participants that have indeed been victimized in some manner.

You may be right . . . that many victims take course . . . I am only saying that in taking course in first place they are taking extra step in preparation and awareness . . . defending themselves is now in forefront of mind . . . being if forefront they will behave accordingly. . . not take chances since are more aware of chances they are taking . . . sort of like person who takes voluntary firearm safety class . . . this shows they have firearm safeety on mind . . . while class will give good info to them . . . most important is that first step of making firearm safety a priority . . . so it would not be surprising that they have less firearm accidents.

I would opt for the person who could most help me to improve. My needs and what is most helpful may change over time. One's "fencing" may even prosper thanks to someone or something unrelated to fencing on the surface.

I am saying that those not interested in fighting do not need to be concerned with their teacher's experience in that area . . . just because some teacher has fighting experience does not mean he can not also deal with other aspects of wc . . . or that one person can have more than one wc instructor . . . I am agreeing with you one hundred percent the goal is to find instructor that can help us improve . . . that is what we are talking about . . . if my goal in wc is to be very good fighter . . . and please understand I am not saying this should be true for all . . . then I want instructor that can help me improve in that area . . . and all I am saying is some one can not help me improve in an area that they do not have skill or ability in that area . . . for me this is common sense . . . how can some one teach or coach me in area they do not know?

That's an interesting comment. Would you mind expounding on it?

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

I am saying that concept is not primary . . . if we look at any martial art including wc . . . technique is primary . . . our skill is in how well we can perform our techniques . . . concepts and attributes are there to help us perform our technique . . . concept is idea to help us make techniques work . . . attributes are qualites that go into making techniques work . . . attributes and concepts are useful only in how they can help us make our techniques work . . . so in heirarchy of things going into skill technique is above concept or attribute . . . this is why I say technique is primary and concept secondary. Does this make sense to you?

Thanks,

Ghost

william

03-04-2006, 07:28 AM

This is proving an interesting discussion.

Dave, you make some good points. After reading your post it makes me think that, as you say, in this day and age the main reason to practice Wing Chun is for fun, as that one time in the street may never happen. And to spend your life training for something that may never happen does perhaps seem like a waste of time. But to spend your life training in something you love is perhaps one of the best things you can do.

I guess it is a question of what you use it for. I think as a function of the many replies my opinion is changing.

Perhaps one of the best things Wing Chun will give is confidence. Their may be very little chance of experiencing real life street violence, but I guess every one has experienced, psychological/dominance issues from others (bullying, threats, big guys walking round like they own the place) and having reached a high level in Wing Chun will give the confidence to feel unthreatened by others, thus giving you a chance to live a life where fear or lack of self confidence is less apparent.

W

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 07:29 AM

I am saying that those not interested in fighting do not need to be concerned with their teacher's experience in that area . . . just because some teacher has fighting experience does not mean he can not also deal with other aspects of wc . . . or that one person can have more than one wc instructor . . . I am agreeing with you one hundred percent the goal is to find instructor that can help us improve . . . that is what we are talking about . . . if my goal in wc is to be very good fighter . . . and please understand I am not saying this should be true for all . . . then I want instructor that can help me improve in that area . . . and all I am saying is some one can not help me improve in an area that they do not have skill or ability in that area . . . for me this is common sense . . . how can some one teach or coach me in area they do not know?

Thanks,

Ghost

Hello Ghost,

Perhaps we should define what you mean by Fighting or Good Fighter. Are you referring to someone good in the ring or on the street? If you are referring to the street then I would question your motives. Do you want to engage in real fights? If so then perhaps your true motivation should be re-examined.

If you are referring to the ring then I would agree that to be a good ring fighter you should train with someone with experience in that arena.

The academic world is full of people who can teach who do not necessarily have the actual experience in their subject but who prodice excellent students. How many physics teachers are able to produce excellent physicists without having direct experience working in that field?

ghostofwingchun

03-04-2006, 07:45 AM

Hello Ghost,

Perhaps we should define what you mean by Fighting or Good Fighter. Are you referring to someone good in the ring or on the street? If you are referring to the street then I would question your motives. Do you want to engage in real fights? If so then perhaps your true motivation should be re-examined.

If you are referring to the ring then I would agree that to be a good ring fighter you should train with someone with experience in that arena.

The academic world is full of people who can teach who do not necessarily have the actual experience in their subject but who prodice excellent students. How many physics teachers are able to produce excellent physicists without having direct experience working in that field?

What is good basketball player . . . do we need to ask such a question . . . is it some one great on playground . . . or someone good in stadium court . . . it is someone that have basketbal skills . . . I am thinking that level of these skills is what makes basketball player good . . . they must adapt game for streetball . . . which can have lots more fouls . . . lol . . . or for college ball . . . a good boxer can box in ring or can use it in street . . . just need to adapt game . . . or to go back to fencing example . . . a good fencer is judged by how well he can handle sword and deal with foe's sword. Look . . . if I take fencing . . . I do not want to go out and slay people . . . I am not blood thirsty . . . but I may want to really fence . . . if not then this is not issue . . . but if I want to actually be able to fence well . . . and in old days I may need those skills if challenged too . . . yes piste is not back alley . . . then I need fencing abilities . . . sword handling ability will serve me in either case . . . so what I am getting at is I am thinking that skill or ability is what fighter is after . . . academic pursuit is not the same as physical pursuit . . . can you name one great coach in sport that has not played sport at decent level? You see this is my point?

Thanks,

Ghost

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 07:56 AM

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 08:08 AM

Hello William,

If the replies envoke thought then that is a good thing. No one here has a monopoly on the truth and each person needs to evaluate their own needs and reasons for training.

When I first started Wing Chun I was in the US Army. I found the training to be quite effective. At one point I actually went out and sought confrontations, I was a bit younger and not as wise as I am now :D. However, this was dring a different time and I would not do the same thing today nor would I encourage others to do so.

I think that the average person today trains more for the enjoyment and confidence that if they do need to use the art they will be better prepared to do so. I do not think the average person is going to have either the time nor inclination to train to prepare for ring combat nor wish to seek out people on the street to test their skills. Rather they will train for pleasure and the mental and physical aspects which will give them a better chance of surviving an actual encounter. Studies abound showing that the mental impact of attacks is often far greater and last longer than the physical effects.

Anyones training needs to address the mental consequences and legal implications in addition to the physical. Also, they must be able to apply skills in accordance with thier own body type and physical ability.

If you are lucky enough to find someone with real life experience to train you and is not an abnormal personality type, then by all means take advantage of the opportunity. However don't make that your overlying concern as to their worthiness to teach. Keep in mind that many of those with real life street fights, such as the late WSL, would not be able to do the same thing in todays legal atmosphere without going to prison. So, is someones real life experience the all determining factor of training? Unless you are seeking out underground cage fights or wondering the streets as some sort of vigilante, is such experience really needed?

chisauking

03-04-2006, 08:21 AM

Why do some find calm in chaos?

Why do some freeze in a confrontation, no matter how slight? Even if some are a victim of a miner road rage incident, they are deeply distressed. Why is that so?

Why is it that some can control their emotional state of mind?

In the end, is it possible to find this calmness within a fight, without actual fighting experiences?

Only you can answer that (truthfully)

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 08:23 AM

Ultimatewingchun

03-04-2006, 08:30 AM

"William, Ultimate,
Respectfully submitted:
Do either of you plan on going on to be "Sifu" (if you are already I mean no disrespect)? And if so, hypothetically let's say neither of you have had that much experience, using W.C. in street fights. So how do you plan on going about getting the experience to truly test the reality of your Kung Fu? And are you willing to put your life on the line in a fight, to gain the really hard core experience, et al, multiple armed opponents, singular armed opponent, and so forth?" (BF Lesley)

***ACTUALLY...I HAD my first streetfight using wing chun in 1978 - three years after I began wing chun...started teaching offically in 1984...and in fact...had another streetfight just five months later (against 2 guys)...and twice more times since then - once in the 90's and again in October, 2000.

But I didn't go looking for fights - they came to me.

And in fact I don't believe anyone should go looking for trouble...hard full contact spontaneous sparring with a number of quality opponents really trying to blast you is enough to qualify as "significant experience" in my book.

And if a real fight or self defense situation comes - learn from it thoroughly and convey that experience in as much detail as you can to your students.

chisauking

03-04-2006, 08:42 AM

Dave sez: Seems like a good argument for the "mental" aspects of training.

Bang on, Dave.

That's the point I'm getting at -- although I like people to think for themselves I don't word things actually.

IME, the best fighters are calm, cool, collective, and totally ruthless. The question is, how they got to this stage of thinking?

On a personal basis, I think people without actual fighting experiences can still make excellent teachers if they have a deep understanding of the style that they are teaching, and pocess good communication skills......but only on the mechanical aspects of that style.

I don't think it's possible to aquire the mental aspect of real combat if one has not experienced it for themselves, so in this respect you can't teach someone you haven't felt yourself.

However, without the mental aspect, you have left out a large part of combat. A bit like a colt 45 without the firing mechansim.

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 08:54 AM

On a personal basis, I think people without actual fighting experiences can still make excellent teachers if they have a deep understanding of the style that they are teaching, and pocess good communication skills......but only on the mechanical aspects of that style.

I don't think it's possible to aquire the mental aspect of real combat if one has not experienced it for themselves, so in this respect you can't teach someone you haven't felt yourself.

However, without the mental aspect, you have left out a large part of combat. A bit like a colt 45 without the firing mechansim.

Hi Chisuaking,

Herein lies the paradox of claiming reality training. Is ring combat sufficient to prepare one mentally for actual street encounters? It can go a long way and is one of the reasons I actually respect boxers, although I may not sound like it. Boxers are or can be dangerous because they are used to getting hit. Being able to accept blows and absorb them and keep coming back is not so much physical as it is mental. While many people may be able to take a blow physically, the thought of accepting it is what one must overcome. The willingness to accept that you will get hit, possibly injured yet still come back and fight on. This is hard to achieve consistently.

There are plenty of methods to help prepare one, visualization etc. But the bottom line is that no matter your training approach, ring, forms or video :rolleyes: until you actuall are in a real life situation you can't say how you would really react. You can speculate and hope that your training has prepared you, but no one really knows until the situation arises.

You could be the worlds greatest UFC\Cage champ and yet still not survive on the street. There are plenty of case studies showing people absording punishment which should have killed them and not only surving but killing their attackers. Many of these had no formal training and their physical condition was hardly optimum.

Some of us are just too stupid or stubborn to give up :eek: no matter how much or how little we train.

chisauking

03-04-2006, 09:10 AM

Anyone can fight, Dave. The question is, to what level?

There are many marital aids around, but I would argue nothing feels like the real thing. Sparring, no matter what form, is the emulation of fighting, but nothing, with the exception of fighting, will be more truthful than fighting.

It's my own believe that if you want to maximise your fighting ability, the mental aspect is essential.

If I had the choice to choose between a fighter or a scholor for a teacher, I would choose both.

The sword, as they say, is mightier with the pen

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 09:30 AM

There are many marital aids around, but I would argue nothing feels like the real thing. Sparring, no matter what form, is the emulation of fighting, but nothing, with the exception of fighting, will be more truthful than fighting.

It's my own believe that if you want to maximise your fighting ability, the mental aspect is essential.

Hello Chisauking,

I would tend to agree with you that nothing duplicates fighting except fighting. I also agree that the mental aspect is vital.

I guess the only thing one can do is prepare as best they can with the resources at hand. Hopefully never have to utilize any of the training for real.

ghostofwingchun

03-04-2006, 09:41 AM

Hello Ghost,

I am not a big sports fan, don't even watch the Super Bowl, so no I can not name anyone who is a great coach wihtout playing the game. But I would ask you to name 5-10 great athletes who were able to play their game at the elite level and yet were still able to teach others how to do the same.

Seems to me you are focused more on the ring than the street. Given your replies, I doubt that you are seeking to go out and confront others. Many who train with that perspective are living in a fantasy world where they train and go out and slay the dragons of the world.

Is street experience a benefit, yes, but only to an extent. A thorough understanding of the law and legal conequences would be more applicable. Given that each situation is different just because your instructor was able to apply his her skills on the street does not mean you could do the same thing, even in almost the exact situation.

If you want to focus on street defense then you would probably be better off attending shortened programs which focus on specifics rather than train in any traditional art. I think that what you will find is that these course will stress mental aspects even more than physical skills, although the physical skills are still needed.

Please excuse long post . . . I am just trying to be clear.

I am not focused on sport . . . I am talking about those interested in fighting . . . people like to separate out sport and street . . . as though these are two altogether quite different things . . . like apples and oranges . . . I am saying that they may be two different things but that they both use the same skills and abilities . . . such skill and ability will allow person to do either . . . boxing skill for instance is boxing skill . . . works in ring or street . . . just like wc skill is wc skill . . . or any martial art skill is martial art skill . . . those skills and abilities will be put to use in sport in the ring or on street. . . street or sport will only determine how we use those skills and abilites. . . if we do not have those skills and abilites in first place how to use them will not matter. . . if person can not box they can not use on street for self defense or ring in sport. So if person wants to become good boxer for instance . . . for ring or self defense . . . then they need good boxing trainer . . . one important qualification for trainer is that they have or had some proficiency as boxer . . . so that they can understand game and what is needed . . . I am merely saying that person can not coach or teach physical activity that involves physical skills if person not have proficiency in activity himself . . . sport is such a physical acitivity so I use it as example. I am not saying that ability to do sport well means person can teach it well . . . just that it is a necessary ingredient . . . being able to read does not mean person is good reading teacher . . . but can not teach reading with out it being reader . . . lol. Good coaches or trainers do not need to be champions . . . but they need to have had experience doing sport or activity . . . they are always people that have had some decent level of skill themself . . . evidence is overwhelming is this regard. I hope this helps explain my view better . . . if your view is different that is OK . . . it is good to exchange ideas.

Thanks,

Ghost

planetwc

03-04-2006, 02:38 PM

Because a lot of people in WC are too ****y and arrogant. And those that have only surface exposure to the art don't see how it could possibly be effective. They want to match strength with strength, etc. etc.

I have been studying Wing Chun for 2 years now and I just wanted to ask a question. I have been to alot of different forums and it seems that most other systems do not like Wing Chun. I was just wonder as to why this is.

shammy

03-04-2006, 05:04 PM

Lots of opinions on both sides of this debate, with merits to be had on both sides. One thing that might be taken into consideration is the student of this person who has ALL of this "real" experience. Even if the teacher is possessed of many years of "street" training, with hundreds of documented battles, of which of course, he's never lost, if the student doesn't have the mental and physical abilities and capabilities to go where this teacher wants him to, will it be worth having such a teacher in the first place? Also some have already debated the merits of looking for such an "invincible" instructor to learn from, and if that is the main, or worse, the only criteria, that one is sought after, then the reasons of the student looking must be looked at as possibly suspect, as to why it is such a necessity that the teacher be such. I would think that the most important thing a student might ask of his or her instructor is the ability to convey their knowledge and information to the student such that he or she can functionalise it for him or herself. As Dave and others have said already, keep it all in perspective, a bullet renders all ineffective. Sparring and other hard training sessions are good to balance out one's sessions of refinement when working on forms, or chi sau, or whatever. Like all of the rest of life, if there's no yin and yang here, then something's out of whack, and that usually means that the desired result may not be forthcoming.

chisauking

03-04-2006, 06:41 PM

Ultimatewingchun

03-04-2006, 07:53 PM

"As I have said before, it's mental. Now do you understand why I always advocate moving beyond the safety zone in sparring? What mental duress would one expose oneself to knowing a big birdcage would proctect them in the event of mistakes?" (csk)

***HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE ROUGH-TOUGH TALK...and the insulting references...and nothing to back it up.

Why don't you stop trolling and start telling us in detail (or show us a video)...or something...about how you...chisauking..."MOVE BEYOND THE SAFETY ZONE WHEN YOU SPAR?"

For instance: Do you use full power and full speed...bare-knuckled punching...to the head and face of your sparring partner?

And if so: how often?

And if so: how do your sparring partners feel about that?

And how often does this result in black eyes, bloody mouths, loose teeth, ringing ears, fingers in the eyes, damaged cheek bones, etc?

But I'm betting that your response to this is going to be quite a dance :rolleyes: :cool: :D

....as usual.

chisauking

03-04-2006, 08:27 PM

Sihing73

03-04-2006, 09:08 PM

Hello,

So far we have been having a fairly good discussion. While not everyone agrees, we have been able to keep things on an adult level.

Please refrain from making personal attacks on one another. Remember, everyone has the right to their own view and the respect of their position no matter whether you think it is right or wrong.

stricker

03-04-2006, 09:59 PM

quick post 50 seconds left...

id never learn from a teacher who hadnt a) fought in the street or b) in the ring

ghostofwingchun

03-05-2006, 07:33 AM

Ghost sez: I am not focused on sport . . . I am talking about those interested in fighting . . . people like to separate out sport and street . . . as though these are two altogether quite different things . . . like apples and oranges

Ho, ho, ho, Ghost, are you being serious?

Ever tried walking in a streight line? Easy, euh?

Try doing the same thing 300 feet high.

What's the matter with you, chicken****! (<humour)

Although, in principle, it's exactly the same thing, it's rather more difficult walking
in a streight line 300 feet high on a slim ledge, is not it?

The same applies in sport and street. Although the skill used is the same, it's the consequence of failure that plays on your mind. If you go of line or stumble whilst walking in a streight line on the ground, nothing much will happen. Do the same mistake 300 feet high, and you are hamburger.

Fight or spar with someone in a controlled environment, the fight will be stopped if it gets out of hand. Fight someone on the street, and the consequence of losing could be your life.

Do you gamble? Bet 2 dollars on blackjack and I bet you couldn't careless whether you win or not. Bet 10,000 dollars on the same game and I can assure you that even before the crouper (SP?) starts to deal the cards, your heart will be thumping uncontrollably. No difference in the game, buddy, but the stakes are a lot higher. So, as you can see, comparing fighting with a sport is very foolish.

As I have said before, it's mental. Now do you understand why I always advocate moving beyond the safety zone in sparring? What mental duress would one expose oneself to knowing a big birdcage would proctect them in the event of mistakes?

You raise interesting issue . . . issue of nerves . . . and I am thinking you are right . . . that fight on street may involve much stress to nerves . . . but then maybe not too . . . some times fight happens so fast do not have time to think about it . . . just act . . . also I will tell you that sparring with lots of really good fighters does wonders for a persons confidence and ability to handle stress . . . for example after you have rolled with very good BJJ fighters like black brown or purple and gotten good yourself say blue or purple do you think hitting ground on street wiht untrained guy will make you nervous . . . lol . . . it will be like taking candy from baby . . . do you think if you have sparred so that you have become very good boxer that having chump on street take a swing will make you nervous . . . lol . . . it will be walk in park . . . one thing about fighting and sparring is that you become accustomed to violence and you become confident in your ability to handle it . . . not false confidence but confidence based on past performance . . . now if you practice lots of chi sao in kwoon . . . you do forms . . . you pratice one steps . . . how does this prepare you for stress . . . since you have never been under stress? And you have never put your game together . . . which takes lots of experience. To become good fighter person has to fight a lot . . . street is one option . . . but this is problematic since it is illegal . . . weapons can be involved . . . and so on . . . how much practice can person get . . . in street I keep getting arm broken but in sport they let me tap so I can try again . . . what is quality of opponent . . . and so on. I may want to be good sword fighter too . . . but in today's world I can not just go out into street and get into sword fights . . . lol. Sport and sport training permit fighter to get loads of experience . . . to develop their skills and abilities . . . against top notch fighters . . . legally . . . while minimizing injuries. . . so that they can continue to train more. And NHB events will put lots of mental stress on person too . . . facing quite skilled and trained fighter . . . in front of audience.

I am sorry . . . but I have to say that I really do not understand what you are advocating to train fighter . . . even in old days wc fighters not go out into street and get into fights as training . . . they had challenge matches for most part . . . sure there are some instances of having to fight in street . . . but they were able to handle these because they had already fought loads of challenge matches and developed skills. So what is difference between challenge matches of past and sport challenge of today? Well . . . I will tell you . . . fighter of today is in much better shape . . . much better prepared . . . much better fighter. What does this add up to? You do the math . . . lol.

Thanks,

Ghost

Ultimatewingchun

03-05-2006, 10:27 AM

Victor sez: For instance: Do you use full power and full speed... bare-knuckled punching...to the head and face of your sparring partner?

I don't, Vic. It's enough that I control my opponents well. That's not to say my opponents don't. Just like my sifu, when I spar with people, I only do just enough to beat them, which is in keeping with the wing chun principles of not wasting energy or motion. If my opponent is in 2nd gear, I will shift to 3rd. If they shift to 3rd, I will move up to 4th. Only if my opponents try to do me serious injury do I use full force. For example, once a guy tried to knock me out in a sparring session, after smashing another guy's nose when sparring with him, so i decided not to play with this idiot. To cut a long story short, I dislocated this shoulder. Off course, people thats better than me has also shown me the same courtesy -- and that's how it should be...But that's not to say the option isn't there to seriously hurt someone. Indeed, on many sparring sessions I have ended black and blue, or with blood running down my trousers from taking kicks to my shins. Even as I write, my end knuckle is broken as a result of sparring.

The thing to remember is, when I spar with someone, I don't dictate to them what they can or can't do, it's up to them since I let them use full power, wearing no gloves. But you will find that most people that's any good will go on a progress level to find your level. Only people with low skill level will go full out on the onset, but they are usually quite easy to control. A few power shoots here and there normally stops them in their tracks, and suddenly a new found respect is shown you.

As to the reference of BIRDCAGE, I only say that to wind you up! OK, OK, I'd my fun. I promise not to use that term again if it makes you so angry (if I remember)

***YEAH, GOOD IDEA...remembering that the birdcage reference is out of place. That's right. But in case you manage to forget - I'll be sure to always remind you that bareknuckled sparring that's only meant to "control" (but not really hit with serious speed and power)...is less realistic than using protective gear and going all out.

That said: what you describe above is a good way to spar - AS LONG AS IT'S NOT THE ONLY SPARRING THAT'S DONE, imo.

It's good because the lack of any kind of glove, or headgear, or shin pads, etc. does provide a more realistic feel and a more realistic sense of exact distance - as well as a more realistic sense of what one can do to stop an opponent (ie.- your reference to tan da on a different thread)...that might not work completely if he can survive the shot and keep coming because his headgear w/facecage prevented a serious blow to actually contact an eye, or a nose, etc.

But what I've just described - within the context of how you spar - can only be done with full realism when some knucklehead decides to go all out and tries to hurt the other guy.

SO MY POINT IS THIS:

HOW OFTEN CAN THIS BE DONE BEFORE INJURIES JUST SHUT THE WHOLE PROCESS DOWN?

Answer: Not very often at all.

And why is that a problem (assuming that you don't ALSO engage in full power, full speed sparring with gear)?

Because it's the FREQUENCY of the spontaneous, full power, full speed sparring against a quality opponent that is the single biggest factor in truly being fight ready (as in: street ready)...that's why!

For example, you mentioned that "once" a guy tried to knock you out in a sparring session - and you took care of the situation. Fine.

But if the goal is that MENTAL PREPARATION that you've been talking about - than once is not nearly enough. (Or twice. Or three times.) Now I don't exactly know many times you've been in this situation - but based on your "once" comment it can't be too many times.

But if you were to spar at least once virtually every week wherein someone actually does try to land a bunch of punches (or kicks) that could potentially knock you out or knock you down - because done with full power to the head, face, body, legs...

than you might begin to understand why the trade off is worth the effort (using gear that slightly skews the outcome) - but going all out vs. no gear and only going for control and hitting "just hard enough" to stop them. A world of difference. The frequency of the shockwaves (and the pain) - even if not totally disabling pain...will drive up one's mental/psychological threshold to dealing with full power and all out aggression to a higher level.

It's the old story: the more we do something - the better we get at it - and the better we get at staying calm under fire.

That said, I believe in doing all of the above: working from light head/face/body contact totally bareknuckled (and with low power kicks)...to all out full power with total gear. Even if the 100% all out power and speed only lasts a minute or so within any one given sparring match. And then you get to that point again with another person 10 minutes later. And then perhaps again with someone else after that. But all done within one class.

So I believe that the best sparring classes go through the whole gamut - gradually building up to the all out sparring with gear.

BECAUSE IT COVERS ALL THE BASES WITHIN THE SAME TIME FRAME OF ONE CLASS.

And therefore you walk away with a very concentrated overall view to sparring (including trying to mentally analyze what happened and why)...that comes from a near total picture...whereas just doing one or the other type of sparring is very partial.

(The exception to this being, of course, those rare occasions wherein it's totally bareknuckled and no protection and then some knucklehead decides to try and take your head off).

Phil Redmond

03-05-2006, 12:00 PM

You covered that very well Victor. We didn't use live ammo in training for Vietnam. In knife fighting class you don't use live blades at first. Is that wimpy or what? ;)
How do you train a beginner. Do you go bare knuckle and see who's still standing?
The main thing is injuries. You get hurt in class now you have to wait to heal. When peole get to a certain level and they want to go all out then go for it. Still NO amount of training is as realistic as the real thing and will not guarantee a win. Some people are willing to take a life. That's something you have to decide you can do or not. http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1141382595/Evil_Fight
Phil

chisauking

03-05-2006, 05:51 PM

Vic sez: ***YEAH, GOOD IDEA...remembering that the birdcage reference is out of place. That's right. But in case you manage to forget - I'll be sure to always remind you that bareknuckled sparring that's only meant to "control" (but not really hit with serious speed and power)...is less realistic than using protective gear and going all out.

I will just quickly cover some points quickly because are are going full circle now, and the subject is done to death. We will just have to agree to disagree.

2) I do hit with serious speed and power (at least I like to think so) when, and only when, it's called for in sparring. Ultimately, sparring is about learning, not bashing someone senseless to feed your ego.

3) Sparring bare-knuckled is far more realistic for me simply because both parties has the option to fire full power at any time, and all the blows are not cushioned by padding. It's also subconsciously clear that you don't have room for mistakes.

4) I leave the ruthless mode out of sparring. This part of me can only be triggered in a real fight, when I'm emotionally detached.

5) If you fight enough, you will treat most fight as another sparring session.

6) Sparring bare-knuckled using full power is not as dangerous as some may think if you are good at taking your opponent's space. This form of sparring is very staccato, whereas sparring with helmets and gloves is very much prolonged exchange of blows. It may not hurt as much as bare knuckle, but the exchange are greater and last longer and the shots to the head causes a greater juddering effect to the brain.

Charlie, Hotel, India, Sierra, Alpha, Uniform, Kilo, India, November, Golf over and out.

chisauking

03-05-2006, 06:19 PM

Oops, I forgot about Ghost!

Ghost sez: So what is difference between challenge matches of past and sport challenge of today? Well . . . I will tell you . . . fighter of today is in much better shape . . . much better prepared . . . much better fighter. What does this add up to? You do the math . . . lol.

Are you saying someone who fights as part of a game \ sport will be bettered trained and prepared than someone who actually depends on it for their very survival?

Put a group of people through a test on wing chun. The results may or may not be good, depending on the group's interest in wing chun. Now put another group of people back into the same test, but only this time warn them that if they don't exceed a certain %, they will have their knee-caps blown away.

Which group of people do you think will do better? Or, more precisely, which group of people would do their absolute best?

It is no different in fighting -- or anything else for that matter. An individual will always try his absolute best when his life is on the line.

Ghost, try to learn a little about the history of Chinese martial arts before you get sucked in the NHB, K1, etc is invincible marketing hype. At the very least, have a go at realistic sparring to see whether there's any correlation between techniques showed on those TV shows and actual fighting.

Ultimatewingchun

03-05-2006, 07:11 PM

Indeed we are going round-and-round...but this point you keep trying to make still needs to be rebutted again:

"Sparring bare-knuckled using full power is not as dangerous as some may think if you are good at taking your opponent's space. This form of sparring is very staccato, whereas sparring with helmets and gloves is very much prolonged exchange of blows. It may not hurt as much as bare knuckle, but the exchange are greater and last longer and the shots to the head causes a greater juddering effect to the brain." (csk)

***THERE IS NO PROLONGED exchange of blows with thin gloves and headgear w/facecage, chest protector, etc...IF YOUR WING CHUN IS GOOD.

Yes...it will take more work to control the opponent because he's not in danger of catching a shot right in the eye or nose, or whatever - that might stop him right in his tracks...but if you're good - you're good. A full power punch right in the middle of the facecage with a thin lightweight glove will do almost the same thing - but without the potential broken nose.

Yes...shockwaves can be dangerous - and therefore after two or three hard shots have landed it's time to take a time out. That's all.

And when using protective gear the retaliation won't be coming because you're controlling his body - not just hitting him...if you're good.

And yes...there's always the danger of getting hit hard in the face during the bareknuckled sparring part in the "total coverage" class I described - and that might happen perhaps once or twice in each class - but then the gear goes on and you can continue.

..............................