"Functionalizing" WCK

[KPM]

I do think that Terence and Dale have legitimate points in their criticisms of much of "traditional" WCK training. I also think that sometimes they take their arguments too far, but I believe this is because that is often the only way to get people's attention and make the points sink in.

So rather than take a negative tack about how bad things are in Wing Chun, let's take a positive tack and talk about how to make WCK more "functional."

How do we make WCK more "functional" and more "realistic" without starting from scratch and "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"? How do we keep our WCK from becoming something else and straying from its roots?

I think there is lots of room for productive discussion here. Let's keep it positive and civil. This whole thread is about how WCK should evolve in our modern times. If you are a purist and don't think that WCK needs to change, that's fine. I respect your perspective. But if so, then please refrain from posting here and turning the whole thing into an argument and taking it off on various tangents.

So there it is guys. Terence? Dale? Victor? Ernie? How do we evolve and "functionalize" WCK in a positive way while still keeping it recognizably WCK?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Spar, hard, with people from different systems in a LIMITED ruleset.

[UKBBC]

start heading down the road towards JKD? If that is a precursor to modern MMA, not that bad an idea

[Gurokevin]

I think that sanjuro_ronin is on the right track. Most Chunners out there stop at Chi Sao or even Lat-Sao and believe this is enough. IMO you have to spar hard to make anything out of any art. MMA, JKD and other arts would not be anything if it weren't for sparring.

We also need to think a little bit about modifying the way we actually train to accommodate modern weapons, multiple attackers and ground fighting. Especially weapons. In our society today they are everywhere. And in my opinion the classical WC weapons are not that good. I have been training in the FMA's for 13 years now due to that fact.

[Alan Orr]

Its already been done. Thats what T is always trying to tell people about. Maybe others with see that my teacher Robert Chu was way before his time now.

I have taken his system and put it to the test over the last few years, with my guys entering all types of comps and events.

We are still doing it now. We have a pro mma show in a few weeks with 3 of my guys fighting.

I have set up a chi sao comp with hard contact to test the body power the key to control in combat. What would BJJ be without good base? Poor grappling. Its the base that makes the art work.

The feedback so far for my wing chun event is very quite. Most wing chun are brain washed into thinking that if its hard to do then its wrong.

Fighting is not easy. Time to break a sweat.

Lets see who wants to put their ideas to a set. I hate light chi sao comps, so hard hitting chi sao will be a good step up for wing chun. Control position and pressure. Testing like this, kickboxing and MMA that is the only think to wake people up.

Some many guys I meet with poor wing chun that they say will work because they will side step and redirect... dream on. Dale and T are right. It's just time for people to work on testing are they right or not.

I have had a week for work this week so I have posted more times this week that I do in a year. Maybe the timing was right to rant a bit

Wing Chun works, but not all wing chun works. Lets set the record straight.

Spar with other people that your friends or students! Wing chun teacher who only have training with less skilled studnets are not testing at all. Maybe good training but its limited.

Regards

Alan

[t_niehoff]

Spar, hard, with people from different systems in a LIMITED ruleset.


Here's the thing -- you are correct that it is realistic sparring (or realistic drills, which are snippets of sparring) is the only way to develop realistic skills.

That said, two other things need to be addressed. First, we need to appreciate that we will only "develop" those things we use regularly in realistic sparring. So, for example, if you only chain punch and front kick in your sparring, guess what you will develop? Only the chain punch and the front kick (the Caveman). If you kickbox when you spar, you will develop your kickboxing.

This is one reason I call WCK a fantasy-based MA: you see people practice all kinds of things (how to use the WCK tools) in the WCK unrealistic drills (chi sao, kiu sao,etc.) but they never do -- or will be able to do -- those things in realistic sparring as they've trained to do them. They train one thing and will end up doing another. And this is because most people don't really know from experience -- and knowledge only comes via experience -- how to use the tools of WCK in fighting. They believe that the application of the tools corresponds to the unrealistic drills/exercises (they don't) or they have some hokey theory about how to use them (which is mostly nonsense).

And so, if you don't learn how to use the tools in fighting, you won't use them in sparring, and you will not develop the ability to use them in fighting. You need that 1 (learning) - to - 1 (training) - to - 1 (realistic sparring) correspondence. Without that, you can't make much progress regardless of how much you spar.

How do you know if someone really"knows" how to use the WCK tools? There is only one way: you need to see them realistically spar and see those tools used regularly and successfully. You should see it fought before you see it taught. Otherwise, what you learn will be fantasy, what you train will be fantasy, and when you fight, you won't be able to use the tools that way.

The second thing is the quality of the sparring, both in terms of its realism (so its not just playfighting, but has genuine intensity, etc.) and in terms of the skill level of your training/sparring partners. You will only get as good as your training/sparring partners. This is true in any competitive, athletic activity.

[Knifefighter]

How do we make WCK more "functional" and more "realistic" without starting from scratch and "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"? How do we keep our WCK from becoming something else and straying from its roots?

To make a system more functional, the first requirement is to get rid of that type of thinking. A system should evolve based on functionality, not on whether or not it is "sticking to its roots". A functional system has no problem adapting things that work, although they may even change the very nature of that system.

[t_niehoff]

To make a system more functional, the first requirement is to get rid of that type of thinking. A system should evolve based on functionality, not on whether or not it is "sticking to its roots". A functional system has no problem adapting things that work, although they may even change the very nature of that system.

A very good point.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"To make a system more functional, the first requirement is to get rid of that type of thinking. A system should evolve based on functionality, not on whether or not it is "sticking to its roots". A functional system has no problem adapting things that work, although they may even change the very nature of that system." (Dale)


***CORRECT.

One of the criticisms of the vids I posted a few years ago was that they strayed too far from "basic" wing chun. That's stupid. Like any other system, wing chun is not immune to the passage of time. And with time things need to be adapted, adjusted, added to, subtracted from, etc.

As long as you're using some form of the "centerline" (or central line) principle, focusing mainly (but not exclusively) on straight line striking with your punches/kicks when in close quarters and striking is in order...work toward some form of simultaneous (or near simultaneous) blocking and striking when in close quarters...have contact reflex skills that allow for manipulation of your opponent's limbs and body structure balance when the opportunity arises...

you're using wing chun principles and concepts.

AND WHEN OTHER PRINCIPLES, CONCEPTS, STRATEGIES, AND TECHNIQUES are in order - use them.

Whether they fit the wing chun mold or not.

If it's not functional - it's not worth talking about.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To make a system more functional, the first requirement is to get rid of that type of thinking. A system should evolve based on functionality, not on whether or not it is "sticking to its roots". A functional system has no problem adapting things that work, although they may even change the very nature of that system.

You make a good point, and one that is the biggest problem in TMA, the fact that they have almost ALL strayed from their roots already.
The vast majority, if not all, of the systems of H2H combat are based on fighting and effective fighting above all, and the exceptions aside, against skilled fighters.
The moment a system stops doing and being just that, that have strayed and doing anything to bring it back is not on a smart thing to do but the responsibility of anyone doing and teaching said system.

[LoneTiger108]

How do you know if someone really"knows" how to use the WCK tools? There is only one way: you need to see them realistically spar and see those tools used regularly and successfully. You should see it fought before you see it taught. Otherwise, what you learn will be fantasy, what you train will be fantasy, and when you fight, you won't be able to use the tools that way.

I agree with your idea behind this thread t, but the more people who get hoodwinked into this 'see it to believe it' attitude will only ever suffer in the future, as this has hapened before in China (so a little birdie tells me!)

If I have to actually 'see' my teacher 'do someone up' before I believe in them, then I will automatically pass that idea on to my own students and have to 'prove' myself to them too. What a merry-go-round! A person who is Champion is the best. Everyone else is not the real deal. AND when this Champion loses his next fight all his students will leave him and he'll be a penniless beggar again!

C'mon gents, lets be honest.

I knew my teacher could take care of himself by 'feeling' him throughout my training, seeing him move in demonstrations and watching his reactions to the 'newer' students who also think and talk like you t!

Isn't it funny how all this has started.

With people questioning their 'roots' and looking for the 'staple diet' of Martial Arts, the only functional way to functionalize an already functional system is to simply train harder with good guidance...

[t_niehoff]

I agree with your idea behind this thread t, but the more people who get hoodwinked into this 'see it to believe it' attitude will only ever suffer in the future, as this has hapened before in China (so a little birdie tells me!)


Don't beleive what you are told, even if it is from some little birdie. Only believe evidence that you can see.



If I have to actually 'see' my teacher 'do someone up' before I believe in them, then I will automatically pass that idea on to my own students and have to 'prove' myself to them too. What a merry-go-round! A person who is Champion is the best. Everyone else is not the real deal. AND when this Champion loses his next fight all his students will leave him and he'll be a penniless beggar again!


This is precisely what happens in all functional martial arts -- it's not a matter of proving you are the best but that what you teach works, and they know it works because they have either done it themselves of seen others do it. Only in fantasy based martial arts do they practice things no one does or can do.



C'mon gents, lets be honest.


Performance is what keeps people honest.



I knew my teacher could take care of himself by 'feeling' him throughout my training, seeing him move in demonstrations and watching his reactions to the 'newer' students who also think and talk like you t!


You are only deluding yourself. You can only see fighting skills in fighitng, the rest is your supposition (and the supposition of people who have little to no skills themselves isn't much of a testimonial).



Isn't it funny how all this has started.

With people questioning their 'roots' and looking for the 'staple diet' of Martial Arts, the only functional way to functionalize an already functional system is to simply train harder with good guidance...

If you take a poor traiing method and train "harder", you won't get good results. The goal is to train better, to train in a way that maximizes results. TMAs don't produce good results and never have. This is precisely why we don't see any good TMA fighters today. TMAs are the most popular in the world, yet have produced almost nothing in the way of skilled fighters. And those that it has produced, have adopted modern training methods into their training. You can keep believing that everything is fine, that you guys have the "real wing chun", that you have internal power produced by your qi gong, etc. and ignoring the evidence. This is what fantasy-based guys do.

[Wu Wei Wu]

In order to be functional, modern training methods must be adopted. I am no expert, but years ago I started categorizing the areas I felt required research in order to improve my Wing Chun. I have given some examples below:

Fighting attributes - the ability to hit hard and close quickly. Looked into body mechanics, trained with some hard-hitters ; )

Mind-setting - looking at fight or flight, ways to deal with fear/stress. Studied NLP, authors such as Geoff Thompson. Simulated scenario drill training.

Ranges of Combat - have grappling coach, sparring against different stylists (mostly MMA and boxing)

Conditioning - use many boxing drills, bag work, plyo work, periodization, (conditioning is most important aspect of my training)

Wing Chun skill-set - Chi Sao, forms, footwork closing drills etc

The point is that a good Wing Chun man does not just train his Wing Chun alone.

[monji112000]

I agree with your idea behind this thread t, but the more people who get hoodwinked into this 'see it to believe it' attitude will only ever suffer in the future, as this has hapened before in China (so a little birdie tells me!)

If I have to actually 'see' my teacher 'do someone up' before I believe in them, then I will automatically pass that idea on to my own students and have to 'prove' myself to them too. What a merry-go-round! A person who is Champion is the best. Everyone else is not the real deal. AND when this Champion loses his next fight all his students will leave him and he'll be a penniless beggar again!

C'mon gents, lets be honest.

I knew my teacher could take care of himself by 'feeling' him throughout my training, seeing him move in demonstrations and watching his reactions to the 'newer' students who also think and talk like you t!

Isn't it funny how all this has started.

With people questioning their 'roots' and looking for the 'staple diet' of Martial Arts, the only functional way to functionalize an already functional system is to simply train harder with good guidance...
I think you are taking it to a extreme. People have loyalty and if someone teaches you and says do this like this. Don't do this like that, becouse this is going to happen... don't you think they should be able to show you that its going to happen? Or at least prov it to you? If the person isn't physically able to show you, then its up to you to find out on your own. That doesn't per say mean enter a local mma fight.. If someone told me to make sure fist is tight even when I train, or I will develop a bad habit. I don't need to play the whole scenario out and brake my finger... its up to you to make things functional not anyone else.

Its like saying to a BJJ teacher hey are you sure thats going to brake my arm.. sure its hurts but maybe it won't brake... Show me that arm-bar but this time for real, don't stop when he taps. Then I will know that its effective. ok lets try a d'arce or a anaconda now... :rolleyes:
Everyone has techniques they like and ones they don't. I don't really like the lop sao, but that doesn't mean I can use it. I feel more comfortable with a basic pak sao.

perfect example in chi sao I was shown a technique, and told to push to set it up. I didn't really catch the push part although I did hear him say it. ( it didn't click) SO I could not get the technique to work for a very long time. I would try it and it never worked for me. It wasn't until I was watching a judo match that it clicked. I wasn't setting it up, it won't work without the setup. He could have constantly berated me about not doing it correctly but I had to learn a more important lesson, self improvement and self reliance. We are all just talking about waving our hands and feet.. but thats all dead technique. Nobody can give you a live technique, you must posses it on your own.

[LoneTiger108]

Interetsing post there. Thanks for the insight.

I was also trying to highlight that I, as a Sifu/Coach, wouldn't want to compete when I could be promoting my students instead.

Unfortunately, good students are hard to find, as are good Sifus.

[monji112000]

Interetsing post there. Thanks for the insight.

I was also trying to highlight that I, as a Sifu/Coach, wouldn't want to compete when I could be promoting my students instead.

Unfortunately, good students are hard to find, as are good Sifus.

To be a teacher is no small endeavor, its not something to take lightly. How much more so in becoming a student. You may go a whole lifetime and never find a teacher thats "right". I can assume its the same for the other perspective. Anyone can teach you something, but thats not what I'm talking about. The word Sifu for me personally has more meaning than just teacher.

[LoneTiger108]

When I think back, I remember being 'labelled' a Sifu and thinking 'I'm just a Sihing here!' To me, a Sifu puts his life into his art and his students. Much like my own does but I use the term loosely these days. I see myself more as a coach, and one of a pair as I teach with my Sihing mostly.

This forum, believe it or not, is my introduction to my 'self'. The first attempt I have made to contact anyone from the family on my own! Strange, as I turned 33 last week and fill my days working in an office.

How can I be 'functional' in ways that match everyone elses experiences in fighting and competition?

I can only study more these days, as even training is minimal :o

[KPM]

Hey Guys!

Some good responses so far. I agree with several of the points made and offer some of my own:

1. Realistic sparring with opponents doing something other than WCK is key to finding out what works.
2. A "functionalized" WCK may begin to resemble JKD more and more.
3. Training should be done with more "realistic" modern weapons such as sticks and tactical folders...again making it appear more like JKD.
4. Conditioning is very important and should be an integral part of the training.
5. Training should include modern equipment such as focus mitts and heavy bags to help develop realistic striking power.
6. Including training in the clinch range and on the ground is essential to being a more "well-rounded" fighter. This should be blended smoothly with the stand up WCK skills.

There are some points that have not come up yet on this thread. Do we keep the traditional WCK forms? Do we modify the forms to reflect what we discover to be more functional and realistic? Do we keep the wooden dummy?

Here's a thought that I had.....develop a "san sik" system of "separate points" as in Ku Lo Wing Chun. Break out of the traditional forms those movements that are key to the WCK body structure as well as those movements proven to be functional in a realistic sparring situation. Develop them as short "san sik"sequences that are practiced solo, with a partner in a two-man "set" format, applied on the dummy, and in sparring. This would be similar to a boxer that works specific combos solo, against the focus mitts, on the heavy bag, and in sparring. This "san sik system" could be either a supplement to "traditional" WCK, or its own independant version of WCK. It would allow one to focus on and develop those WCK movements that are the most functional and useful. But now the question becomes....which parts of the forms would you break out as a san sik? What movements of your own would you put into a san sik? Here's an example:

Bong-Lop Da...solo...two-man version = classic Lop Da drill...practiced on the dummy...worked into sparring against a resisting opponent.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I agree, Keith. A "functionalized" wing chun will look something like JKD. Not exactly like it - but the basic approach of a functionalized wing chun has to have certain things going for it that do resemble the path Bruce Lee took in a number of ways. Such as:

1) A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more "typical" wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

And using a slightly more up-on-your-toes footwork doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice rootedness and stability for mobility - for once you've "delivered" (or even "as" you're delivering) enough weaponry (punches/kicks) to get to the close infight range your rooted and stable wing chun instincts and training can and should take over.

2- Longer range punching tactics will also come into play (ie.- straight leads, rear crosses. etc.) using some shoulder and hip rotation for a longer reach and power can easily marry into a wing chun strategy using centerlines/centralines.

Now granted - we can argue that wing chun already has horizontal straight punches, uppercuts, and hooking punches - but the line between this and a more "boxing-like" approach to these punches can get very thin. Very thin indeed. (Witness the latest thread about boxing and WSL/Rolf Clausnitzer as just one of many examples - and the vid on another thread showing Alan Orr's guy Aaron Baum fighting in a mma event is another).

3) Clinch work when in the very close quarter range that may go waay beyond any kind of wing chun "trapping"/hitting and into Greco, or throwing and other takedown techniques - and of course...

4) Wrestling/grappling on the ground.

[Wu Wei Wu]

Functional Wing Chun is just Wing Chun. It is not JKD.

If one gets to the point where he questions the validity of the forms and the dummy, the path is clear, do something else. Because this will be the moment at which you cease being a Wing Chun man.

Perhaps the way forward is simply this. Train like a boxer or MMA guy, because they tend to have the upper hand in conditioning over traditional martial artists. However, always retain the tactics, skills and strategy from Wing Chun. Be a functional athlete first, then adopt the mind-set for self-protection and then use the tools provided by Wing Chun for when you switch into combat mode.

I may be missing the point here, but I like to keep my Wing Chun uncluttered and simple.

[t_niehoff]

Hey Guys!

Some good responses so far. I agree with several of the points made and offer some of my own:

1. Realistic sparring with opponents doing something other than WCK is key to finding out what works.


Realistic sparring (and realistic drills which are snippets of sparring) are the only way to develop realsitic skills. Everything else is just prep work. That stuff may be necessary, but it is still only prep. The "real work" for developing fighting skill is the realistic sparring.

For sparring to be "realistic", however, it needs to have the participants actually working at or near 100% intensity (power, speed, etc.), genuinely resisting each other, and otherwise "behaving" like a fight. You should be able to map what you are doing in sparring onto a fight, 1-to-1. It's that 1-to-1 correspondence that is key.

Moreover, while doing that with nonWCK people is important (because you don't want to just deal with "programmed" people), the quality (skill-level, attribute level) of your opponents is most critical. Because you will only get as good as your training/sparring partners. You're not going to become a BB in BJJ rolling only with white belts.



2. A "functionalized" WCK may begin to resemble JKD more and more.


No, it doesn't. The "easy" way to tell if you are using WCK is to see if you are actually using WCK -- are you regularly and consistently using the tools of WCK in your sparring. WCK has a relatively small "tool belt", and if you are not using most of the tools in your sparring, then I'd suggest there is something "wrong" with what you are doing (your approach).

The tools of WCK, just liek the tools of any MA, have specific functions, they answer or deal with certain, specific combative problems. If you are not using them, it is because by what you are doing you are not facing those combative problems. So, for instance, if you "kickbox" with WCK, you'll find little use of the WCK tools since the problems inherent in kickboxing are not the problems the WCK tools address. This is why you don't see them come out.



3. Training should be done with more "realistic" modern weapons such as sticks and tactical folders...again making it appear more like JKD.


None of that has anything to do with WCK.



4. Conditioning is very important and should be an integral part of the training.


Conditioning is your bodies level of readiness to do your activity, in this case fight. What athlete doesn't know that conditioning is vital?



5. Training should include modern equipment such as focus mitts and heavy bags to help develop realistic striking power.


Yes and no. Specific equipment is useful for developing specific skills, attributes, etc.



6. Including training in the clinch range and on the ground is essential to being a more "well-rounded" fighter. This should be blended smoothly with the stand up WCK skills.


It depends on what a person wants. Look, boxing and BJJ are both great and a person can practice either and develop realistic skills in those areas. If that's all they want to do, that's their perogative. To be a well-rounded fighter, however, requires our training be well-rounded. FWIW, in my view WCK is a "clinch" method.



There are some points that have not come up yet on this thread. Do we keep the traditional WCK forms? Do we modify the forms to reflect what we discover to be more functional and realistic? Do we keep the wooden dummy?


Any form or linked set is useless as training (it won't develop skills). If you want to retain them as a teaching device, that is up to the individual. But I think they are more trouble than they are worth (which is why we don't see forms used in functional arts).

As far as the dummy goes, it depends on how you use it.



Here's a thought that I had.....develop a "san sik" system of "separate points" as in Ku Lo Wing Chun. Break out of the traditional forms those movements that are key to the WCK body structure as well as those movements proven to be functional in a realistic sparring situation. Develop them as short "san sik"sequences that are practiced solo, with a partner in a two-man "set" format, applied on the dummy, and in sparring. This would be similar to a boxer that works specific combos solo, against the focus mitts, on the heavy bag, and in sparring. This "san sik system" could be either a supplement to "traditional" WCK, or its own independant version of WCK. It would allow one to focus on and develop those WCK movements that are the most functional and useful. But now the question becomes....which parts of the forms would you break out as a san sik? What movements of your own would you put into a san sik? Here's an example:

Bong-Lop Da...solo...two-man version = classic Lop Da drill...practiced on the dummy...worked into sparring against a resisting opponent.

In my view, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. What we need to do is realize that for WCK or any martial art to be a functional MA, that we need to approach our learning/training as a functional MA. And to do that, we need to look at the common characteristics of all proven functional martial arts. If we do that, we see they all use the same "process", where the learning/training/fighting corresponds 1-to-1-to-1. We see that functional martial arts are skill-based activities. We see that they focus on results in personal performance. That sparring is the core of their training. Etc. We also need to get rid of the traditional worldview, and the associated magical thinking, because that is a signficant obstacle that holds us back.

[JPinAZ]

Hey!! Who stole Mr. Niehoff's login & password and posted for him?? This last post sounds like something that comes from a pro-WCK guy, not the regular T we all know and love....
This post actually makes it hard to disagree with him..... crazy......
:D

[KPM]

The "easy" way to tell if you are using WCK is to see if you are actually using WCK -- are you regularly and consistently using the tools of WCK in your sparring. WCK has a relatively small "tool belt", and if you are not using most of the tools in your sparring, then I'd suggest there is something "wrong" with what you are doing (your approach).

---But that begs the question....how do you develop the "tools" of WCK that are functional and realistic? By practicing the traditional forms? By doing the traditional two man drills? This goes back to my prior question...how do you "functionalize" WCK without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and having it become something else? How much of the "traditional" WCK base do you continue to use and practice?


FWIW, in my view WCK is a "clinch" method.

---There's a good starting point then. How do you practice and develop WCK methods in the clinch?



Any form or linked set is useless as training (it won't develop skills). If you want to retain them as a teaching device, that is up to the individual. But I think they are more trouble than they are worth (which is why we don't see forms used in functional arts).

----Then from where do you get your essential WCK "tools" that you mentioned previously?

As far as the dummy goes, it depends on how you use it.

---I tend to look upon it as a rather sophisticated heavy bag. :-)



In my view, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.


----Its not "reinventing" the wheel, just "reformatting" the wheel. Its just as Leung Jan did when he retired to his hometown in Ku Lo. He reformatted the previous WCK he had learned into a system of san sik that included what he considered to be the essential elements needed to fight with WCK. From what I understand, the Ku Lo system was Leung Jan's version of a "functionalized" WCK for his day and time. Same or very similar content, just a different teaching format.



What we need to do is realize that for WCK or any martial art to be a functional MA, that we need to approach our learning/training as a functional MA. And to do that, we need to look at the common characteristics of all proven functional martial arts. If we do that, we see they all use the same "process", where the learning/training/fighting corresponds 1-to-1-to-1.

---That sounds good. Can you lay out the individual steps in a bit more detail for us? That would seem to form a good "blueprint" to follow.

We also need to get rid of the traditional worldview, and the associated magical thinking, because that is a signficant obstacle that holds us back.

---I agree. I've been burned by that type of mindset in the past. Thanks Terence. Good post. Let's keep it up.

[KPM]

Hey Victor!

A "functionalized" wing chun will look something like JKD. Not exactly like it - but the basic approach of a functionalized wing chun has to have certain things going for it that do resemble the path Bruce Lee took in a number of ways.

---Seems we are thinking along the same lines. :) Some of the inspiration I have had for "functionalizing" my own WCK has come from seeing Ron Balicki's JKD. He does a lot of things that are straight up WCK. But then there are others that deviate, but that wouldn't have to. For instance, he does punching combos on the focus mitts that are standard kickboxing. But the same combos could be done with WCK punches rather than boxing punches. Many of the "functional" drills he does in a kickboxing format would become WCK if he was simply using the right body structure.


1) A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more "typical" wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

----I agree. The footwork I have been using comes primarily from TWC for those reasons, though some of the JKD footwork is appropriate as well. What I have found that DOESN'T work well is dragging the feet when stepping and trying to keep the weight on the heels.




but the line between this and a more "boxing-like" approach to these punches can get very thin. Very thin indeed.

---Again, I agree. But only as long as the proper body structure is used. This I learned from watching Alan Orr's videos. :)


---So how do you go about "functionalizing" your WCK from a TWC perspective? Do you break out techniques from the forms and drill them for application? Do you ignore the forms and just work the essential "tools" in a sparring format? What are the things that you are finding to work the best and most consistently in realistic sparring? Thanks Victor.

[t_niehoff]

---But that begs the question....how do you develop the "tools" of WCK that are functional and realistic? By practicing the traditional forms? By doing the traditional two man drills? This goes back to my prior question...how do you "functionalize" WCK without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and having it become something else? How much of the "traditional" WCK base do you continue to use and practice?


It's not a baby-bathwater matter. Forms and unrealistic drills can't by their very nature develop functional/realistic skills/tools. They can at most be used as learning/teaching devices, although in my view, the disadvantages of using them as learning/teaching devices outweighs their usefulness.

How do you develop anything to be functional/realistic? By using them realistically -- and that means using them in sparring or realistic drills (which are snippets of sparring). You see, if you practice tan sao in forms and unrealistic drills, like chi sao, and don't use regularly and consistently in sparring, you will never develop it into a realistic skill. That only comes by using your tan sao regularly and consistently in sparring.

In my view, the forms and traditional drills is not WCK -- that is "the curriculum". Just as a math textbook is not math. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK's approach/tools. You can do the forms and traditional drills forever and you're not "doing WCK" (just like hitting the heavy bag and skipping rope is not boxing). Skill in WCK comes from "doing WCK", and the more you "do" it, just like with any skill, the better you get. You learn and develop boxing skills by boxing, you learn and develop grappling skills by grappling, and you learn and develop WCK by fighting.



---There's a good starting point then. How do you practice and develop WCK methods in the clinch?


BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground. Boxing is a free-movement, stand-up fighting (with punches) method, right? How do you practice and develop boxing? By doing it, by boxing (punching) in stand-up, free movement fighting. So how do you think we develop WCK as a dirty clinch boxing method? By doing it, by controlling while hitting in the clinch. FWIW, I'm not talking about greco-type clinches, but dirty-boxing-type clinches.

Chi sao is an unrealistic representation of that sort of clinch. This is why most of our drills are contacdt, attached drills.



----Then from where do you get your essential WCK "tools" that you mentioned previously?


Where do BJJ and boxing practitioners get their tools -- they don't have forms/linked sets?



---I tend to look upon it as a rather sophisticated heavy bag. :-)


In a sense, yes, I agree.



----Its not "reinventing" the wheel, just "reformatting" the wheel. Its just as Leung Jan did when he retired to his hometown in Ku Lo. He reformatted the previous WCK he had learned into a system of san sik that included what he considered to be the essential elements needed to fight with WCK. From what I understand, the Ku Lo system was Leung Jan's version of a "functionalized" WCK for his day and time. Same or very similar content, just a different teaching format.


It was a different teaching format but it wasn't "functionalized". The key to functional training is the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence between learning-training-fighting, so that you learn what you will do in fighting as you will do it, train it realsitically as you learned it, and then do it in fighting as you learned and trained it.



---That sounds good. Can you lay out the individual steps in a bit more detail for us? That would seem to form a good "blueprint" to follow.


I'll tell you how to begin "the work" -- get some training partners, start in contact, and fight. You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc. Try to use your WCK tools to control your opponent while striking him. If you do that, you will encounter many problems. Set aside the "conventional wisdom" you have been told by the theoretical nonfighters and fantasy-based guys in WCK (which IME is mostly wrong), and try to figure out answers for those problems. Keep doing contact sparring. Keep critically examining what is working, why it is working, etc. and what isn't working, why it isn't working, etc. Then you will be on the road toward making your WCK functional.

[k gledhill]

VT is functional...you just dont see it T ribbet

[t_niehoff]

VT is functional...you just dont see it T ribbet

I'll tell you want I don't see: the VT fighters that can make what they do in training work in fighting as they train to. It seems they can fight well behind closed doors or on the streets when no one is looking, but for some reason, any other time, their skills mysteriously disappear. But that doesn't stop them from posting tons of videos of them doing chi sao or forms or demos of those skill.

The truth is as close as your nearest MMA gym. You can't fake performance. If you can make what you learn and practice to do in training work in fighting as you train to do it, then it should be a very simple thing to show. Boxers, wrestlers, BJJ, MT, etc. all seem to have absolutely no trouble doing just that. Only the fantasy-VT "fighters" do, the guys with all the street fights. You know the type. ;)

[YungChun]

The truth is as close as your nearest MMA gym. You can't fake performance.
In that case the "truth" is where he trains/teaches every day if I am not mistaken.. :rolleyes::cool:

[YungChun]

1) A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more "typical" wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

And using a slightly more up-on-your-toes footwork doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice rootedness and stability for mobility - for once you've "delivered" (or even "as" you're delivering) enough weaponry (punches/kicks) to get to the close infight range your rooted and stable wing chun instincts and training can and should take over.
I see a lot of top MMA/NHB fighters that are no more "mobile" than standard WCK footwork, and in fact perhaps less so--WSL was quite "mobile"..

"Their mobility" comes from the "when" and the "why", which way and under what conditions they move--they just move--so can we.. It appears to be more of a personal stylistic choice, some very good fighters move less than VT folks some move more but few are moving around any more than needed.. With few exceptions--not bouncy bounce at all--not on their toes at all--not like the 'dancing boxer'--at all.. WCK footwork can allow one to move left, back, right, forward, and combinations thereof just as fast as X and sometimes faster IMO..

[k gledhill]

wow what a rebutal :rolleyes: Terence doesnt believe so it cant be true :rolleyes: your the one living in fantasy land . ribbet:D
Yung Chuns right : ) a lot of guys x train there...I teach for the fighthouse gym ..VT.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So how do you go about 'functionalizing' your WCK from a TWC perspective?
Do you break out techniques from the forms and drill them for application?
Do you ignore the forms and just work the essential 'tools' in a sparring format? What are the things that you are finding to work the best and most consistently in realistic sparring? Thanks Victor." (Keith)


***I break out techniques from the TWC forms all the time. Such as pak sao, lop sao, bil sao, bong sao, garn sao, etc. BECAUSE this is part of what it takes to functionalize WCK, imo.

But the key is to make the static drills/sparring-mobile drills fluid.

For example, as you may know, a very big part of TWC is the concept of looking at elbows and knees in order to read what's coming at you in time to react with a skillful move - even if what you're reading is just his forward movement into your space (or very close to coming into your space)...at which point you must attack.

So even though I may have just done some stationary (static) drills against a straight punch with pak as a response (or a cut punch that almost acts like a supercharged pak)...

the fact is the bong sao is another legit response to a straight punch...

or perhaps a bil sao might be used as another response to a straight punch.

But what am I getting at?

The pak attacks the outside of his punching arm...the bil attacks the inside of his punching arm...and the bong sao comes from underneath.

And if I'm watching carefully when the more spontaneous sparring drills are done - then my responses have to be fluid as my partner comes in with straight punches coming from various angles and distances. I might use pak, or bil, or bong, or cut punch, or just attack with a punch of my own.

Now throw in bil or lop against hook or round punches...and you have some very functional drills going. He could be throwing something high or low, round or staight, uppercut or overhand, etc.

So we don't ignore the forms or chi sao - we use both pieces as part of the overall game plan.
We do forms, chi sao, wooden dummy...AND...we spend a lot of time taking the pieces out of these things and working them.

QUITE A BIT OF TIME.

And we use drilling/sparring with these pieces while wearing headgear and thin gloves in a "live" environment, ie.- if I lose concentration, or whatever...I'm going to get hit in the face with his punch.

And the same with chi sao skills. I may have just come in on his straight punch with a cut punch that bridges his arm - and now he's reacting with all kinds of movement/force/push/pull/throws a punch with his other hand/tries to grab and clinch me, etc....

and I have to take my chi sao contact reflex skills and make them functional HERE...in the midst of this "live" sparring (or spontaneous close-to-sparring drills)...and take his space away/hit him/mess with his balance/take him off the "line" I want to strike on, angle in on him with a more rooted (but very mobile) footwork, pressure him with a strong forward moving body structure, etc.

But do it from "here"...not from "chi sao" position with chi sao rules.

Just some examples.

Repeat the method with kicks.

And use heavy bags, mitts, shields, etc. all the time. For precision and power striking/kicking from various angles and motions. And lots of stretching, strengthening, conditioning, cardio, etc.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Their (MMA fighters) 'mobility' comes from the 'when' and the 'why, which way and under what conditions they move--they just move--so can we.. It appears to be more of a personal stylistic choice, some very good fighters move less than VT folks some move more but few are moving around any more than needed.. With few exceptions--not bouncy bounce at all--not on their toes at all--not like the 'dancing boxer'--at all.. WCK footwork can allow one to move left, back, right, forward, and combinations thereof just as fast as X and sometimes faster IMO.." (Jim/Ying Chun)


***I'M TALKING about when you're starting from out of range. To get to the close quarters safely and efficiently you need lots of mobility against a quality fighter....and slightly up on the toes at times is a good way of doing it.

Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you'll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)

[Liddel]

Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you'll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)

Vic.... Anderson Silva Bro !!!

IMO hes one of the best strikers....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186194356952883169&q=anderson+silva+nog&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I find him fancinating to watch... Although in this clip theres not much bridging from long to close range...

:cool:
DREW

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good call! Yeah, Anderson's another one with lots of striking skills.

[Liddel]

Good call! Yeah, Anderson's another one with lots of striking skills.

When it comes to striking, elbows are one of my VT's greatest assets - check Silva in this Clip......not your average KO :rolleyes:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2772621508647602529&q=ANDERSON+SILVA+ELBOW&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

DREW

[YungChun]

Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you'll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)
Liddell is one I'm thinking of, just watched him fighting on a couple of vids and I do not see him doing this at all.. Moving yes, he loves to move laterally, but not in the way I read your suggestions at all--no bouncy bounce, no toes, no dancing boxer, especially when he means business.. Most of his dancing happens before the fight starts IMO.

Let's see all the vids of the top fighters doing this..


Here's a clip of UFC 57.. What kind of movement do we see from two of the best and why?

http://www.mediafire.com/?5xrb0ggnh2s

Aside from a feeling out period or a delaying action the best movement IMO is minimal movement, better to make them miss by an inch rather than a mile..

In any case if folks want to move more I don't see the system stopping them..

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think we're debating trifles here, Jim.

When I say slightly up on your toes at times - I don't mean to do a Muhammad Ali or a Sugar Ray Leonard dance.

[Edmund]

As much as I think realistic drills, conditioning, grappling, sparring etc are beneficial, teaching a skill like WC so that it's functional for the student requires:
A. It's addressed and explained at a level they understand.
B. It's challenging them to improve beyond their current level.

A: If you don't make the art simple to understand, nothing will sink in. By talking in weird ways, it makes students lose their focus. Any technique/idea you teach should be at a level where it's easy to "get". If it's not easy, then that technique is too advanced and the student isn't ready for it. A lot of realistic drills are way too hard for beginners. But maybe once they've learnt something simpler first, they can appreciate the more difficult drill.

B: Whatever you're training has to be challenging to you for you to improve. If you just do whatever you already are good at you aren't going to get much better. Same with any student. They have to do something challenging to get better. If they're in their comfort zone they can just coast. There's all sorts of different areas outside people's comfort zones. Even in a particular topic like say grappling: You may think you're decent but there's always more challenging levels of ability. Unless you push yourself or someone pushes you to improve, you probably won't.

Until you make the art more learnable and accessible, you haven't made it more functional, just more complicated.

[KPM]

Forms and unrealistic drills can't by their very nature develop functional/realistic skills/tools. They can at most be used as learning/teaching devices, although in my view, the disadvantages of using them as learning/teaching devices outweighs their usefulness.

---I agree that forms and drills are learning/teaching devices. But I see them as very important for that reason. They teach structure and act as a sort of "dictionary" of movement. And I also agree that you have to go beyond those forms and drills to develop realistic skills. But what are the disadvantages of this that you think outweighs their usefulness?

You see, if you practice tan sao in forms and unrealistic drills, like chi sao, and don't use regularly and consistently in sparring, you will never develop it into a realistic skill. That only comes by using your tan sao regularly and consistently in sparring.

---Again I agree. But don't you need to train that tan sao in forms and drills as a "foundational" way of learning good structure? Even a boxer works on his various punches solo. He learns to throw a good jab by isolating it and working on it. He doesn't ONLY throw a jab when sparring. He works his jab solo, on the heavy bag, with a cooperative opponent, and then in sparring.

In my view, the forms and traditional drills is not WCK -- that is "the curriculum". Just as a math textbook is not math. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK's approach/tools. You can do the forms and traditional drills forever and you're not "doing WCK" (just like hitting the heavy bag and skipping rope is not boxing). Skill in WCK comes from "doing WCK", and the more you "do" it, just like with any skill, the better you get. You learn and develop boxing skills by boxing, you learn and develop grappling skills by grappling, and you learn and develop WCK by fighting.

---Again, I agree. But what I'm not seeing is why you feel that the "curriculum" or "textbook" is so unimportant. You have to start somewhere. You have to have a good foundation in basic skill before you can build good "functional" skill. No one does higher math without first developing a good understanding in basic math. The reason we have math textbooks is because it is the rare individual who has a "natural" grasp of mathematics without any foundational learning.



BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground.

---OK. As in the past I admit that my experience in BJJ is limited. But in my limited experience what I was taught was the basic positions, how to transition between them, how to apply various submissions, and some basic escapes for these submissions. It was all basic foundational training. This was all done is a "rote" fashion to learn the basic movements and start to understand how they work. No one was just thrown on the mat and told "go for it!" How is this any different than learning the forms and basic drills of WCK?

Boxing is a free-movement, stand-up fighting (with punches) method, right? How do you practice and develop boxing? By doing it, by boxing (punching) in stand-up, free movement fighting.

---But don't they start by learning the basic movements first? Again, a boxer isn't just thrown in the ring and told to fight without first learning what good technique is supposed to be.


Where do BJJ and boxing practitioners get their tools -- they don't have forms/linked sets?

--No. But they have a "curriculum." They work through the various elements of BJJ in a non-threatening environment so that the student learns the basics before they are expected to use those basics against a fully resisting opponent. At least that's how my BJJ teacher did it. They train with cooperative opponents (drills) before they try to apply it on resisting opponents. They train various techniques like the "shrimp" movement and standing from a grounded position without an opponent (form).


I'll tell you how to begin "the work" -- get some training partners, start in contact, and fight.

---That's good advice.

You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc.

---Ah! But I know those tools from doing the "curriculum." How do I teach them to someone else without showing them that "curriculum." You seem to think that the curriculum is unimportant and can be thrown out. That is where I find my disagreement with what you have been saying.

Keep doing contact sparring. Keep critically examining what is working, why it is working, etc. and what isn't working, why it isn't working, etc. Then you will be on the road toward making your WCK functional.

---Again. Good advice. :)

[t_niehoff]

---I agree that forms and drills are learning/teaching devices. But I see them as very important for that reason. They teach structure and act as a sort of "dictionary" of movement. And I also agree that you have to go beyond those forms and drills to develop realistic skills. But what are the disadvantages of this that you think outweighs their usefulness?


Yes, but the problem is while the forms and drills teach the movements, they don't teach how to use the movements in fighting. So what you have is a disconnect between learning, practice, and fighting. Not only that, but you can't really learn how perform open skill movements with modelactions, since the movement is never going to be the model. It is just a poor way to learn.



---Again I agree. But don't you need to train that tan sao in forms and drills as a "foundational" way of learning good structure? Even a boxer works on his various punches solo. He learns to throw a good jab by isolating it and working on it. He doesn't ONLY throw a jab when sparring. He works his jab solo, on the heavy bag, with a cooperative opponent, and then in sparring.


But doing the movement in an unrealistic drill is counter-productive since you are learning/practicing to do the movement one way and then needed to perform the movement another way in fighting. You want that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.



Again, I agree. But what I'm not seeing is why you feel that the "curriculum" or "textbook" is so unimportant. You have to start somewhere. You have to have a good foundation in basic skill before you can build good "functional" skill. No one does higher math without first developing a good understanding in basic math. The reason we have math textbooks is because it is the rare individual who has a "natural" grasp of mathematics without any foundational learning.


You're missing my point. Of course there will be a currcilumin any MA. But inTMAs that curriculum is separated from application, so you learn and practice moving one way and then when fighting will need to move another. So yes, you need to learn the movements, however, you should learn it in the context of how you will really use it in fighting, then drill it just like you will use it in fighitng, then use it in fighting just as you've learned it and drilled it. Now you from day 1 developing a habit of use that will be constantly reinforced.



I admit that my experience in BJJ is limited. But in my limited experience what I was taught was the basic positions, how to transition between them, how to apply various submissions, and some basic escapes for these submissions. It was all basic foundational training. This was all done is a "rote" fashion to learn the basic movements and start to understand how they work. No one was just thrown on the mat and told "go for it!" How is this any different than learning the forms and basic drills of WCK?


OK, because how you learned those things in BJJ were within the context of how you would really do them in fighitng, so what you learned corresponded to what you drilled which correspondedto what you will do in sparring/fighting. You didn't learn linked forms of movements (not knowing how they were used), and you didn't practice drills like chi sao where you use the tools in waysthat won't work in reality. I'm not saying just throw people on the mat and tell them to "go for it." I'm saying that WCK should be taught like boxing, judo, BJJ, sambo, MT, etc.

And, this is critical, you were taught those things in BJJ not because of some theory or some idea of how they believe you should do things, they are teaching you from experience, from seeing those things actually work in fighting -- so they are starting with the fight (we know this and that works) and teaching from that standpoint. That is not done in WCK.



But don't they start by learning the basic movements first? Again, a boxer isn't just thrown in the ring and told to fight without first learning what good technique is supposed to be.


Where have I ever suggested that? I do think it important for beginners to begin with sparring just so they get used to that environment and to really see that they are going to need to fit their tools into that environment. But, I think teaching WCK should be structured just as learning BJJ, boxing, etc. You don't need forms to do that (and they are counter-productive), you don't need lots of unrealistic drill practiceto do that.



No. But they have a "curriculum." They work through the various elements of BJJ in a non-threatening environment so that the student learns the basics before they are expected to use those basics against a fully resisting opponent. At least that's how my BJJ teacher did it. They train with cooperative opponents (drills) before they try to apply it on resisting opponents. They train various techniques like the "shrimp" movement and standing from a grounded position without an opponent (form).


Yes, and all those things are taught within a context of proven ways to use them in fighting. Most of what is taught in WCK -- how to use the tools -- is utter nonsense. And the reason it is utter nonsense is that the teachers, including the masters and grandmasters, are working from theory not from experience. So you get people who can't really use the tools of WCK teaching others via forms (which don't show how to use the tools and which focus on the wrong things) and unrealistic drills where you practice moving in ways that don't correspond to fighting. Where will that take you? You'll be on the bus to fantasy-land.



I'll tell you how to begin "the work" -- get some training partners, start in contact, and fight.

---That's good advice.

You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc.

---Ah! But I know those tools from doing the "curriculum." How do I teach them to someone else without showing them that "curriculum." You seem to think that the curriculum is unimportant and can be thrown out. That is where I find my disagreement with what you have been saying.


You teach them from experience.

Look, of course all MAs have curriculums. I'm not saying the curriculum is unimportant --just the opposite: I'm saying it is critical. Consider this. Let's say you learn something in WCK, call it 1a. OK? Now, you then take it and practice it, 1b. With me so far. Now, don't you agree that you'd want 1a=1b? So that you learn it as you will pratice it? With an open skill, and all martial arts are open skills, a model movement, some fixed representation, can neverreally be how you willperform it, since by its very nature, the movement will need to be dynamic and adaptive. With me? It's likelearning a forehand in tennis via a fixed form. Yourforehand will neer look like that in pradtice since it will nedd to be dynamic and adaptive, aligning to the ball, how you are moving, etc. A fixed form can't properly represent (or teach) a dynamic action. As the WCK tools are dynamic, adaptive actions (and not shapes), theycan't be adequately taught via fixed forms. Then you get 1a not equal to 1b.

Then put in sparring/fighting, 1c. If you practice 1b, that is what you are habituating. But if 1b is not equal to 1c, then you are practcing one way and trying to fight another. That is poor training.

So, I'm saying let's do what all functional arts do,have 1a=1b=1c. But-- and here is the critical BUT -- to do that, you need to begin with 1c. You need to start with the fight, with what works,and we know it works from experience. Otherwise, you are starting with fantasy, with what you believe should work, etc.

[KPM]

But doing the movement in an unrealistic drill is counter-productive since you are learning/practicing to do the movement one way and then needed to perform the movement another way in fighting. You want that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

---Then it sounds like what we need to strive for is to make our drills as realistic as possible.

You're missing my point. Of course there will be a currcilumin any MA. But inTMAs that curriculum is separated from application, so you learn and practice moving one way and then when fighting will need to move another.

---Ok. I see what you're saying. Of all the TCMAs, WCK is the one with the least "flowery" movements and has always seemed to me to be the one with the most focus on application. But I do think times have changed and many have lost sight of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence that you are talking about.

So yes, you need to learn the movements, however, you should learn it in the context of how you will really use it in fighting, then drill it just like you will use it in fighitng, then use it in fighting just as you've learned it and drilled it. Now you from day 1 developing a habit of use that will be constantly reinforced.

---I agree. But it sounds to me like you are saying that the curriculum...the forms and drills...just need to be as realistic as possible....not that they are unimportant or counter-productive.

I think teaching WCK should be structured just as learning BJJ, boxing, etc. You don't need forms to do that (and they are counter-productive), you don't need lots of unrealistic drill practiceto do that.

---I think perhaps we are not defining "forms" in the same way. I agree that what you are talking about does not require the long linked sets (SLT, CK, BG). But I do think that in the process of being "structured", formal technique has to be taught before it can be applied. This would consist of short series of movements...like a combo in boxing...and is what I was previously referring to as "san sik." But these are also a type of "form".... as seen and used Ku Lo WCK.
So while you did not like my idea of developing a more functional "san sik" based WCK, it is starting to sound like we are talking about the same thing. How are you going to structure your WCK that does not make use of the classic forms, unless you teach short sequences of techniques...the tools...and then work on application? Hence my previous suggestion.....short sequences of technique (san sik), application taught in a two-man cooperative format (drill), further developed in a two-man non-cooperative format (sparring). How do you suggest formating a curriculum for "functional" WCK?


So, I'm saying let's do what all functional arts do,have 1a=1b=1c. But-- and here is the critical BUT -- to do that, you need to begin with 1c. You need to start with the fight, with what works,and we know it works from experience.

---I follow you. We need to "reverse engineer" our WCK, rather than trust the experience of the guys that developed WCK in this way several generations ago, since times have changed and people don't fight the same way.

---Good discussion so far. I'm still interested in hearing how you format your WCK curriculum without the use of forms. Thanks!

[t_niehoff]

But doing the movement in an unrealistic drill is counter-productive since you are learning/practicing to do the movement one way and then needed to perform the movement another way in fighting. You want that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

---Then it sounds like what we need to strive for is to make our drills as realistic as possible.

And minimize our reliance on the unrealistic stuff.



You're missing my point. Of course there will be a currcilumin any MA. But inTMAs that curriculum is separated from application, so you learn and practice moving one way and then when fighting will need to move another.

---Ok. I see what you're saying. Of all the TCMAs, WCK is the one with the least "flowery" movements and has always seemed to me to be the one with the most focus on application. But I do think times have changed and many have lost sight of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence that you are talking about.


I just think that we now know more about what is really going on with motor skill acquisition and development that we have in the past.



So yes, you need to learn the movements, however, you should learn it in the context of how you will really use it in fighting, then drill it just like you will use it in fighitng, then use it in fighting just as you've learned it and drilled it. Now you from day 1 developing a habit of use that will be constantly reinforced.

---I agree. But it sounds to me like you are saying that the curriculum...the forms and drills...just need to be as realistic as possible....not that they are unimportant or counter-productive.


A form or linked set will always be a poor way to learn an open skill (using a fixed model to teach a dynamic, adaptive action). So my view is to throw out forms/linked sets, just as all the functional arts have. And to revamp how we teach/train using more of a sparring platform. The tools areskills to do something, an action -- just teach it in that context.



I think teaching WCK should be structured just as learning BJJ, boxing, etc. You don't need forms to do that (and they are counter-productive), you don't need lots of unrealistic drill practiceto do that.

---I think perhaps we are not defining "forms" in the same way. I agree that what you are talking about does not require the long linked sets (SLT, CK, BG). But I do think that in the process of being "structured", formal technique has to be taught before it can be applied. This would consist of short series of movements...like a combo in boxing...and is what I was previously referring to as "san sik." But these are also a type of "form".... as seen and used Ku Lo WCK.
So while you did not like my idea of developing a more functional "san sik" based WCK, it is starting to sound like we are talking about the same thing. How are you going to structure your WCK that does not make use of the classic forms, unless you teach short sequences of techniques...the tools...and then work on application? Hence my previous suggestion.....short sequences of technique (san sik), application taught in a two-man cooperative format (drill), further developed in a two-man non-cooperative format (sparring). How do you suggest formating a curriculum for "functional" WCK?


Do they do that (san sik, two-man cooperative drills, etc.) in boxing or BJJ or MT? For me, that is just more of the same. You can teach/learn/trainWCK just as you do wrestling, as you do boxing.



So, I'm saying let's do what all functional arts do,have 1a=1b=1c. But-- and here is the critical BUT -- to do that, you need to begin with 1c. You need to start with the fight, with what works,and we know it works from experience.

---I follow you. We need to "reverse engineer" our WCK, rather than trust the experience of the guys that developed WCK in this way several generations ago, since times have changed and people don't fight the same way.

---Good discussion so far. I'm still interested in hearing how you format your WCK curriculum without the use of forms. Thanks!

My view is to use a sparring platform to teach and develop WCK. Start with the WCK strategy, teach the various tactics you can use to execute that strategy, and the tools/skills you need to implement the tactics, and do so with a 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence between how it is taught, trained, and used.

[k gledhill]

Terence there is a 1 to 1 in VT ....it just has to be explained a certain way.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The elbows down and in toward the center of one's body - along with the whole Centerline Principle - is not so easy to put into one's muscle memory. This is a very different method of attack and defense than most fighting systems...

and so one of the advantages of doing SLT, for example, is the very training of your muscle memory in this regard. And one of the reasons why the first section of the form should be done slowly.

Likewise, the hand/arm formations of actions like pak, garn, bong, fuk, tan, etc. are also unusual and need constant training/development within the muscle memory.

AS WELL AS DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE WITHOUT LEADING WITH A SHOULDER.

Again, a very unusual method of attack and defense - and the body needs to be programmed in this regard as well.

Just a few reasons and examples of why doing forms are important if the goal is to use WING CHUN and make it FUNCTIONAL.

And many other examples could be given for SLT, chum kil, bil jee, the wooden dummy, chi sao, etc.

THIS IS A VERY CLOSE QUARTER STRIKING SYSTEM THAT UTILIZES REAL BLOCKS, PARRIES, AND REDIRECTIONS....along with avoidance techniques.

Again, somewhat unusual. And therefore....

there's little chance of making the system truly functional without these training tools.

Unless of course one has never really had the training/instruction necessary to make the system functional. Then all bets are off - and one is doomed to believing that if "you" can't do it - then nobody can. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Unless of course one has never really had the training/instruction necessary to make the system functional. Then all bets are off - and one is doomed to believing that if "you" can't do it - then nobody can.

That brings up an interesting point, there is at least one person in any system ( more actually but that is not the point) can can make it work for him/her, should a system be "judged" based on what the average practioner can do ( expectations) or what its "elite" can do ( goals to strive for) ?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I wouldn't make that judgment call - because if there are individuals within a system who can really make it work then why would I look downward at the system because very few people are good at it?

What should be judged to be poor, in that case, is the way the system has been taught and the politics/lineage/$/ego issues and problems that have resulted in inadequate training.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I wouldn't make that judgment call - because if there are individuals within a system who can really make it work then why would I look downward at the system because very few people are good at it?

What should be judged to be poor, in that case, is the way the system has been taught and the politics/lineage/$/ego issues and problems that has resulted in inadequate training.

So you are of the "if the top level can do it , it works" camp?

[YungChun]

So you are of the "if the top level can do it , it works" camp?
I don't think that's what Victor is saying.. It all depends on what IT is...

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't think that's what Victor is saying.. It all depends on what IT is...

It being a system.
Does one judge the functionality of a system base don what the top people cna do or the average person?

[YungChun]

It being a system.
Does one judge the functionality of a system base don what the top people cna do or the average person?
It's problematic.. Since there are no limitations, controls or quality assurance measures in place ANYONE can say they are a WCK teacher.. Since this is the case are all those folks who really don't understand the system or how to teach the system to also be considered part of IT--the system?

How about "Karate", a highly generic term. How does one make an intelligent assessment of if Karate is "good" and what that means?

Maybe this is going about labeling the wrong way.. Perhaps Karate and WCK are what the *person* makes of it--like--"he has good WCK"--Not "WCK is good"..

[t_niehoff]

Terence there is a 1 to 1 in VT ....it just has to be explained a certain way.

No there isn't. Because the 1-to-1-to-1 begins with application, with fighting. If you were using the 1-to-1-to-1, your fightiing would "look" (you'll move in the same way, do the same things, etc.) just like your training, and just like what is being taught.

[t_niehoff]

It's problematic.. Since there are no limitations, controls or quality assurance measures in place ANYONE can say they are a WCK teacher.. Since this is the case are all those folks who really don't understand the system or how to teach the system to also be considered part of IT--the system?

How about "Karate", a highly generic term. How does one make an intelligent assessment of if Karate is "good" and what that means?

Maybe this is going about labeling the wrong way.. Perhaps Karate and WCK are what the *person* makes of it--like--"he has good WCK"--Not "WCK is good"..

In my view, what makes someone qualified to teach a martial art is that they can consistenly and regualrly do in fighting with competant people those things they train to do as they train to do them. And that those things are what they teach. In other words, you see it fought before you see it taught. Someone who can't do it, shouldn't be teaching others. That is the blind leading the blind.

[YungChun]

No there isn't. Because the 1-to-1-to-1 begins with application, with fighting. If you were using the 1-to-1-to-1, your fightiing would "look" (you'll move in the same way, do the same things, etc.) just like your training, and just like what is being taught.
Why don't you provide an example--let's say three WCK techniques that we all know..

Then go through and explain how:

The technique is done in "real fighting" ...

And then...

How the technique is done in traditional training incorrectly..

Then explain the differences involved between the two ways of expressing the move..

Go ahead an use video to help...

I am sure this will be educational..

[YungChun]

In my view, what makes someone qualified to teach a martial art is that they can consistenly and regualrly do in fighting with competant people those things they train to do as they train to do them. And that those things are what they teach. In other words, you see it fought before you see it taught. Someone who can't do it, shouldn't be teaching others. That is the blind leading the blind.

And has nothing to do with the question in play.

[KPM]

I just think that we now know more about what is really going on with motor skill acquisition and development that we have in the past.

---Good point. Other sports/athletic endeavors make use of the latest developments in sports science. Why should modern martial arts be any different?

Do they do that (san sik, two-man cooperative drills, etc.) in boxing or BJJ or MT?

---Well...yeah! In boxing....the coach holds the focus pads while the student works on various combinations...the coach throws out his own blows to make the student defend and then launch into a specific combination.....that's two-man cooperative drilling. In BJJ...one student moves from the mount to a cross-arm bar then the other defends the arm bar and moves into his partner's guard, then the partner sweeps him and gets the mount and the cycle repeats...that's two-man cooperative drilling. In boxing...the student bobs and weaves into a body hook and comes out with a cross/hook/cross combination...over and over several times to get it down...that's a san sik.

For me, that is just more of the same. You can teach/learn/trainWCK just as you do wrestling, as you do boxing.

---In wrestling....one partner shoots in for the double leg and lifts his partner in the air and carries him several feet before putting him down and then the roles reverse...that's two-man cooperative drilling. In wrestling...a student practices solo doing the shoot, arching back, and then reversing....that's a san sik.

My view is to use a sparring platform to teach and develop WCK. Start with the WCK strategy, teach the various tactics you can use to execute that strategy, and the tools/skills you need to implement the tactics, and do so with a 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence between how it is taught, trained, and used.

---That's a good formula. I guess what I'm getting at is how do you teach the tools/skills needed as a foundation.....I'm saying short san sik and two-man drills, but I'm still not clear on how you would recommend teaching them.

[KPM]

The elbows down and in toward the center of one's body - along with the whole Centerline Principle - is not so easy to put into one's muscle memory. This is a very different method of attack and defense than most fighting systems...
Likewise, the hand/arm formations of actions like pak, garn, bong, fuk, tan, etc. are also unusual and need constant training/development within the muscle memory.

---I agree Victor. There is a body structure to WCK that must be taught. I just don't see how one would do that without using forms....at least in the format of short sequences of movements (san sik). But I do tend to agree with Terence that the longer linked sets are not absolutely necessary.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's problematic.. Since there are no limitations, controls or quality assurance measures in place ANYONE can say they are a WCK teacher.. Since this is the case are all those folks who really don't understand the system or how to teach the system to also be considered part of IT--the system?

How about "Karate", a highly generic term. How does one make an intelligent assessment of if Karate is "good" and what that means?

Maybe this is going about labeling the wrong way.. Perhaps Karate and WCK are what the *person* makes of it--like--"he has good WCK"--Not "WCK is good"..

I am not sure what you mean, certainly there is no quality control in the MA, in any MA really, other than the simple fact if a person can fight.
As for the same view applied to a MA system, its almost as simple:
Do you think a systems functionality is based on what its top people can do or its average practioner?

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?

[KPM]

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?

--I tend to think that any martial art should be judged on how easily it can be applied by the average student, not the elite gifted athlete. Some gifted individuals could make ANYTHING work reasonably well.

[YungChun]

I am not sure what you mean, certainly there is no quality control in the MA, in any MA really, other than the simple fact if a person can fight.
As for the same view applied to a MA system, its almost as simple:
Do you think a systems functionality is based on what its top people can do or its average practioner?

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?
I think it's like this..

There is no such thing as how good a style is..

There is such a thing as how good individuals are..

I wouldn't/can't judge the art by using numbers on performance by those who claim to do the style/system..

In order to judge something I would investigate it myself, or use my own experience to make an assessment..

What do we mean by good? Good for what? Good for whom?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?

--I tend to think that any martial art should be judged on how easily it can be applied by the average student, not the elite gifted athlete. Some gifted individuals could make ANYTHING work reasonably well.

Thank you, simple eh?



I think it's like this..

There is no such thing as how good a style is..

There is such a thing as how good individuals are..

I wouldn't/can't judge the art by using numbers on performance by those who claim to do the style/system..

In order to judge something I would investigate it myself, or use my own experience to make an assessment..

What do we mean by good? Good for what? Good for whom?

See above, no one said anything about "good", this is about function.
Good is subjective, function, not as much.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So you are of the 'if the top level can do it , it works' camp?" (sanjuro)


***I don't measure the effectiveness of a system in those terms. I just look at the system itself - and work from there. For example, take capoeria. I've seen some highly skilled people demo it and came away thinking that this particular person could possibly make this work in a number of circumstances. (Because they were highly skilled and experienced in it and because of their own personal athletic ability).

But it doesn't change my overall view of capoeria as a fighting system. I still believe that it's basically too impractical and too limited in it's scope.

Whether or not there are just a few or perhaps many people who can actually perform the system well doesn't make any difference as far as I see it.

[YungChun]

Thank you, simple eh?




See above, no one said anything about "good", this is about function.
Good is subjective, function, not as much.
Sure if you're saying that those arts that produce more functional artists are more functional then by definition I agree.

[sanjuro_ronin]

"So you are of the 'if the top level can do it , it works' camp?" (sanjuro)


***I don't measure the effectiveness of a system in those terms. I just look at the system itself - and work from there. For example, take capoeria. I've seen some highly skilled people demo it and came away thinking that this particular person could possibly make this work in a number of circumstances. (Because they were highly skilled and experienced in it and because of their own personal athletic ability).

But it doesn't change my overall view of capoeria as a fighting system. I still believe that it's basically too impractical and too limited in it's scope.

Whether or not there are just a few or perhaps many people who can actually perform the system well doesn't make any difference as far as I see it.

You just answered my question, thanks.
:D

[t_niehoff]

The elbows down and in toward the center of one's body - along with the whole Centerline Principle - is not so easy to put into one's muscle memory. This is a very different method of attack and defense than most fighting systems...
Likewise, the hand/arm formations of actions like pak, garn, bong, fuk, tan, etc. are also unusual and need constant training/development within the muscle memory.

---I agree Victor. There is a body structure to WCK that must be taught. I just don't see how one would do that without using forms....at least in the format of short sequences of movements (san sik). But I do tend to agree with Terence that the longer linked sets are not absolutely necessary.

Body structure, elbows down, various arm actions, etc. is something all stand-up grapplers develop without linked sets. And actions like pak, gaun, bong, fook, tan are all grappling-related movements used in attached (clinch) fighting along with striking.

[t_niehoff]

Why don't you provide an example--let's say three WCK techniques that we all know..

Then go through and explain how:

The technique is done in "real fighting" ...

And then...

How the technique is done in traditional training incorrectly..

Then explain the differences involved between the two ways of expressing the move..

Go ahead an use video to help...

I am sure this will be educational..

I'm not here to be educational or to teach, just to provide an alternative POV. It's up to you to do the work; I'm not going to do it for you. If you want to see what I do, pay me a visit.

If you understood the significance of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence, you'd already know that you can't be developing fighitng skills via forms and unrealistic drills. Unrealistic drills only teach you how to use the movement against unrealistic movements -- where your partner isn't moving, acting, doing what he would do in fighting but something else.

[KPM]

If you understood the significance of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence, you'd already know that you can't be developing fighitng skills via forms and unrealistic drills. Unrealistic drills only teach you how to use the movement against unrealistic movements -- where your partner isn't moving, acting, doing what he would do in fighting but something else.

---I think that's a given....by calling them "unrealistic" drills by definition they aren't going to develop "realistic" skills. So we need to work at making our drills as realistic as possible in the context of modern fighting methods. I also agree that long linked sets aren't going to develop fighting skills. But they do serve as a resource or "dictionary" of moves within the system that can be drawn upon to come up with the tools we will use. They are like having a standardized math textbook to refer back to as needed. But I do think that forms in the format of short sequences of movements (san sik) ARE necessary for tool development. I pointed out that other "functional" systems use this approach. You have never explained how one would develop the WCK tools without using forms in this sense.

---So, to summarize the approach that I see as "functionalizing" WCK:

1. Keep application foremost in mind and use realistic sparring to test things and make sure they work. Seek out people doing something other than WCK to spar with. Treat sparring as a learning experience. If the local TKD guy kicks your butt, that's a good thing! Go back and work on your weaknesses and figure out why you lost the bout.

2. Either break out sections of the traditional forms into short sequences or come up with your own short sequences (san sik). Work these short sequences into a two-man drill to help learn structure and application, then apply them in sparring against a resisting opponent. If you can't make them work in sparring the way you are practicing them solo and with a partner, then change them to match what actually works.

3. Incorporate modern sports science and training methods. Make sure that a good conditioning program is part of the training. A "functionalized" WCK training hall should look like a gym, not an aerobics room. It should have heavy bags, focus mitts, medicine balls, kettlebells, etc.

--Here's another example of what I mean (my first example was the Bong to Lop Da):

San sik: Tan Da to Pak Da: with a simple pivot, with a step in, with other footwork

Two man drill: Partner throws a Jab...evade or parry with a rear pak, partner throws a rear cross...Tan his cross as you punch across his withdrawing jab, then pak to pin his lead arm at the elbow as you punch again

Two man drill: Partner holds the focus mitts and feeds a jab-cross and you apply your Tan Da/Pak Da by striking the pads

Dummy application: you practice Tan Da/Pak Da on the dummy while stepping in at various angles...both from the side and "straight on"

Sparring: Look for the opportunity to apply the Tan Da/Pak Da combination when your opponent opens with a Jab-cross, especially if his cross is pretty sloppy and goes wide of center.

---Notice that I don't include Chi Sau in this formulation. The problem with Chi Sau is that the responses and attacks that your partner uses are not what someone who does not know WCK will use in a fight. We should be training to be able to fight anyone....not just a fellow WCK practitioner. Granted...Chi Sau develops contact reflexes, timing, etc. But there is a hefty investment in training time to get good at Chi Sau that could be spent on other things. And the return on that investment is not all that great when it comes down to fighting someone that doesn't do WCK. So I think a "functionalized" WCK would not have the emphasis on Chi Sau that many "traditional" approaches have. "Functionalized" WCK should replace the traditional emphasis on Chi Sau with an emphasis on sparring. That's not to say that Chi Sau would be done away with. Just that its role would be deemphasized.

---I'm ambivalent about the inclusion of the traditional linked sets in a "functionalized" WCK. I think that they can serve as a resource and inspiration for developing new San Sik. But I also think that if you have a set of good San Sik that covers most circumstances, you can dispense with the linked sets. As an example....Leung Jan's WCK method that he taught when he retired to Ku Lo village consisted only of San Sik that were based upon his experience in applying WCK in actual fighting. He dispensed with the traditional linked sets that he had learned previously.

---I would not do as Dale has suggested on other threads and get rid of the wooden dummy. I think the dummy serves the same purpose as a heavy bag, but on a more sophisticated level. The "functionalized" san siks should be practiced on the dummy to help develop angling, structure, and power. But the linked set on the dummy is in the same category as the empty-hand sets. In fact, I find that the dummy form in many cases is a better source for "functionalized" san siks than the empty-hand forms.

---In short, what I am advocating has historical precedence within WCK. It is doing what Leung Jan did. He applied his WCK in fighting and found out what worked. Based on that he got rid of the traditional linked sets and developed short sequences of techniques (san sik) that he had determined were the most important for developing WCK body structure and that had the most application in fighting. Then he applied these short sequences in two-man drills to develop their application, and also performed them on the dummy. We should do the same thing, but while keeping in mind the kind of fighters one would face in modern times....Muay Thai, boxers, grapplers, etc. This would not necessarily involve adding new techniques to WCK (though it could), but would primarily emphasize reformatting the traditional tools for use in more modern application. It would also involved the heavy use of realistic sparring, something that the people in Leung Jan's day couldn't do on a regular basis because they lacked the safety equipment that we have today.

[t_niehoff]

---I think that's a given....by calling them "unrealistic" drills by definition they aren't going to develop "realistic" skills. So we need to work at making our drills as realistic as possible in the context of modern fighting methods.


I don't know what you mean by "in the context of modern fighting methods". A realistic drill is one that corresponds to fighting, so that you practice doing what you will do in fighting as you will do it. That means taking a snippet or scenario from fighting and doing it over and over again.



I also agree that long linked sets aren't going to develop fighting skills. But they do serve as a resource or "dictionary" of moves within the system that can be drawn upon to come up with the tools we will use. They are like having a standardized math textbook to refer back to as needed. But I do think that forms in the format of short sequences of movements (san sik) ARE necessary for tool development. I pointed out that other "functional" systems use this approach. You have never explained how one would develop the WCK tools without using forms in this sense.


It doesn't make good sense to have a fixed "air model" (where you perform the action in the air) for a dynamic, adaptive action that will be performed against a live opponent. You can't really represent it. We don't need forms or even short forms to learn or develop any athletic activity. My view is to teach the tools of WCK, the dynamic, adaptive actions - whatever they are - as you will really do it in the context of application. IOWs, teach catching the ball by actually having you catch the ball -- not first start out pretending to do it in the air (form).



---So, to summarize the approach that I see as "functionalizing" WCK:

1. Keep application foremost in mind and use realistic sparring to test things and make sure they work. Seek out people doing something other than WCK to spar with. Treat sparring as a learning experience. If the local TKD guy kicks your butt, that's a good thing! Go back and work on your weaknesses and figure out why you lost the bout.


Lots of people do realistic sparring but never get their WCK tools to work, for example the wing chun kickboxers or the cavemen guys. They spar but use very limited WCK tools. So it takes more than sparring (although you absolutely need to do that). It also requires that you are very objective and critical of your performance, and use the sparring as a means to figure out how to use the tools, and use them consistently, regularly, etc.



2. Either break out sections of the traditional forms into short sequences or come up with your own short sequences (san sik). Work these short sequences into a two-man drill to help learn structure and application, then apply them in sparring against a resisting opponent. If you can't make them work in sparring the way you are practicing them solo and with a partner, then change them to match what actually works.


That won't work-- this is already what many people do: take some action from the form, use it in an unrealistic two-man drill, and then try to spar with it. You are going about it backwards. You need to start with what works in fighting, then drilll that -- because that is the only way to know what works. Your are starting from fantasy again.



3. Incorporate modern sports science and training methods. Make sure that a good conditioning program is part of the training. A "functionalized" WCK training hall should look like a gym, not an aerobics room. It should have heavy bags, focus mitts, medicine balls, kettlebells, etc.


Not "incorporate". If you want to develop significant fighting skills, then you need to train like a fighter. To train like a fighter, look at what other good proven fighters are doing and do what they do.



--Here's another example of what I mean (my first example was the Bong to Lop Da):

San sik: Tan Da to Pak Da: with a simple pivot, with a step in, with other footwork

Two man drill: Partner throws a Jab...evade or parry with a rear pak, partner throws a rear cross...Tan his cross as you punch across his withdrawing jab, then pak to pin his lead arm at the elbow as you punch again

Two man drill: Partner holds the focus mitts and feeds a jab-cross and you apply your Tan Da/Pak Da by striking the pads

Dummy application: you practice Tan Da/Pak Da on the dummy while stepping in at various angles...both from the side and "straight on"

Sparring: Look for the opportunity to apply the Tan Da/Pak Da combination when your opponent opens with a Jab-cross, especially if his cross is pretty sloppy and goes wide of center.


This is fantasy again. You see, you are starting with how you believe tan da/pak da *should* work in fighting. But what if it doesn't work welll that way? Then you are spending your time training something that is fantasy. And this is what most WCK teachers do: teach how they beleive it will work. They teach fantasy. I'll tell you from experience, that won't work, not against anyone with any speed. Those tools are contact tools (for after you've made contact), not non-contact tools. You won't have time to block/parry, and you don't want to reach with your parry (your tan sao) since it will open lines. This is what I'm talking about: see it fought before you see it taught. Go spar with some good people, see if you can pull that off consistently, regularly first. Let application be your sifu, not your imagination.



---Notice that I don't include Chi Sau in this formulation. The problem with Chi Sau is that the responses and attacks that your partner uses are not what someone who does not know WCK will use in a fight.

Chi sao develops chi sao applications, and so chi sao timing and chi sao contact reflexes. Those applications, timing, and contact reflexes are not fighting applications, timing, and contact reflexes. Chi sao is fine to teach certain contact skills but it is over-emphasized. Once you can perform the contact skill confortably, then it is time to drill that skill realistically.



---I'm ambivalent about the inclusion of the traditional linked sets in a "functionalized" WCK. I think that they can serve as a resource and inspiration for developing new San Sik. But I also think that if you have a set of good San Sik that covers most circumstances, you can dispense with the linked sets. As an example....Leung Jan's WCK method that he taught when he retired to Ku Lo village consisted only of San Sik that were based upon his experience in applying WCK in actual fighting. He dispensed with the traditional linked sets that he had learned previously.


It is simple: if you want to make your wCK functional, then you need to do what all other functional martial arts have done, use that same process of open skill acquisition and development. Don't be guided by stories, legends, or what nonfighters do.



---In short, what I am advocating has historical precedence within WCK. It is doing what Leung Jan did. He applied his WCK in fighting and found out what worked. Based on that he got rid of the traditional linked sets and developed short sequences of techniques (san sik) that he had determined were the most important for developing WCK body structure and that had the most application in fighting. Then he applied these short sequences in two-man drills to develop their application, and also performed them on the dummy. We should do the same thing,

That is a story -- a story. You don't know that is what Leung Jan did, and even if he did do that, it obviously didn't work! Forget Leung Jan and all the other "masters". Throw out the fantasy. That is step one. If you don't do that, you will still be following fantasy.

Then let application be your sifu. To do that you need to start with application, with fighting. You can't begin to figure out combative answers (how to use WCK tools) if you are not familiar with the combative questions. Get some training partners, start in contact and fight (trying to stay in contact, not breaking out). See the problems in doing that. Try to figure out how to answer those problems with the tools you have. If you are fortunate enough to know of someone that has done that, they may be able to help you. But certainly anyone who hasn't won't have a clue. You can also isolate the problems to drills, and practice solving them with our tools in that context.

The traditional WCK learning/training does teach you the tools of WCK, it just doesn't teach you how to use them to solve genuine combative problems. The only way to learn that is by solving genuine combative problems.

[Wayfaring]

BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground. Boxing is a free-movement, stand-up fighting (with punches) method, right? How do you practice and develop boxing? By doing it, by boxing (punching) in stand-up, free movement fighting. So how do you think we develop WCK as a dirty clinch boxing method? By doing it, by controlling while hitting in the clinch. FWIW, I'm not talking about greco-type clinches, but dirty-boxing-type clinches.


What do you mean by dirty clinch boxing? I don't know if I have the right picture of this. Are you just talking about range here? Or putting ether on your handwraps?

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do you mean by dirty clinch boxing? I don't know if I have the right picture of this. Are you just talking about range here? Or putting ether on your handwraps?

do a search on youtube, Rodney king has a few videos about it.

[k gledhill]

lmfao chi-sao isnt to develop dirty boxing clinching ...no wonder your at a loss for understnading VT...you really havent got a clue . Its to develop how to strike if contact is made based on previous guidelines YOU arent aware of.....so its only normal you would reach such an uniformed conclusion....there is no answer in the chi-sao to unlock its functionality without FIRST knowing what your doing it for....developing a simple idea.

Terence youve wasted 25 years and every time you post you prove it further....your so far from the reality and function its embarrasing your even trying to act like you know.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ya think? :eek: :cool: :D

[KPM]

I don't know what you mean by "in the context of modern fighting methods". A realistic drill is one that corresponds to fighting, so that you practice doing what you will do in fighting as you will do it. That means taking a snippet or scenario from fighting and doing it over and over again.

---I meant only that we should be taking into consideration what modern fighters do....boxing, muay thai, grappling, etc....not the context of older fighting methods such as Hung Ga, Choy Li Fut, karate, etc.

We don't need forms or even short forms to learn or develop any athletic activity. My view is to teach the tools of WCK, the dynamic, adaptive actions - whatever they are - as you will really do it in the context of application. IOWs, teach catching the ball by actually having you catch the ball -- not first start out pretending to do it in the air (form).

---This is where you and I have a disconnect. Your analogy of catching a ball is off. A better analogy is throwing the ball. A pitcher may very well go through the motions of a pitch without actually throwing the ball....in learning the proper biomechanics (form), as a warm up, to check his placement on the mound, etc. Then he practices throwing the ball to the catcher with no batter present (two man drill). Then he throws the ball during an actual game to try and strike out the batter (sparring).

Lots of people do realistic sparring but never get their WCK tools to work, for example the wing chun kickboxers or the cavemen guys. They spar but use very limited WCK tools. So it takes more than sparring (although you absolutely need to do that).

---I agree. But I would argue that if people are doing realistic sparring and their WCK tools are not showing up, then they have not trained them well enough in a "functionalized" format....short sequences practiced over and over to develop "muscle memory".....realistic two man drilling to ingrain application...then working it in sparring. Then go back and adjust or change those short sequences as needed to match how it actually works for you in sparring, and drill those motions over and over.

That won't work-- this is already what many people do: take some action from the form, use it in an unrealistic two-man drill, and then try to spar with it. You are going about it backwards. You need to start with what works in fighting, then drilll that -- because that is the only way to know what works. Your are starting from fantasy again.

---But how do you do that? Are you going to just grab motions out of thin air? Are you expecting the WCK gods to bestow working technique upon you? You have to have a foundation to do what you are describing. You have still never answer the question that I have asked several times. How do you propose developing that foundation....the WCK tools...without actually drilling them in some kind of structured format? And don't tell me that other functional martial arts don't do this....because they do! They teach technique in a structured format prior to throwing their proponents into the mix and expecting them to be successful.

Not "incorporate". If you want to develop significant fighting skills, then you need to train like a fighter. To train like a fighter, look at what other good proven fighters are doing and do what they do.

---So then I guess we should all just be doing MMA. Why bother with WCK? Why go to the trouble of trying to "functionalize" our WCK when we can just do what the successful fighters are doing? Terence I appreciate the discussion, but you haven't said anything yet in support of developing WCK itself.

This is fantasy again. You see, you are starting with how you believe tan da/pak da *should* work in fighting. But what if it doesn't work welll that way? Then you are spending your time training something that is fantasy.

---Did you read what I posted? I explicitely included the idea of a "feedback loop" in development. If it doesn't work in realistic sparring, then adapt it or change it to what does work. But you have to start somewhere! You can't be a "blank slate" going into a sparring situation and expect good WCK to just make an appearance.


It is simple: if you want to make your wCK functional, then you need to do what all other functional martial arts have done, use that same process of open skill acquisition and development. Don't be guided by stories, legends, or what nonfighters do.

---But these functional martial arts have a curriculum to develop the basics. You seem to advocate just throwing someone into a sparring situation and see what happens. How do you get WCK out of that?

That is a story -- a story. You don't know that is what Leung Jan did, and even if he did do that, it obviously didn't work!

---You don't know that either! It may very well have worked in that era against the type of fighters that Leung Jan regularly faced.

Then let application be your sifu. To do that you need to start with application, with fighting. You can't begin to figure out combative answers (how to use WCK tools) if you are not familiar with the combative questions.

---I agree. But I have been saying that you cannot learn how to use WCK tools without first developing and acquiring those tools! How we do that is part of "funtionalizing" WCK. You have yet to explain how you think that should be done other than just throwing someone into a sparring situation and seeing what happens.

The traditional WCK learning/training does teach you the tools of WCK,

---Ah! This is the first time you have admitted to that idea!

it just doesn't teach you how to use them to solve genuine combative problems. The only way to learn that is by solving genuine combative problems.

---Agreed. But why are you saying the same thing over and over rather than discussing the "how" of this process?

[Edmund]

2. Either break out sections of the traditional forms into short sequences or come up with your own short sequences (san sik). Work these short sequences into a two-man drill to help learn structure and application, then apply them in sparring against a resisting opponent. If you can't make them work in sparring the way you are practicing them solo and with a partner, then change them to match what actually works.

How is this different from what WC people ordinarily do?
Every school has their little sequences which they practice in those ways.

I don't know many schools that just do forms and chi sao. If some do, I think it's pretty F'ing obvious that it's a stupid idea!

[k gledhill]

Many dont know it is the knives that teach the sparring methods ;) not the chi-sao ...the forms serve to allow a timeout and train arm angles in the realtive peace of solo time...when you fight there is no time to think or correct your vu-sao ;) ...is your vu-sao good..is it, is it safe,...is it ?

Vt sparring is simply pressure testing the integity of the whole under pressure ...
chi-sao for the abrupt contact and non thinking return to arms in freeflow maintaining a unstoppable blitz aka an attack

chisao teaches either side of the engaging side to function seamlessly ...not er ah excuse me do mind if I fight on the other side Im better on that side ? :D

once on that side you are presented with can you hurt the guy with a well timed punch, and stay with them like your 'sticking to them' not the arms ; )

[Phil Redmond]

I'm not here to be educational or to teach, just to provide an alternative POV.
Terence,first of all you DO come off as an authority here.


It's up to you to do the work; I'm not going to do it for you. If you want to see what I do, pay me a visit.

You've asked for video proof from people here various times yet you ask people to visit you to see what you do. I find that very disingenuous.




If you understood the significance of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence, you'd already know that you can't be developing fighitng skills via forms and unrealistic drills. Unrealistic drills only teach you how to use the movement against unrealistic movements -- where your partner isn't moving, acting, doing what he would do in fighting but something else.
Anyone who studies movement or kinesiology knows that specific physical movements are learned through repetition.
http://www.infinitywalk.org/HealthCare/Neuralpriming-3.htm
There are exceptions where people seem to learn things innately for some reasons but generally people learn specicific movements by repeating (drilling).
You learn typing, playing a musical instrument, professional sports, etc., by doing drills until they become second nature. It seems (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you advocate just fighting without any proper training or drills and that "real" fighters don't do drills.
Boxers do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrnarXzqJcU

Muay Thai does drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5WNZdMLAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw2WAUXq6eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUO-Wn7GHIc


BJJ people do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LwzB5WuJ_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkhwsFG4LRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxL0E_sZqJk

MMA people do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc6GFZMZ6SA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6xDx8pilTA
These people have no clue about fighting according to you?

[Ultimatewingchun]

It still amazes me how people still respond to this trolling clown imposter.

Do yourselves all a favor and put the friggin' guy on your IGNORE list. :rolleyes:

That'll freak him out! :eek:

[t_niehoff]

What do you mean by dirty clinch boxing? I don't know if I have the right picture of this. Are you just talking about range here? Or putting ether on your handwraps?

What I mean by dirty-clinch boxing is that you are maintaining contact, an attached relationship with your opponent, his bridges and/or body, and using that for control while hitting.

[t_niehoff]

lmfao chi-sao isnt to develop dirty boxing clinching ...no wonder your at a loss for understnading VT...you really havent got a clue . Its to develop how to strike if contact is made based on previous guidelines YOU arent aware of.....so its only normal you would reach such an uniformed conclusion....there is no answer in the chi-sao to unlock its functionality without FIRST knowing what your doing it for....developing a simple idea.

Terence youve wasted 25 years and every time you post you prove it further....your so far from the reality and function its embarrasing your even trying to act like you know.

If you strike while in contact, which means you are also in your opponent's range, without controlling the other guy -- which striking alone doesn't accomplish except in rare cases -- then you'll end up merely trading punches. You have a nice theory, your "simple idea" (simplistic might be a more apt term), but that's all it is: theory.

The trouble with unrealistic drills, like chi sao, is that it develops an unrealistic "idea" of what will really happen in fighitng, what will really work in fighting, etc. For example, everyone does the palm strike from the tan sao, right? And what does your chi sao partner do? He tries to deal with the strike in some way, jum sao, jut sao, etc., right? Just like in dan chi sao. Well, that's not what is going to happen in a fight. He won't try to deal with your strike. He'll just hit you -- trade -- with his 'fook' hand. When you go to strike, he'll strike. You might hit first, but he won't care, because in that range, no one blaocks, parries, etc.-- they just hit. And if you practiced doing some contact fighting, you'd see that for yourself. And then you'd realize that you just don't want to develop the ability to hit while in contact but to control your opponent while striking (so he can't trade with you). It's the control aspect that is critical because that is your safety.

Chi sao is a platform to learn any number of contact skills, all of which deal wtih controlling while striking. But it can't teach you how to use those skills in fighting. Only fighting teaches you how to use those skills. BWIW, fantasy guys telling me that I have wasted my time I find amusing. Go spend a few years sparring with some competant fighters while trying to use your WCK tools, and then you'll appreciate my POV.

[t_niehoff]

Terence,first of all you DO come off as an authority here.


I am expressing my POV, which is based on evidence and reason. Certainly my experience goes into that mix but as I have repeatedly said, there are no authorities in WCK and that people should accept anything told to them unless and until they see it for themselves in fighting.



You've asked for video proof from people here various times yet you ask people to visit you to see what you do. I find that very disingenuous.


I have never made any claims about what I can do or what my level is. I've been very careful in that regard. And that's because my personal level of skill is in my view irrelevent to discussions of what are good ways to learn and develop fighting skills. My view as I present it is based on what all good, proven fighters do (regardless of what I do) -- look to them, not to me -- and my view as to the weakness of the traditional way of training is based on evidence (that good fighters don't do those things, what modern sport science has shown to be true about training, etc.). The response I often get is: the traditional training does work and has produced good skills. Well, anyone can say that, right? But where is the evidence? So, I ask for proof, for evidence. Because I only base my conclusions on evidence and reason. My proof, my evidence is in the form of what all good fighters do, what all good fight trainers do, and there is plenty of evidence out there as to that. What wrestlers, boxers, BJJ, MT, etc. do. So I can point to that, I can point to sport and motor skill science. So where is the evidence that TMA-type training, forms and unrealsitic drills, work? That's what I ask for.



Anyone who studies movement or kinesiology knows that specific physical movements are learned through repetition.
http://www.infinitywalk.org/HealthCare/Neuralpriming-3.htm
There are exceptions where people seem to learn things innately for some reasons but generally people learn specicific movements by repeating (drilling).
You learn typing, playing a musical instrument, professional sports, etc., by doing drills until they become second nature. It seems (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you advocate just fighting without any proper training or drills and that "real" fighters don't do drills.


Of course actions need to be drilled, I've never said they didn't. But how and what you drill are critical. Realistic drills build realistic skills. However, you only learn to fight by fighting.

Unrealistic drills, drills that don't correspond to fighting, can be used to learn movements, actions, etc. because they permit you to focus on that skill without being concerned about all kinds of other things. But because they do not correspond to fighting, you are not learning how to really use that movement, action, etc. in fighting (you are only learning how to use it in an unrealistic setting). To do that, you need to do realistic drills, drills that correspond (1-to-1)to fighting. And those are "snippets" of fighting/sparring: where you practice using the movement, action, etc. as you will really do it in fighting/sparring because you are in that environment.



Boxers do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrnarXzqJcU

Muay Thai does drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5WNZdMLAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw2WAUXq6eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUO-Wn7GHIc


BJJ people do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LwzB5WuJ_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkhwsFG4LRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxL0E_sZqJk

MMA people do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc6GFZMZ6SA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6xDx8pilTA
These people have no clue about fighting according to you?

Of course they have a clue: they are drilling what they will do in fighting as they will do it. And when they fight, you can see the result -- that they do in fighting what they train to do as they train to do it. That is the test for anyone's training. They're not doing forms, they are not doing unrealistic drills (like chi sao). They are taking movments, actions, etc. that they have found from experience fighting actually works and they drill them. They don't make up sequences from silly theory, practice them in unrealistic drills, and then try to spar with them (like so many WCK people do).

[k gledhill]

Terence wrote [/QUOTE]The trouble with unrealistic drills, like chi sao, is that it develops an unrealistic "idea" of what will really happen in fighitng, what will really work in fighting, etc. For example, everyone does the palm strike from the tan sao, right? And what does your chi sao partner do? He tries to deal with the strike in some way, jum sao, jut sao, etc., right? Just like in dan chi sao. Well, that's not what is going to happen in a fight. He won't try to deal with your strike. He'll just hit you -- trade -- with his 'fook' hand. When you go to strike, he'll strike. You might hit first, but he won't care, because in that range, no one blaocks, parries, etc.-- they just hit. And if you practiced doing some contact fighting, you'd see that for yourself. And then you'd realize that you just don't want to develop the ability to hit while in contact but to control your opponent while striking (so he can't trade with you). It's the control aspect that is critical because that is your safety.

Chi sao is a platform to learn any number of contact skills, all of which deal wtih controlling while striking. But it can't teach you how to use those skills in fighting. Only fighting teaches you how to use those skills. BWIW, fantasy guys telling me that I have wasted my time I find amusing. Go spend a few years sparring with some competant fighters while trying to use your WCK tools, and then you'll appreciate my POV.[/QUOTE]

ME:
chisao isnt what we want to end up in with the guy .....your thinking is that its an unrealistic drill because your trying to make sense of the 2 arms rolling /facing the guy etc...as the way VT fights another person...this is completely wrong thinking. A common misconception held by the mainstream...thinking that they will let the "chi-sao take over". Your views on the redundancy are valid because what you use the chi-sao for is redundant to a real fight with guys just hitting each other...nobody tries to stick, they want to hit...why should i seek to stick when I can overwhelm someone with the same 2 handed strike but with a tactical idea behind it. Im trying to do the same functional attack that they are doing at me ,,, simple 2 armed strikes....the problem lies in what you believe the chi-sao is for...probably you are missing some key element in the development....why we do chi-sao isnt to try to get here in a fight , its to know how to avoid being there....like a tennis match I dont start at the net awaiting an ACE :D

just a short intro : in chi-sao [ role playing] when a guy steps in with tan sao we dont do a downward wristing block [commonly called vu-sao] ...we angle and strike using jum and tan saos from outside of the given attack line [ role playing by a tan]...to train the counter attack to the line of force[ tan is the line of force aka a jab a x etc]....done randomly it develops the fighters to instinctively avoid center attacks and move away from the free hand ...ergo the flank....and counter the extended /committed attacking arm ..IN THE SAME BEAT...not easy requires you stay with the attack..counter the given arm [ why yip ma said the opponent will show you,,,] how to stay with the guy after the tries to regain his facing way is how chi-sao kicks in...not to stick but to use our other side [trained] to try make them over turn and simply fight that side as we stay with them ...and etc...if we maintain the attack [ chi-sao , constant proximity drills ] we can be striking a guy moving backwards with relatively little force in the strikes as counters if any...why BJJ is so effective against strikers is that its the best way to deal with this kind of assault...:D bad for me

so i fully agree with you that I should be wailing on someone with 2 arms ...the skills of the VT fighter are that he is making each striking arm act as 2 in one beat in rotation , ergo low elbows . To cover the centerline as we jink left to right or move the guy using his force with pa's juts, bongs using inch force to further remove the force not knowing or expecting that explosive action coupled with simple punches ...SIMPLE PUNCHES...very simplistic ;) thats why It works for me

a common mistake many make is to think to stick and roll with energy...using wrists deflections etc...all crap. There is a specific reason for chi-sao a line of thought taken from inception to the end of the system...and it aint sticking to peoples arms like a dirty clinch ;)


the chi-sao is a developmental tool in a role playing scenario not a guide book to how we fight with 2 arms extended in scenario that wont exist beyond a clinch ...and we dont want to clinch with people ...we can as you stated use chi-sao to do this ..but when you do you lose sight of the reason its is effective and play a game of mirrors trying to copy another thought process thats functional because it geared to build on the facing 2 armed clinch position...WE ARENT :D we are using it to know how to fight either weak side of a one sided fighter....dont fight like a heavy bag with sticky arms .

Ive been sparring for a long time T and I fight scrubs aka ninjas as well, so Im actually doing 2 kinds of fighting ...do you ?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Alan Orr has a chi sao clip up and there is a thread about it already...

[KPM]

Terence....its time to put up or shut up. You keep saying the same thing over and over on this thread while ignoring direct questions and avoiding providing any real solid information. So far you are just talking theory. I tried to give my take on a practical way to put the theory into effect, and you called it "fantasy." So let's hear how you would put the theory into effect. Describe for us how you would teach a beginner WCK in a "functional" format based on real fighting. How do you teach him the basics, the tools? How do you teach him good WCK structure? Do you teach him forms? What "realistic" drills do you use? Like I said, its time to put up or shut up. Are you here to share or just criticize? Please don't cop out by saying "come and visit to see what I do."

[Ultimatewingchun]

But Keith,

Terence will never put up...

and never shut up.

So maybe it's time to move on? :( :confused: :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Maybe its me, but it seems rather simple to make any system "functional".
First, decide WHAT FUNCTION it serves for the person in question.
Second, design a training programmed based on that function.

Seems to me the issue is what function WC is suppose to have.

[k gledhill]

it isnt to develop a 'dirty clinch' :D hilfurkinlarious

[JPinAZ]

Man, T, you really are a clown - I can't take it any more.


I am expressing my POV, which is based on evidence and reason. Certainly my experience goes into that mix but as I have repeatedly said, there are no authorities in WCK and that people should accept anything told to them unless and until they see it for themselves in fighting.

Are you saying we should 'see' it for ourselves, like you apparently, or actually 'feel' it for ourselves?

Anyway, I read the above, and then I read:


I have never made any claims about what I can do or what my level is. I've been very careful in that regard. And that's because my personal level of skill is in my view irrelevent to discussions of what are good ways to learn and develop fighting skills. My view as I present it is based on what all good, proven fighters do (regardless of what I do) -- look to them, not to me -- and my view as to the weakness of the traditional way of training is based on evidence (that good fighters don't do those things, what modern sport science has shown to be true about training, etc.).

So, you only base your opinion on what OTHERS do and what you SEE. You still claim no proven results from trying it yourself - ie. SKILL. That's probably why you are SO careful about not making any claims about yourself - You can show no proof that these methods OR ANY MOTHODS have produced any skills what-so-ever in your own fighting abilities. So, you are really saying you are fantasy yourself, only accepting what you see in others and now trying to pawn it off as 'the way'..... all without really knowing yourself.... if I am wrong, where is YOUR proof?? Of course, we should prove it to ourselves.... apparently, something you haven't even done.. so why should we even listen to you in the first place?

the way I see it... 25+ years of crappy WC - you still can't make it work.
Now, you give it up for 'better ways', most likely by watchin and sitting on the sidelines, just like your WC - and still can't make it work (are least can't produce evidence of your own...)
yeah yeah, 'look at the other good fighters'... smoke and mirrors. You're such a joke - hiding behind those that can because you can't.
Next you'll be saying 'come see me in LA'... yeah, so you can sit in the corner and hide behind others that are actually doing. Such a coward..


The response I often get is: the traditional training does work and has produced good skills. Well, anyone can say that, right? But where is the evidence? So, I ask for proof, for evidence. Because I only base my conclusions on evidence and reason. My proof, my evidence is in the form of what all good fighters do, what all good fight trainers do, and there is plenty of evidence out there as to that. What wrestlers, boxers, BJJ, MT, etc. do. So I can point to that, I can point to sport and motor skill science. So where is the evidence that TMA-type training, forms and unrealsitic drills, work? That's what I ask for.

And anyone can say what you are saying too.. now where is YOUR evidence?? No, not the guys I should go look at in the MMA gym that you nut hug all day - I'm talking where is YOUR proof that these new ways have worked for YOU?
all you do is point here and there, look here and there... but what do you really know? nothing.
Here's what I ask for: where is your evidence? you show me yours, I'll show you mine. :rolleyes:

[Graychuan]

Functional Wing Chun is just Wing Chun. It is not JKD.

If one gets to the point where he questions the validity of the forms and the dummy, the path is clear, do something else. Because this will be the moment at which you cease being a Wing Chun man.



Excellent!

~Cg~

[Graychuan]

VT is functional...you just dont see it T ribbet

Even better!!!

~Cg~

[Edmund]

Maybe its me, but it seems rather simple to make any system "functional".
First, decide WHAT FUNCTION it serves for the person in question.
Second, design a training programmed based on that function.

Seems to me the issue is what function WC is suppose to have.

Well I would have thought the function was fairly straightforward.
Unfortunately Terence is having trouble applying the basic applications that are commonly seen like Pak da. Therefore they can't work and we're all idiots.

Whereas he's applying them when clinched where they can work(?!). That's a curious statement which needs some backing up via evidence against a decent foe. When your opponent's got a good hold on you I believe it would be difficult to get your arm into a WC position to do much. You'd be much better served learning the clinching techniques you might see in wrestling etc.

[KPM]

Maybe its me, but it seems rather simple to make any system "functional".
First, decide WHAT FUNCTION it serves for the person in question.
Second, design a training programmed based on that function.

Seems to me the issue is what function WC is suppose to have.

---I think it is a given......WCK's "function" is to fight effectively. Unless you treat it like Tai Chi or Tae Bo...... But when the majority of practitioners seem to have a problem using WCK to fight effectively, then the topic would not seem to be as simple as you think.

[KPM]

But Keith,

Terence will never put up...

and never shut up.

So maybe it's time to move on? :( :confused: :rolleyes:

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories. I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ah, the different trains of thought in regards to functionality...

"works for me, that's good enough for me"
"works for others, that's good enough for me"
"worlkd for trained fighters, that;'s good enough for me"

Wouldn't hurt to follow "all of the above"...

[YungChun]

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories. I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.
It's really simple..

Dale thinks WCK sucks. No matter what you show him... Doesn't know too much about the system and is generally peed off that he spent 1-5 years in a funny stance.

Terence is the local SBG rep here--he's about 'aliveness' and verifying.. Doesn't know too much about the system but more than Dale and is also peeved he spent 20 years in a funny stance.

That's the beginning and the ending of it which is why it all gets repeated over and over--very simply there is nothing more to add or subtract.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's really simple..

Dale thinks WCK sucks. No matter what you show him... Doesn't know too much about the system and is generally peed off that he spent 1-5 years in a funny stance.

Terence is the local SBG rep here--he's about 'aliveness' and verifying.. Doesn't know too much about the system but more than Dale and is also peeved he spent 20 years in a funny stance.

That's the beginning and the ending of it which is why it all gets repeated over and over--very simply there is nothing more to add or subtract.

:D

Nice summation !

[Ultimatewingchun]

So then clearly it is time to move on, don't ya' think?

And leave these two guys alone to meditate on their issues. :cool:




................While the rest of us get back to discussing, uh, what is it now? Oh yeah, I almost forgot: WING CHUN KUNG FU. :D

[Knifefighter]

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories. I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.

LOL... I didn't post because I've been busy. Plus the fact that I've already given all my opinions over and over again about what I think makes for functionality or lack thereof and don't really feel like going into it once again. I doubt we'll ever agree, so it is pretty much a waste of typing.

[t_niehoff]

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories.


I don't know what "hard" info you want. If you want me to tell you how to "do" WCK, I can't because no one can tell another person how to do it. Just like no one can tell you how you should box. It's an individual thing. You have to learn to box by boxing, and learn WCK by (contact) fighting -- there is no "other" way. That process is the only "hard" info you need. Then all it takes is the work of going through the process. You seem to want to "intellectualize" that process, but that can't be done as it is physical, individual, and dynamic. You can't intellectualize how to surf; you learn the basics and then get out on the ocean with your board. Your skill comes from how much quality work (going through that process) you do. And as I keep pointing out, that process is the same for all open skill athletic activities. Moreover, until you've done some significant work, you won't even be asking the "right" questions.



I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.

You're like someone who says, "OK, you've told me that to learn to surf I need to get out in the ocean with my board and keep trying to ride some waves but that isn't specific enough." Well, until you've done a lot of that, nothing else will make much sense to you.

If you go through the process I describe with your WCK (just do contact fighitng while trying to make your WCK tools work), things will begin to fall into place for you. If you don't do the work, they never will fall into place.

[KPM]

I don't know what "hard" info you want.

---Its really very simple. I have proposed a way to learn the tools of WCK and then apply them to realistic sparring in as straight-forward a fashion as I could. You told me it was fantasy, but....despite my asking multiple times....you have not given us your proprosal for learning and applying the tools of WCK that isn't "fantasy." Now you try to say you don't know what I have been asking of you. I asked specifically for you to tell us how you take a beginning student and teach them the tools of WCK in a "functionalized" way that is based upon realistic sparring. I have asked specific quesitons of you and yet you still say you don't know what "hard" info I want. Surely you've been paying better attention than that?

If you want me to tell you how to "do" WCK, I can't because no one can tell another person how to do it. Just like no one can tell you how you should box. It's an individual thing.

---That's a load of BS. What are WCK sifu for? What are boxing coaches for? What are BJJ teachers for? What are wrestling coaches for? They all have a curriculum that they use to teach the foundational structure and basic tools of their art. That's what this thread has been about....how do we format the WCK curriculum to optimize the transition from foundation to effective fighting. You seem to have missed that point from the beginning. Your ENTIRE and ONLY message seems to be.....do realistic sparring to learn real application. OK, point taken. And its a good point. But you don't need to write such long and wordy posts to imply that you have more than that to say. Because it seems from this thread that you don't!

---Victor is right. Its time to move on, because you obviously don't have any more to contribute but than your basic message.....do realistic sparring. Thanks. I think we've got that!

[Edmund]

Keith,

Since Terence can't do WC in the style that you want to make functional, he can't offer any productive info on how to do it. He thinks it's a fantasy to be able to do it that way: Pak sao a punch or tan sao.

He can't even offer any info on how to do it his dirty clinching way which makes me think he's got more than a couple of fantasies of his own.

The issue with stuff like your pak sao drill and other san sik is that they are done in such a comfortable way that it's removing the fighting context. A lot of the demo style apps where someone does A and you do B are so tight a scenario that it's not challenging and hence not encouraging any real progression towards realism.

As soon as you have any sort of A->B "I am a robot" move, you lose the purpose of it. Moves just make up parts of the system. And by training things more conceptually and interactively, you will exercise hundreds of moves as they fit rather than looking to apply particular moves.

Also the problem of the fighting context of the san sik appplication drill is that it's not imposing your game onto your opponent. It's expecting a certain style from the opponent and responding to that. In a fight, the opponent can do whatever they like so the drills where you expect A coming and do B may be rendered completely useless if he goes for C.

These issues are far more fundamental than any other basic techniques or moves. Dealing with them is what makes WC functional and truly realistic.

[KPM]

Hey Edmund!

The issue with stuff like your pak sao drill and other san sik is that they are done in such a comfortable way that it's removing the fighting context. A lot of the demo style apps where someone does A and you do B are so tight a scenario that it's not challenging and hence not encouraging any real progression towards realism.
As soon as you have any sort of A->B "I am a robot" move, you lose the purpose of it. Moves just make up parts of the system. And by training things more conceptually and interactively, you will exercise hundreds of moves as they fit rather than looking to apply particular moves.

---That's exactly why the san sik are kept short, and IMHO have more benefit than the long linked sets. Each san sik is around 3 moves long...just like a typical combination in boxing. They are drilled with a partner in a "comfortable way" in order to "motor set" the application, just as a boxer works various combo's on a heavy bag or against focus mitts in a "comfortable way" outside of a "fighting context." But a necessary step is to also include them in a sparring situation in a unscripted and "uncomfortable" way to make sure they actually work. They are also as much about learning how to apply them conceptually as they are about specific technique. That way you are not limited to strictly one application. Many of the san sik that I practice have more than one two-man drill associated with them to drive home exactly that point.


Also the problem of the fighting context of the san sik appplication drill is that it's not imposing your game onto your opponent. It's expecting a certain style from the opponent and responding to that. In a fight, the opponent can do whatever they like so the drills where you expect A coming and do B may be rendered completely useless if he goes for C.

---That's why each san sik has to be applied in a sparring situation as part of the learning process. That's also why one practices to link the different san sik together in different ways. This puts a whole range of responses at your disposal. If something doesn't work, you should be able to transition smoothly into something else. You aren't trying to impose a given san sik on the opponent, rather you respond to an opening or opportunity with technique from one of the san sik that is appropriate at the time.

These issues are far more fundamental than any other basic techniques or moves. Dealing with them is what makes WC functional and truly realistic.

---Exactly. And what I have been proposing on this thread is a way to address these issues with WCK tools in as efficient a way as possible. I think it would be much more difficult to do it by relying only on the longer linked sets and the various chi sao drills. Realistic sparring is an essential element. But laying a firm foundation in WCK structure, technique, and tactics is also essential. How one develops this and transitions it smoothly and effectively to realistic sparring is the fundamental issue.

[t_niehoff]

I don't know what "hard" info you want.

---Its really very simple. I have proposed a way to learn the tools of WCK and then apply them to realistic sparring in as straight-forward a fashion as I could. You told me it was fantasy, but....despite my asking multiple times....you have not given us your proprosal for learning and applying the tools of WCK that isn't "fantasy." Now you try to say you don't know what I have been asking of you. I asked specifically for you to tell us how you take a beginning student and teach them the tools of WCK in a "functionalized" way that is based upon realistic sparring. I have asked specific quesitons of you and yet you still say you don't know what "hard" info I want. Surely you've been paying better attention than that?


I've told you, again and again -- the process is the answer. You don't understand that because you've not gone through the process yourself and so, lacking that experience, you don't see how it works. It seems fuzzy, vague, unclear to you. And it will because you don't understand the process and how it works. Understanding comes from experience, not from intellectualizing.

When you go through the process, you will face certain, specific combative problems, and they'll be in a sense heirarchical (where you need to solve #1 before worrying about #2). These problems are "the questions". In contact fighting, there are certain, specific problems/questions. WCK techniques, like techniques of any MA, are answers to those questions, things people from the past have figured out to deal with those problems. If you have gone through the process yourself, you'll know the "questions" and their basic order (heirarchy), and you will be able to structure a trainee's exposure to those "questions", to get them to clearly focus and see them. If you don't have someone to guide you, then you'll need to figure it out for yourself.

What is the first "question" of contact fighting? What is the first problem you will encounter? The problem that if you can't answer, nothing else will really matter? If you don't *know* the question -- and that knowledge only comes from experience -- how can you answer it? And until you (physcially) answer that question, you can't progress in terms of skill in contact fighting.

Now I can tell you what the first problem is, but then it will just be another theoretical, intellectual point for you. The only way to really know is to experience it. And you don't even need to intellectualize it or consciously recognize (verbalize) it. You need to experience it.

Until then, it is like talking with people who have never grappled on the ground about how to learn to grapple on the ground -- you need to hit the mats with some good people and begin the process.



If you want me to tell you how to "do" WCK, I can't because no one can tell another person how to do it. Just like no one can tell you how you should box. It's an individual thing.

---That's a load of BS. What are WCK sifu for? What are boxing coaches for? What are BJJ teachers for? What are wrestling coaches for? They all have a curriculum that they use to teach the foundational structure and basic tools of their art. That's what this thread has been about....how do we format the WCK curriculum to optimize the transition from foundation to effective fighting.


It doesn't matter how you structure the curriculum (Bjj has no structure at all, you just join the class, learn whatever is being taught at the time, which tends to be really haphazard, and roll). That's not the essential point of the learning. The process is the essential point. Going through the process. Someone that has gone through the process themselves can help another person by guiding them through that process; someone who hasn't gone through it can't help another person. The process isn't fixed but is like our art itself, dynamic, adaptive, and individual.



You seem to have missed that point from the beginning. Your ENTIRE and ONLY message seems to be.....do realistic sparring to learn real application. OK, point taken. And its a good point. But you don't need to write such long and wordy posts to imply that you have more than that to say. Because it seems from this thread that you don't!


Of course to develop realistic skills one need to train realistically; you can't learn/develop fighting skills by not fighting. But -- you can't learn BJJ by doing stand-up sparring. To use the tools of BJJ requires that you be on the ground. And, you can't learn to box rolling on the ground. To use the tools of boxing requires you spar in free-movement/stand-up.

From my perspective, to develop skill in WCK you need to begin with the method of WCK (the faat), which is WCK's approach to fighting. In a nutshell, it is controlling the opponent while striking. That is what we should be trying to do. The tools/skills of WCK aid in that approach. When you see WCK people "spar" and not use most of the WCK tools it is because those tools won't really work in their approach (caveman, kickboxing, etc.). That's why I keep saying start in contact and fight.

From my perspective, the very first thing a person needs to appreciate is the demands of that sort of fighting. By seeing firsthand those demands, a trainee can begin to see what they will need to do to deal with those demands. This is the beginning of the process. As the trainee faces those demands/problems/questions, the instructor can help the trainee deal with them by "teaching" the various techniques/skills of WCK in response to those demands/problems/questions. How that progresses will be individual, dynamic. So I'm saying, just use a sparring platform to teach. Is there an order to what skills the trainee will need? Yes. Refer back to my discussion on the heirarchy of problems.

Let the trainee encounter the problem, teach the trainee how to answer a question, then train it as you taught it, and use it as you learned and trained it (1-to-1-to-1).



---Victor is right. Its time to move on, because you obviously don't have any more to contribute but than your basic message.....do realistic sparring. Thanks. I think we've got that!

You want it all laid out for you, but it doesn't work like that -- it is organic, dynamic, individual. That's the difference between a(n organic) process and a fixed curriculum.

[Edmund]

---That's exactly why the san sik are kept short, and IMHO have more benefit than the long linked sets. Each san sik is around 3 moves long...just like a typical combination in boxing. They are drilled with a partner in a "comfortable way" in order to "motor set" the application, just as a boxer works various combo's on a heavy bag or against focus mitts in a "comfortable way" outside of a "fighting context." But a necessary step is to also include them in a sparring situation in a unscripted and "uncomfortable" way to make sure they actually work. They are also as much about learning how to apply them conceptually as they are about specific technique. That way you are not limited to strictly one application. Many of the san sik that I practice have more than one two-man drill associated with them to drive home exactly that point.


I don't think this has the conceptual and interactive characteristics I'm talking about though. Everyone does short little techniques. And then tries to spar with them. This is not creating a system to learn and progress. There's no guidance or teaching.

Bringing up boxing actually creates a good example of what I mean. Terms thrown around like "Coming over the top", "crowding", "sticking your jab in his face", etc. are all used in relation to an opponent. The terms are describing an interaction. And they are relatively conceptual. Techniques are just putting the concepts into actions.

We always empahsize that WC is a conceptual style. Unless the drills exercise the fighting concepts in relation to an opponent, their realism is limited.


---That's why each san sik has to be applied in a sparring situation as part of the learning process. That's also why one practices to link the different san sik together in different ways. This puts a whole range of responses at your disposal. If something doesn't work, you should be able to transition smoothly into something else. You aren't trying to impose a given san sik on the opponent, rather you respond to an opening or opportunity with technique from one of the san sik that is appropriate at the time.

Well I think that's the 2nd issue/problem I'm describing.
Even if you learn to use particular techniques in a fighting context, you're not imposing any game on your opponent.

You have to expect the opponent to adapt to you. e.g. If he's getting lit up with punches he's going to try tie up to avoid more damage. You *want* to impose a given san sik or set of san sik on the opponent so that he can't. Control your opponent.

i.e. I don't let them tie me up. I don't let them take me down. I don't let them move where ever they like. This is imposing my game.

We've all seen stupid apps where the demo dummy doesn't take any action to prevent the technique being applied to them either before or during it. Once you spar, of course every technique is going to meet some resistance. And people aren't even going to let you start the technique if they can help it.




---Exactly. And what I have been proposing on this thread is a way to address these issues with WCK tools in as efficient a way as possible. I think it would be much more difficult to do it by relying only on the longer linked sets and the various chi sao drills. Realistic sparring is an essential element. But laying a firm foundation in WCK structure, technique, and tactics is also essential. How one develops this and transitions it smoothly and effectively to realistic sparring is the fundamental issue.

I think everyone already does san sik. They take techniques and drill them. That and then sparring is not an improvement or a smooth transition without steps in between.

By the way: Who the hell does only forms and chi sao? I'd be lucky to do 10 minutes doing chi sao out of an hour of training .

[KPM]

Bringing up boxing actually creates a good example of what I mean. Terms thrown around like "Coming over the top", "crowding", "sticking your jab in his face", etc. are all used in relation to an opponent. The terms are describing an interaction. And they are relatively conceptual. Techniques are just putting the concepts into actions.

---I never meant to imply that that kind of teaching wouldn't be part of the entire approach. Of course it would. Just because I am suggesting a san sik format for the curriculum doesn't mean there wouldn't be direct teaching of concepts and tactics during sparring.

You have to expect the opponent to adapt to you. e.g. If he's getting lit up with punches he's going to try tie up to avoid more damage. You *want* to impose a given san sik or set of san sik on the opponent so that he can't. Control your opponent.

---I see what you're saying, and I agree. I meant only that I don't go in with a preconceived notion of "I'm going to use the Jut Choi San Sik the next time we close." Of course you still seek to pressure and control the opponent and make him respond to you. But you still let the technique flow with the circumstances.

We've all seen stupid apps where the demo dummy doesn't take any action to prevent the technique being applied to them either before or during it. Once you spar, of course every technique is going to meet some resistance. And people aren't even going to let you start the technique if they can help it.

---I agree.

I think everyone already does san sik. They take techniques and drill them.

---Of course. What I'm proposing isn't new. But I'm suggesting that one could make it the focus of the curriculum, and not just a peripheral drill. I'm suggesting that this is a better way than spending lots of time on the longer linked sets. And I'm also giving it more structure than most people.....san sik, specific two man drill, applied on the dummy, worked in sparring,....and even....performed with the knives.

That and then sparring is not an improvement or a smooth transition without steps in between.

---Ok. What do you see as the "steps in between"?

By the way: Who the hell does only forms and chi sao? I'd be lucky to do 10 minutes doing chi sao out of an hour of training .

---Not so many years ago that was the standard. There may have been other drills used to develop individual technique, but sparring was a rare thing. But times are changing. And that's a good thing! :)

[Edmund]

I never meant to imply that that kind of teaching wouldn't be part of the entire approach. Of course it would. Just because I am suggesting a san sik format for the curriculum doesn't mean there wouldn't be direct teaching of concepts and tactics during sparring.


My suggestion is rather than trying to teach it just during sparring, you could enhance your drills or add better ones.


Of course. What I'm proposing isn't new. But I'm suggesting that one could make it the focus of the curriculum, and not just a peripheral drill. I'm suggesting that this is a better way than spending lots of time on the longer linked sets. And I'm also giving it more structure than most people.....san sik, specific two man drill, applied on the dummy, worked in sparring,....and even....performed with the knives.

I feel that you're describing what already is done by many people.
That's the status quo. To make things more functional and realistic, you have to go even further IMO.



Ok. What do you see as the "steps in between"?


The stuff I was saying before about making drills:
1. More conceptual
2. More interactive
3. Against realistic resistance/opponent.

Making it conceptual means, rather than drilling one or two techniques when partner does an attack, you're training a set of related techniques that apply to a particular situation. The interactive part is the choice of which particular technique fits. The realistic resistance is the opponent not just letting you do your technique on them and be your demo dummy, but forcing you to time it right or use good mechanics or whatever.

So for example, after a student has done your pak sao drill they can move to something more advanced. One student throws straight punches at range and tries to close to use hooks and uppercuts. Other student tries to use parries and punches to smother their opponent with lateral movement to keep them at range or tie up their arms and throw a knee if they get too close.

I think this has been mentioned many many times before. The "aliveness" crap that some morons go on and on about. Hate to flog the dead horse...

[KPM]

I feel that you're describing what already is done by many people.
That's the status quo. To make things more functional and realistic, you have to go even further IMO.

---Ok. Maybe you've seen more WCK lineages at work than I have. :)

So for example, after a student has done your pak sao drill they can move to something more advanced. One student throws straight punches at range and tries to close to use hooks and uppercuts. Other student tries to use parries and punches to smother their opponent with lateral movement to keep them at range or tie up their arms and throw a knee if they get too close.

---I see what you mean. Good suggestions. Kind of a "controlled" or "progressive" sparring.

I think this has been mentioned many many times before. The "aliveness" crap that some morons go on and on about. Hate to flog the dead horse..

---No flogging noted. Thanks for the input. Now what are some of the San Sik that you practice and have found to be the most functional?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Guys, it snot the difficult or complex, the issue I see WC having ( and its not just WC) is that they don't spar other systems enough to make the needed modifications to be effective VS them.

All WC needs to be more functional as a fighting system is to spar/fight other systems and modify the needs accordingly.

[KPM]

---OK. Going against my better judgement and Victor's advice, I'm going to respond to this, since I have some free time to use. :D It likely will go nowhere, but we can always hope!

If you have gone through the process yourself, you'll know the "questions" and their basic order (heirarchy), and you will be able to structure a trainee's exposure to those "questions", to get them to clearly focus and see them.

---I am assuming that you are someone who has gone through the process you speak of. I have simply asked (several times now) that you give us an example of how you "structure a trainee's exposure to those questions." How do you structure the WCK curriculum? That doesn't seem like a difficult question to me.


Now I can tell you what the first problem is, but then it will just be another theoretical, intellectual point for you. The only way to really know is to experience it. And you don't even need to intellectualize it or consciously recognize (verbalize) it. You need to experience it.

---Then, since you don't seem to be able to provide us with concrete examples....I guess its all just theory? Really, you don't sound any different than those guys that like to talk about "chi" and the more mystical explanations. How does it feel to be "bedfellows" with Hendrik??!!! :eek:

Until then, it is like talking with people who have never grappled on the ground about how to learn to grapple on the ground -- you need to hit the mats with some good people and begin the process.

---That's funny. Seems that the BJJ guys can provide lots of practical advice...and examples...about how their "process" works.

It doesn't matter how you structure the curriculum (Bjj has no structure at all, you just join the class, learn whatever is being taught at the time, which tends to be really haphazard, and roll).

---Really? That's not how my brief training in BJJ went. That's certainly not what is shown in the multitude of BJJ books and videos on the market now. They all have a structured curriculum. They teach technique, and counters to those techniques in a step-wise structured format.


Of course to develop realistic skills one need to train realistically; you can't learn/develop fighting skills by not fighting. But -- you can't learn BJJ by doing stand-up sparring. To use the tools of BJJ requires that you be on the ground. And, you can't learn to box rolling on the ground. To use the tools of boxing requires you spar in free-movement/stand-up.

---Once again, you are repeating the same thing over and over to make it seem like you have more to say.

So I'm saying, just use a sparring platform to teach. Is there an order to what skills the trainee will need? Yes. Refer back to my discussion on the heirarchy of problems.

---Refer back to my request for examples of how you do this with your students.

Let the trainee encounter the problem, teach the trainee how to answer a question, then train it as you taught it, and use it as you learned and trained it (1-to-1-to-1).

---It almost sounds like you are advocating what I have described as "San Sik Wing Chun", but in reverse order. Do the sparring....show the student WCK's "answer" to a specific sparring situation they encounter...put that in a drill to be able to practice it...then take it back to sparring.

You want it all laid out for you, but it doesn't work like that -- it is organic, dynamic, individual. That's the difference between a(n organic) process and a fixed curriculum.

---BJJ has fixed curriculum, boxing has a fixed curriculum, wrestling has a fixed curriculum. Being "live and organic" is a good thing. But you also have to have a good foundation in the basics. You keep arguing around that point, and avoiding talking about how those basics are learned and developed.

[YungChun]

He dodges that point because secretly, Terence has his new students do three hour SLTs and 30 minutes of ne gung cultivation breathing/mediation... (on sundays) Then he passes around the lucky money basket in the dressing room.. :D

It's tough being a TMA... :o

[couch]

It's tough being a TMA... :o

Apparently not if you have good music in the kwoon!

(They think it's TMA...but their dancing their way to spiritual freedom...)

Kenton

[Edmund]

---I see what you mean. Good suggestions. Kind of a "controlled" or "progressive" sparring.


You could call it that.
I see it as a form of drill.



---No flogging noted. Thanks for the input. Now what are some of the San Sik that you practice and have found to be the most functional?

I think it still works as a progression. Simple drills move on to more complicated ones. The simple ones are still important to learn and revise. I have some very mundane simple ones that I always teach the complete beginner to teach basic concepts.

e.g. Gate theory: Even if you stand quite staggered, generally you want the left arm to protect the left side of your body and the right arm to defend the right side. To get each side more coordinated, do one side at a time. One partner can attack and defend using only their left while the other partner uses only their right arm. They learn to use their basic defences and attacks and learn about hands being on the inside or outside etc. Then they swap over. Then allow both hands.

Another simple one from MT is the clinch and knee. Partners clinch and try knee and throw each other. They learn to use different tie ups to get control. A similar one that's a bit more WC like comes from the Pan Nam style. You can only grab the arms and you try to throw each other. No leg sweeps. No waist or neck locks or armlocks really, usually just underhooks or overhooks, maybe wrist grab. Use speed, footwork and body movement to unbalance them rather than trying to powerlift them up.

There's stacks of them really. The main thing is to keep it challenging some aspect of fighting rather than have a "special" list of drills. Hard to say what is "most functional". Sparring is pretty functional but you may get by with only a limited subset of moves and then you never challenge yourself to improve.

(Maybe I'll add some more later)

I actually found some of the stuff said earlier in the thread pretty good. You mentioned something about using focus mitts. They can be used to make challenging drills provided the padholder knows what they're doing. You also mentioned clinch and groundfighting. These things are outside of WC's comfort zone hence challenging.

[KPM]

Hey Edmund!


e.g. Gate theory: Even if you stand quite staggered, generally you want the left arm to protect the left side of your body and the right arm to defend the right side. To get each side more coordinated, do one side at a time. One partner can attack and defend using only their left while the other partner uses only their right arm. They learn to use their basic defences and attacks and learn about hands being on the inside or outside etc. Then they swap over. Then allow both hands.

---One of the San Sik that I use it called "3 Gates." You do a Biu Da to the left, Biu Da to the right, Gan Da to the left, Gan Da to the right, right Gum Sao and punch, left Gum Sao and punch. The two man drill is basically what you have described above. The San Sik is practiced stationary in YGKYM, with a simple pivot, with forward stepping, with side angling stepping, etc. It is performed on the dummy as well. It is utilized in sparring. It is also applied with the knives, replacing the punches with forward snap cuts. This really drives home the structure, concept, and application behind the San Sik.

Sparring is pretty functional but you may get by with only a limited subset of moves and then you never challenge yourself to improve.

---This is an excellent point. I think this would be a problem in "reverse engineering" WCK as Terence seems to have suggested. If what you were doing and learning was based ONLY on sparring, you might find yourself doing a somewhat limited set of techniques. Everyone has a favorite set of techniques that they find works well for them and that are "high percentage" moves. But that does not mean that other things might not show up on occasion. If you don't have a comprehensive set of movements to use, you may come up short.