Lost in Translation... [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

monji112000

02-08-2008, 09:26 AM

No, it's not a thread about the movie! :D

After a continual battle to find the time to read through the vast ammounts of posts in this forum, and write myself, it concerns me that most of the common errors, misunderstandings and forum 'back-biting' tends to originate from one thing and one thing only; Language, or dare I say 'lack-of' common Wing Chun language!

What I would like to propose is for everyone to search their trainig notes, look deep into your memories (NOT any ...Pedia site lol!) and try to come up with all the references to the language of Wing Chun you can remember. Then, post your findings on this thread and see if we can come up with a basic outline of, not what makes us all different, but what makes us all the same.

It's a looooooong shot, I know... :( but I live in hope we all have 'something' in common here!

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL!!
*fist2palm*
I really don't think translation really is the root of most issues people have. If this was the case we (US) would have issues with boxer's techniques from other countries.. but you don't normally hear of that in the boxing world. The basic methods of boxing are clear for the most part. A very technical boxer looks and moves in a general way.

Wing chun is not the same. You have many people doing things that are very different. We call the stuff basically the same thing, but we are all doing something different. Some styles are very similar, while others are on the other side of the planet. give it 100 years, if people are still doing wing chun then maybe it will be as universal as western boxing or at least in that general direction.

LoneTiger108

02-13-2008, 09:11 AM

Wing chun is not the same. You have many people doing things that are very different. We call the stuff basically the same thing, but we are all doing something different.

This stuff you mention is the stuff of legend! ;)

We only have differences because of the individual personality of the Sifu. What I'm getting at is that somewhere we have to link before so many differences really do confuse the pants out of all of the younger generations.

I see this happening all the time, and wonder if Wing Chun will even hold onto it's image in the future let alone it's principles and curricullums... :(

drleungjohn

02-13-2008, 09:20 AM

You mean "the stuff dreams are made of"

Sorry couldn't resist-props to my fellow Bogey fans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSd_MCIIKNk

LoneTiger108

02-13-2008, 09:46 AM

You mean "the stuff dreams are made of"

Sorry couldn't resist-props to my fellow Bogey fans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSd_MCIIKNk

I feel like an old B&W movie myself these days, and theres 'supposed' to be more life in the old chicken yet!! :o

sanjuro_ronin

02-13-2008, 09:47 AM

I really don't think translation really is the root of most issues people have. If this was the case we (US) would have issues with boxer's techniques from other countries.. but you don't normally hear of that in the boxing world. The basic methods of boxing are clear for the most part. A very technical boxer looks and moves in a general way.

Well said.
:D

LoneTiger108

02-14-2008, 02:52 AM

The basic methods of boxing are clear for the most part. A very technical boxer looks and moves in a general way.

I agree 100% but this general way you mention is ultimately decided by the rules set out for competition imo which were created by the English speaking Pugilists. So, no problem with translation there.

Wing chun is not the same. You have many people doing things that are very different. We call the stuff basically the same thing, but we are all doing something different.

This is what I'm TRYING to address with this thread. I believe that WC isn't that disimilar to boxing. We do have a 'general way' and it seems that the actual information or curricullum that provides us all with this information is varied or non-existent in some new generations allowing them to be influenced by outside sources.

This is what causes a confusion. The language imho is of upmost importance and shouldn't just be dismissed because you want to teach in English. On a side note, we mustn't get too bogged down with the language either, or use language from another style or system.

Maybe in the next 100 years the Cantonese dialect will be extinct! :eek: Mandarin is not the language most of us have been taught with, especially if you're linked to Ip Man in some way. So I raise my palm and fist to the Cantonese and hope to carry on their distinctive tones for a while! :D

So, in conclusion I feel that we need to find the common terms, principles and sayings and discuss these. Who knows, maybe somebody somewhere has a curricullum written down in Chinese? ;)

I would hate to be the only one...

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 05:23 AM

WC stylist tend to Nit Pick on insignificant things.

t_niehoff

02-14-2008, 05:49 AM

WC stylist tend to Nit Pick on insignificant things.

Yes, and completely miss the significant parts. ;)

The problems isn't so much "the language" but what is trying to be conveyed by the language -- theory. And many, many arguments come down to whose theory (or "grasp" of theory) is "better" and the discussions revolve around points of "theory". Boxing, wrestling, MT, and other functional arts don't have those arguments, those discussions, since they don't have "the theory." They correctly recognize that skill comes from training (how you train), not from theory. And that at best theory is just step 1, a beginning, some small guide to be replaced with actual experience (as a beginner, lacking experience, it helps to have some direction in acting until we begin to find our own way). That the less theory the better.

If we look at any sport, functional combative art, athletic activity, etc. we see the same thing-- what makes someone good, what makes someone better than another is not theory. You're not a better boxer, better wrestler, better basketball player, better swimmer, better golfer, etc. because you *know* something, some theory, that the other guy doesn't. Only in TMAs do people fall into the theory trap.

Why the theory trap? For two reason: the traditional mindset and lack of significant actual experience.

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 06:02 AM

Yes, and completely miss the significant parts. ;)

The problems isn't so much "the language" but what is trying to be conveyed by the language -- theory. And many, many arguments come down to whose theory (or "grasp" of theory) is "better" and the discussions revolve around points of "theory". Boxing, wrestling, MT, and other functional arts don't have those arguments, those discussions, since they don't have "the theory." They correctly recognize that skill comes from training (how you train), not from theory. And that at best theory is just step 1, a beginning, some small guide to be replaced with actual experience (as a beginner, lacking experience, it helps to have some direction in acting until we begin to find our own way). That the less theory the better.

If we look at any sport, functional combative art, athletic activity, etc. we see the same thing-- what makes someone good, what makes someone better than another is not theory. You're not a better boxer, better wrestler, better basketball player, better swimmer, better golfer, etc. because you *know* something, some theory, that the other guy doesn't. Only in TMAs do people fall into the theory trap.

Why the theory trap? For two reason: the traditional mindset and lack of significant actual experience.

I agree with what you said except the traditional mindset, but as we both know, we have different views on what a traditional mindset is, so lets leave it at that.
Sport combat arts do have theory, it just happens to be the same as the practical elements and are only valid IF they are effective on a regular basis, just because somethign works for Boxer A doesn't mean it will become "gospel" in boxing UNLESS it works for Boxers B,C, D, E etc, etc.

Practical systems also tend to view effectivness as the key element to any theory that is spewed, if it doesn't work for the majority it is not a valid approach.

In TMA there tends to be a "it works for sifu/sensei, so it should work for me" view.
The leads down a tricky road.

If Sifu A does his bong sau like so and Sifu B does it like so and they BOTH work, then BOTH are valid, one must them analyse the why's and see which method is best for us.

t_niehoff

02-14-2008, 07:40 AM

I agree with what you said except the traditional mindset, but as we both know, we have different views on what a traditional mindset is, so lets leave it at that.
Sport combat arts do have theory, it just happens to be the same as the practical elements and are only valid IF they are effective on a regular basis, just because somethign works for Boxer A doesn't mean it will become "gospel" in boxing UNLESS it works for Boxers B,C, D, E etc, etc.

All sports, functional combative arts, etc. are skill-based, not theory-based. Yes, they may have some theory -- just very little of it, and, as I said, it is just to get the trainee started (to give them some direction) in developing their skills and that will be replaced by their own experience as they find their own way. For example, judo has the theory "push when pulled, pull when pushed" to give the beginner some direction in terms of how to break their opponent's posture/balance (a skill).

Practical systems also tend to view effectivness as the key element to any theory that is spewed, if it doesn't work for the majority it is not a valid approach.

Anytime the focus is really on playing the game -- whether boxing, wrestling, fighitng, or playing a sport -- the major consideration is going to be personal results (success). Personal results come from skill. Skill comes from training. Not theory.

In TMA there tends to be a "it works for sifu/sensei, so it should work for me" view.
The leads down a tricky road.

This is because they do not view MAs as an open-skill athletic activity, like boxing or wrestling or basketball or tennis.

Also, it leads to the blind leading the blind -- bad, or at best not particularly good, golfers trying to teach someone to be a good golfer. To teach another a skill, a person needs to be proficient with that skill themself.

This is why I think TMAs have adopted the conceptually-based (theory) model as opposed to the skill-based model: in that way, someone without the skill, can still teach --since they "have the concept or principle".

If Sifu A does his bong sau like so and Sifu B does it like so and they BOTH work, then BOTH are valid, one must them analyse the why's and see which method is best for us.

No. You see, you can't choose your game. What I mean is, for the sake of illustration, that you may really like stick-and-move (or whatever) in boxing. But you can't choose to be a stick-and-mover. It's not a question of analyzing intellectually and figuring out what you think will best suit you (more theory). All you can do is box, and find your own way. It's the same with any open-skill athletic activity. But that can only be done by doing it.

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 07:51 AM

Also, it leads to the blind leading the blind -- bad, or at best not particularly good, golfers trying to teach someone to be a good golfer. To teach another a skill, a person needs to be proficient with that skill themself.

This is why I think TMAs have adopted the conceptually-based (theory) model as opposed to the skill-based model: in that way, someone without the skill, can still teach --since they "have the concept or principle".

I agree that some ability in a chosen field is needed, but don't forget that some of the best boxing coaches were just "journeymen" fighters at best.
Skill in activity doesn't always translate into skill in teaching/coaching.

No. You see, you can't choose your game. What I mean is, for the sake of illustration, that you may really like stick-and-move (or whatever) in boxing. But you can't choose to be a stick-and-mover. It's not a question of analyzing intellectually and figuring out what you think will best suit you (more theory). All you can do is box, and find your own way. It's the same with any open-skill athletic activity. But that can only be done by doing it.

Not sure why is said NO when you basically siad the same thing I did..
I assume because you took the "analyse" part as being something you do in theory and that is not what I meant.

t_niehoff

02-14-2008, 08:20 AM

I agree that some ability in a chosen field is needed, but don't forget that some of the best boxing coaches were just "journeymen" fighters at best.
Skill in activity doesn't always translate into skill in teaching/coaching.

It's a case of a robin is a bird but not all birds are robins. To teach/coach a skill, a person needs to be proficient with that skill. "Journeyman" is proficient -- they've boxed and have the fundamental skills. Teaching/coaching itself goes beyond *just* having the skills. But having the skills is a prerequisite. So, you can be a good golfer and still a poor coach, but you can't be a good golf coach without being a fairly decent golfer.

Not sure why is said NO when you basically siad the same thing I did..
I assume because you took the "analyse" part as being something you do in theory and that is not what I meant.

I responded to what you said since I can't read your mind. :)

FWIW, what I was responding to was one thing the theoretical guys do all the time: come up with a theory of what is best or how they believe they should do something -- based on theory or on how someone else does it. My point is this approach isn't valid. I need to base my game on what I, as an individual, can do well, my natural proclivities, my talents, my attributes, etc. I have to find my own way. I can't do that through an intellectual process; I can only do that by playing the game.

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 08:44 AM

It's a case of a robin is a bird but not all birds are robins. To teach/coach a skill, a person needs to be proficient with that skill. "Journeyman" is proficient -- they've boxed and have the fundamental skills. Teaching/coaching itself goes beyond *just* having the skills. But having the skills is a prerequisite. So, you can be a good golfer and still a poor coach, but you can't be a good golf coach without being a fairly decent golfer.

I responded to what you said since I can't read your mind. :)

FWIW, what I was responding to was one thing the theoretical guys do all the time: come up with a theory of what is best or how they believe they should do something -- based on theory or on how someone else does it. My point is this approach isn't valid. I need to base my game on what I, as an individual, can do well, my natural proclivities, my talents, my attributes, etc. I have to find my own way. I can't do that through an intellectual process; I can only do that by playing the game.

Agreed on both counts.

sihing

02-14-2008, 09:04 AM

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 09:34 AM

So, a couple of questions then, what is the method of teaching someone interested in boxing, when they enter a gym and only have limited amount of time to engage in training (lets say 6hrs a week, where they are able to go to the gym), and does learning boxing from someone proficient in coaching it (since it is agreed that a coach in boxing has to have boxing skills to teach it) guarantee success in a combat situation?

James

6 hours a week is NOT limited for combat sport like boxing.
The method is simple, typically ( unless you are doing boxing "classes") you get some 1-on-1 instruction on how to punch and move, stance and such.
Then you learn how to hit the bag and pads and you're off.
Coach supervises you for a bit and once you have the hang of it, he lets you do your stuff, corrects you when needed, adds new stuff when he feels you are ready.
Focuses on building speed, power and conditioning AFTER technique.
Adds sparring as soon as he fells you are ready and willing.

sihing

02-14-2008, 09:37 AM

6 hours a week is NOT limited for combat sport like boxing.
The method is simple, typically ( unless you are doing boxing "classes") you get some 1-on-1 instruction on how to punch and move, stance and such.
Then you learn how to hit the bag and pads and you're off.
Coach supervises you for a bit and once you have the hang of it, he lets you do your stuff, corrects you when needed, adds new stuff when he feels you are ready.
Focuses on building speed, power and conditioning AFTER technique.
Adds sparring as soon as he fells you are ready and willing.

Sounds like the the way I teach WC, and they way I've been taught.

Thanks:)

James

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 09:42 AM

Sounds like the the way I teach WC, and they way I've been taught.

Thanks:)

James

What other way is there?
Training in contact arts is usually pretty easy and standard, its the pressure testing that makes the difference more often than not.

sihing

02-14-2008, 09:51 AM

According to T, all we do in class is forms and talk about the theory of tan/bong/fok, and how undefeatable it will make us, then we all go out for nacho's and watch the hockey game on the big screen:)

I just wanted to confirm for myself a point. T has a predjuice for sure against most WC/TMA people, and puts us all in a pigeon hole, all the while not realizing that what we are doing is not so different from what he says the functional fighting arts are doing. It is just done in our own way. Like you said the boxing coach teaches you the basics, the stance, punch and movement (no different from a Sifu teaching form or basics), the the b coach teaches how to hit the pads and bag, no different from the Sifu teaching chi sau or Mok Jong (learning how to apply the basics with a partner or preset training apperatus), then the b coach lets you play with it, same as the Sifu having the student play the chi sau, the footwork drills, the conditioning drills on the pads and bags, dummy, etc...When the b coach thinks your ready he puts you in to spar, same with the Sifu, when your ready the intensity increases, you gor sau, you spar, you do things in a random matter where the chances of getting hit are ever increasing. Same process, different engines being built.

Thanks again Sanjuro:)

James

LoneTiger108

02-14-2008, 10:15 AM

All sports, functional combative arts, etc. are skill-based, not theory-based. Yes, they may have some theory -- just very little of it, and, as I said, it is just to get the trainee started (to give them some direction) in developing their skills and that will be replaced by their own experience as they find their own way. For example, judo has the theory "push when pulled, pull when pushed" to give the beginner some direction in terms of how to break their opponent's posture/balance (a skill).

I think sihing and sanjuro have pretty much settled this one. Of course there is theory in Boxing! Albeit just a little, but I see your point and why you might think this. You must've been taught as a 'fighter', not as a 'coach/trainer/instructor/sifu'.

Interesting to see you then say this:

Teaching/coaching itself goes beyond *just* having the skills.

Yes, coaching requires you to 'have a theory', or if not at least have a curricullum! :D Sanjuro said it best imho:

Skill in activity doesn't always translate into skill in teaching/coaching.

Thanks to all of you for all your input so far... :)

sihing

02-14-2008, 10:28 AM

I think sihing and sanjuro have pretty much settled this one. Of course there is theory in Boxing! Albeit just a little, but I see your point and why you might think this. You must've been taught as a 'fighter', not as a 'coach/trainer/instructor/sifu'.

Interesting to see you then say this:

Yes, coaching requires you to 'have a theory', or if not at least have a curricullum! :D Sanjuro said it best imho:

Thanks to all of you for all your input so far... :)

All for T to just skim over our posts to reply in his standard way, "No No, you have it all wrong, you are not reading what I am saying, bla bla bla. TMA is fantasy, they are theoritans, all theory no action, I know, as I know what everyone in every kwoon, dojo, club, city, state, country around the world is doing. Only I and my MMA friends (and Sifu, Sihings by association only), know the real way, we go out and fight other fighters, to prove again and again that we have the stuff. But don't listen to me, go visit your local MMA gym, as I have no skills in fighting and don't consider myself a fighter in the first place". The funny thing is I never started my Martial Arts training to become a fighter, lol, I just like the training/teaching, and it gives me and others way to possibly defend ourselves against a violent physical attack on the street. Why would I want to test my fighting skills against another, to wake up the next morning to aches, pains and broken bones, noses, and the ability to not train or teach again for the next month or so, because my ego feels the need to prove my manhood. Like Rocky said, "You gotta be a moron to want to be a fighter"....

The facts are T likes to read his own posts, it confirms his exsistence in this world and fullfills a need within himself, otherwise why post the same things over and over and over again, when we all tell him we understand what he is saying and at times agree with some of it (testing part mostly), just not the pigeon hole thing of placing everyone in the same category due to association or designation.

James

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 10:39 AM

sihing

02-14-2008, 11:20 AM

I need to emphasize the point of not only CONTEXT but pressure testing.

Certain training build certain attributes that are specific to certain systems - wooden dummy and chi sao for WC for example.
Those attributes must then be put into practice with hard contact sparring with a NON-Cooperative opponent, perferably of a higher skill level.
They then MUST be presuure tested in some sort of open competition and FINALLY pressure tested VS different systems,
This is how you become a well rounded fighter.

Now, boxers don't do all that either, be it western Boxing or MT, BUT because of the typical boxing gyms typical "stable" of fighters, the quality of pressure testing is quite excellent and, once again, TYPICALLY better than what is at most WC kwoons.

One can't over state the importance of the quality of pressure testing.

This is because boxing is a sport, therefore people that come to it, on the most part, want that competitive aspect to come forth from the participation in boxing (training in boxing, to compete in boxing events and venues). For those that are not looking at boxing for that aspect, they probably won't be involved as much, maybe they like the workout it provides or they like the participating in the training and what it has to teach them, strictly for those reasons, to each their own. When I was a teenager, I choose tennis as the sport I wanted to play, not boxing. I enjoyed the sport and liked the competitiveness it provided. If I want to learn how to fight, I have plenty of choices, judo, karate, kung fu, TKD, MMA, boxing. We choose the things we are attracted to, not strictly based on the effectiveness of its method. If my sole concern was for street fighting, I would still stay with WC, but really up the sparring and realism of the training, meaning when we train, and after the skills are absorbed, the intensity rises up, intermittingly, with more training session per week, and strict regemends of physical conditioning in place (I could easily do this for myself, as my understand of WSL WC is higher than my physical skills IMO, so I need more training that way, problem is training partners are not always available, so I do bag training on my own, and other things that bring about improvement in my attributes so when the skills increase, the body is ready for them. The thing is the students in my club are not ready for that, they still need allot of work on the engine and structure WC develops, plus their understanding of it is relatively low). I would also train in some ground stuff as a helping system to get me used to that environment, but the WC would always be my base method, which I would use as I see fit (me using it, instead of it using me). So I agree with all you said above, if fighting is all you see and want out of it. Fighting to me means, pitting my skills against another with skills as well. IMO that is not the same as a street confrontation where you are not interested or looking for confrontation, rather it comes to you and you have to deal with it.

James

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 11:25 AM

This is because boxing is a sport, therefore people that come to it, on the most part, want that competitive aspect to come forth from the participation in boxing (training in boxing, to compete in boxing events and venues). For those that are not looking at boxing for that aspect, they probably won't be involved as much, maybe they like the workout it provides or they like the participating in the training and what it has to teach them, strictly for those reasons, to each their own. When I was a teenager, I choose tennis as the sport I wanted to play, not boxing. I enjoyed the sport and liked the competitiveness it provided. If I want to learn how to fight, I have plenty of choices, judo, karate, kung fu, TKD, MMA, boxing. We choose the things we are attracted to, not strictly based on the effectiveness of its method. If my sole concern was for street fighting, I would still stay with WC, but really up the sparring and realism of the training, meaning when we train, and after the skills are absorbed, the intensity rises up, intermittingly, with more training session per week, and strict regemends of physical conditioning in place (I could easily do this for myself, as my understand of WSL WC is higher than my physical skills IMO, so I need more training that way, problem is training partners are not always available, so I do bag training on my own, and other things that bring about improvement in my attributes so when the skills increase, the body is ready for them. The thing is the students in my club are not ready for that, they still need allot of work on the engine and structure WC develops, plus their understanding of it is relatively low). I would also train in some ground stuff as a helping system to get me used to that environment, but the WC would always be my base method, which I would use as I see fit (me using it, instead of it using me). So I agree with all you said above, if fighting is all you see and want out of it. Fighting to me means, pitting my skills against another with skills as well. IMO that is not the same as a street confrontation where you are not interested or looking for confrontation, rather it comes to you and you have to deal with it.

James

Well said.

sihing

02-14-2008, 11:44 AM

For me, on a personal level it would be cool to meet up with you sanjuro, as it sounds like you have a ton of exeperience in allot of methods as well as WC. I could learn a ton from you and experience something different, so that is always a cool thing to have happen. If I make it down your way I will definetly let you know, to bad this wasn't a year and half ago, I was down there 2 or 3 times already, lol.

James

t_niehoff

02-14-2008, 11:45 AM

Sounds like the the way I teach WC, and they way I've been taught.

Thanks:)

James

No it's not.

Boxers train to be fighters.

Boxer's,like all functional martial artists, learn fundamental skills in the context of how they will use them (in fighting), practice using those skills as they will use them, and then use them as they have trained -- 1 to 1 to 1 (they're learning looks like their training which looks like their boxing). Classical WCK training, like any TMA, doesn't have that 1 to 1 to 1 correspondence.

Boxing coaches are people who have developed good, proficient skills (boxing in the ring) themselves. The overwhelming majority of WCK teachers have little in the way of genuine skills (being able to do what they train to do).

They emphasize conditioning and their conditioning drills are "sport specific".

They make sparring the core of their training, and recognize that you only learn to box and develop your boxing skills by boxing.

t_niehoff

02-14-2008, 11:59 AM

According to T, all we do in class is forms and talk about the theory of tan/bong/fok, and how undefeatable it will make us, then we all go out for nacho's and watch the hockey game on the big screen:)

No, I don't think that. What you are doing is using a strawman -- mis-stating my position to refute it.

I just wanted to confirm for myself a point. T has a predjuice for sure against most WC/TMA people, and puts us all in a pigeon hole, all the while not realizing that what we are doing is not so different from what he says the functional fighting arts are doing.

If TMAists were doing what functional martial artists were doing, they would be getting the same results. But they're not. They never have. The evidence of that is overwhelming. (Like when the WCK guys from HK went to fight the Thais).

What TMAists, including some in WCK do, are some things that have some similarity to what functional martial artists do and convince themselves that "we do that too." But they are not the same and they don't have the same priority/focus.

Much of what TMAists do is waste their time -- at least from the perspective of developing fighting skills. Forms, unrealistic drills like chi sao, are essentailly wastes of time when it comes to developing skills. So if you have a two-hour training session and you spend most ofthe time doing forms, chi sao, san sao, etc. all that time is spent not developing skills. Throw in theory, it you go further off-track.

It is just done in our own way. Like you said the boxing coach teaches you the basics, the stance, punch and movement (no different from a Sifu teaching form or basics), the the b coach teaches how to hit the pads and bag, no different from the Sifu teaching chi sau or Mok Jong (learning how to apply the basics with a partner or preset training apperatus),

That's not the same at all. Chi sao and mook jong isn't application -- it isn't what you will do in a fight as you will do it. All you have to do is spar with some nonWCK guy that presses you and you'll see that nothing resembling those things you practice come out as your practice doing them.

[/QUOTE]
then the b coach lets you play with it, same as the Sifu having the student play the chi sau, the footwork drills, the conditioning drills on the pads and bags, dummy, etc...
[/QUOTE]

This is like saying "apples and oranges are a lot alike -- they both are fruit, are tasty, etc."!

When the b coach thinks your ready he puts you in to spar, same with the Sifu, when your ready the intensity increases, you gor sau, you spar, you do things in a random matter where the chances of getting hit are ever increasing. Same process, different engines being built.

Thanks again Sanjuro:)

James

Chisao, gor sao is nothing -- NOTHING -- like fighting. It is just a UNREALISTIC EXERCISE to teach you a very limited set of contact skills. Anyone who spars will see that. They will see that they can't do in fighting what they do in chi sao, because all kinds of variables that we exclude from chi sao are present in fighting.

hhe

02-14-2008, 12:17 PM

Chi Sau, Kiu Sau, focus mitt, Jong, roll with partner, footwork, forms etc. are drills. They are part of focus training for particular technical skills of fighting if you know what you are doing. They can be use for technical development; some can also be use for skill challenge. Obvious, alone they are not fighting.

sihing

02-14-2008, 12:31 PM

No it's not.

Boxers train to be fighters.

Boxer's,like all functional martial artists, learn fundamental skills in the context of how they will use them (in fighting), practice using those skills as they will use them, and then use them as they have trained -- 1 to 1 to 1 (they're learning looks like their training which looks like their boxing). Classical WCK training, like any TMA, doesn't have that 1 to 1 to 1 correspondence.

Boxing coaches are people who have developed good, proficient skills (boxing in the ring) themselves. The overwhelming majority of WCK teachers have little in the way of genuine skills (being able to do what they train to do).

They emphasize conditioning and their conditioning drills are "sport specific".

They make sparring the core of their training, and recognize that you only learn to box and develop your boxing skills by boxing.

True, boxers do train to be fighters that fight other boxers, what happens when you put a wrestler in the ring with a boxer (without the boxer knowing you did this), whatta think would happen?

WC teaches fundamental skills for fighting, balance, structure, power development, mobility, focus, sensitivity, spatial awareness, etc, just in a different way than boxing. I don't use tan as a technique with the idea that I have to express it in a fight, lol, (like you seem to think I am, it is an idea or concept to spread something away. When there is nothing to spread I hit, not thinking about spreading or subduing or slapping, but hitting, only when something interferers with it do I use those things, and only as much of it as I need, due to built in reaction, not a preconceived motion learned from a form. I fight, with the idea to win, not express WC. Most of the time I will never have to use it, and if I did you wouldn't see me using it, as it is all a part of the motion. Just like a boxer has the built in ability to adjust his blows, and defend at the same time, it because they train it and it is seldom seen but always felt).

WC teachers, like me are proficient in WC, it is up to the student learning it to bring it out in a fight or self defence situation. Are you saying that the Boxing trainer physically transfers his skill to his pupil? It's the same process, just a different method, so no difference.

I emphasize application specific conditioning practices as well, bag work, power work, accuracy work, timing work, you think we are all just standing still all class trying to generate our chi? lol..

If sparring is the core of their training, why is there mitt work, bag work, road work, skipping, dbl ended bag, situps pushups physical conditioning. All of these things sharpen the tools a boxer has, and it is combined with non contact sparring because this is where the boxer uses it, they are non contact fighters. WC does the same, but we use contact as an ally, but we are not dependent on it, as hitting is the thing. It is actually easier since we only have one punch to train, the straight punch, they have hooks, crosses, jabs, upper cuts, but they need these things since they are competiting in a sport environment with other conditioned athlete's in a ring with rules, meant to bring forth entertaining bouts, with the idea to make money.

James

sihing

02-14-2008, 12:48 PM

No, I don't think that. What you are doing is using a strawman -- mis-stating my position to refute it.

If TMAists were doing what functional martial artists were doing, they would be getting the same results. But they're not. They never have. The evidence of that is overwhelming. (Like when the WCK guys from HK went to fight the Thais).

What TMAists, including some in WCK do, are some things that have some similarity to what functional martial artists do and convince themselves that "we do that too." But they are not the same and they don't have the same priority/focus.

Much of what TMAists do is waste their time -- at least from the perspective of developing fighting skills. Forms, unrealistic drills like chi sao, are essentailly wastes of time when it comes to developing skills. So if you have a two-hour training session and you spend most ofthe time doing forms, chi sao, san sao, etc. all that time is spent not developing skills. Throw in theory, it you go further off-track.

That's not the same at all. Chi sao and mook jong isn't application -- it isn't what you will do in a fight as you will do it. All you have to do is spar with some nonWCK guy that presses you and you'll see that nothing resembling those things you practice come out as your practice doing them.

Chisao, gor sao is nothing -- NOTHING -- like fighting. It is just a UNREALISTIC EXERCISE to teach you a very limited set of contact skills. Anyone who spars will see that. They will see that they can't do in fighting what they do in chi sao, because all kinds of variables that we exclude from chi sao are present in fighting.

Getting the same results where? Is there any competition events even able to handle the amount of people involved in Martial Arts if they all wanted to compete (what 10 million or so participants). Hey, it is not my fault that MA events have musical forms, I laugh too:) I have a student that trains in Karate as well (his son is there so he still trains there because of that). He's told me many times how his WC training has helped him in sparring with his Karate BB, and he's only a orange belt. Does this result prove my point? I dunno, nor do I care:)

When that happened to Sifu Lam that is correct, then he went to Thailand, learned their method and came back with and fought with them to a better result. He's done what your saying, and he say's Thai is the king of the ring, WC is the king of the street, but I guess that doesn't count because you know better:)
The key thing here is competitons are not the street. Apples and Oranges here.

Your right about the priority and focus, but I'm not interested in fighting other fighters in a ring or octagon with rules and ref's. I only train in something I enjoy and teach it for the same reason, with less intensity because we are using for a different purpose, more for enjoyment of training and some self defence abilities if and when it is needed. You need to relax a bit and learn to enjoy life more, as life is not about fighting and being ready for the fight that may never happen. Plus I a knife is no use against a gun:)

Forms and chi sau are part of the training program that develops "Wing Chun" skills, it is up to the participant to be able to fight with it. If there purpose is to fight in a competition environment, then WC is not for you, that is not it's purpose or goal, go to MMA/boxing gym for that:)

I never said Chi sau and mok jong is application, it is the training to develop the WC skills, to which if someone wants to they can then move on to the non contact sparring aspect, which is also important if you want to be a good fighter. You must be able to deal with distance, timing and perspection issues when in a combat situation, especially if you fight competitively. Techniques don't win fights, people do and it is if they use their training successfully or not, is the key.

James

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 12:51 PM

sanjuro_ronin

02-14-2008, 01:01 PM

When that happened to Sifu Lam that is correct, then he went to Thailand, learned their method and came back with and fought with them to a better result. He's done what your saying, and he say's Thai is the king of the ring, WC is the king of the street, but I guess that doesn't count because you know better
The key thing here is competitons are not the street. Apples and Oranges here.

I don't agree with this, but that is a different thread.

If sparring is the core of their training, why is there mitt work, bag work, road work, skipping, dbl ended bag, situps pushups physical conditioning. All of these things sharpen the tools a boxer has, and it is combined with non contact sparring because this is where the boxer uses it, they are non contact fighters. WC does the same, but we use contact as an ally, but we are not dependent on it, as hitting is the thing. It is actually easier since we only have one punch to train, the straight punch, they have hooks, crosses, jabs, upper cuts, but they need these things since they are competiting in a sport environment with other conditioned athlete's in a ring with rules, meant to bring forth entertaining bouts, with the idea to make money.

There are pro boxers and amat. boxers and semi-pro and just pain fighters that box.
Pro boxing, like pro MT tends to be done on a whole to put on a show and for that
Fights tend to last longer, though some fighters will take the quick KO, most fans like a long fight, a few rounds at least.
BUT never think for a moment that a trained fighter can't and/or won't take someone out quicker than the panties of a prom queen fly off on prom night.
They will.
Sparring is the core of any fighting system, ALL TYPES of sparring, hard being typical and full contact being mixed up in there as well on a pretty regular basis.
pad work and bag work can actually make up more training time, but the core is still sparring, even more so in the beginning.

sihing

02-14-2008, 03:22 PM

I don't agree with this, but that is a different thread.

There are pro boxers and amat. boxers and semi-pro and just pain fighters that box.
Pro boxing, like pro MT tends to be done on a whole to put on a show and for that
Fights tend to last longer, though some fighters will take the quick KO, most fans like a long fight, a few rounds at least.
BUT never think for a moment that a trained fighter can't and/or won't take someone out quicker than the panties of a prom queen fly off on prom night.
They will.
Sparring is the core of any fighting system, ALL TYPES of sparring, hard being typical and full contact being mixed up in there as well on a pretty regular basis.
pad work and bag work can actually make up more training time, but the core is still sparring, even more so in the beginning.

Then I guess it comes down to how you define core. When someone says that to me, I interpret it to mean they are doing that activity the most. If you mean that everything else (pad/mitt work, heavy bag, road work, etc...) leads up to sparring, then I agree. The idea is to not get good at hitting the bag or the mitts, but putting it all together in the ring when you need it. It all works the same in WC, at least the way I am learning it, we develop the tools, then use them. I for one do not believe in WC vs WC when it comes to sparring, as this will get you know where fast. One guy will plays the role of streetfighter/boxer/wrestler/kickboxer/etc.., the other will use their WC skills, and then go from there. By the way, when it comes to training like this, I also don't believe in limiting myself to just a WC structure, I might as well use whatever tools I have and then incorporate the training in when I need it. If your open, and I can hit you with a jab, then why not. In practice I keep it strict, because I am learning something specific. When using it, anything goes.

Regarding Sifu Lam's comment, in all essence I believe that in the end it is up to the person using it that makes the biggest difference. MT guys train hard, have a good work ethic, and are tough as nails and love to fight. Anyone that goes thru there training regemend will become proficient in defending themselves, so really it is not about the method that we are talking about, more about the training and conditioning. The best fighters have a good method and top notch conditioning, guaranteed. But sometimes we are not talking about strictly that, Fighting, per say. The average guy with 40hr a week job, and other responsibilities/activities in life, may not be able to train that way, or want to for that matter. On this forum here, all we can really do is talk about the method, not individual training practices or generalizations used by some that may be the minority, rather than the majority.

James

sihing

02-14-2008, 03:24 PM

Anytime, I am always up for getting my ass handed to me and if you can learn a thing from me, I would be honoured to share.

The ass handed to me part will be the other way around dude. You teach me some ground stuff, I'll teach you the invincible pak sau. Deal;)

James

sanjuro_ronin

02-15-2008, 05:54 AM

Then I guess it comes down to how you define core. When someone says that to me, I interpret it to mean they are doing that activity the most. If you mean that everything else (pad/mitt work, heavy bag, road work, etc...) leads up to sparring, then I agree. The idea is to not get good at hitting the bag or the mitts, but putting it all together in the ring when you need it. It all works the same in WC, at least the way I am learning it, we develop the tools, then use them. I for one do not believe in WC vs WC when it comes to sparring, as this will get you know where fast. One guy will plays the role of streetfighter/boxer/wrestler/kickboxer/etc.., the other will use their WC skills, and then go from there. By the way, when it comes to training like this, I also don't believe in limiting myself to just a WC structure, I might as well use whatever tools I have and then incorporate the training in when I need it. If your open, and I can hit you with a jab, then why not. In practice I keep it strict, because I am learning something specific. When using it, anything goes.

In a nutshell, equipment like the HB, mitts and pads are used to develop striking attributes - speed, force, follow-through, endurance ( both muscular and cardiovascular).
On learns to fight by fighting, starting with light contact sparring ( for a very limited time), to hard contact ( got get the honest reactions) to full contact, then one moves on the actual "fighting" ie: competition.
The core of a fighter fighting ability is his ability to fight ie: the core is sparring.
The core of a fighters technical skill level is his equipment training.

Regarding Sifu Lam's comment, in all essence I believe that in the end it is up to the person using it that makes the biggest difference. MT guys train hard, have a good work ethic, and are tough as nails and love to fight. Anyone that goes thru there training regemend will become proficient in defending themselves, so really it is not about the method that we are talking about, more about the training and conditioning. The best fighters have a good method and top notch conditioning, guaranteed. But sometimes we are not talking about strictly that, Fighting, per say. The average guy with 40hr a week job, and other responsibilities/activities in life, may not be able to train that way, or want to for that matter. On this forum here, all we can really do is talk about the method, not individual training practices or generalizations used by some that may be the minority, rather than the majority.

I don't train now like I used to train when I was either competing or when is was even more obsessed with MA, ex:
There was a tiem that I took a year off school and work and all I did was train, 7 days a week, twice a day, I got my nidan in kyokushin and my shodan in judo at that time.
Can I do that now?
Nope, but the fact that I did, carries over to what I do know, the body remembers and it keeps what you have done, as long as you maintain it.
I don't train like a pro fighter because I am not one, nor do I care to be one.
What is the difference in what I do now?
I train less and spar less, but the rest is exactly the same, so what is the diference?
Conditioning, and that is a huge thing my friend, trust me on that.

In many ways we come back full circle to the theme of this thread, whicl some TCMA schools (like WC) tend to focus on "irrelevant" stuff liek what is a Pak Sao and how is it suppose to be done, other schools focus on training their students/trainees to be the best that can be, bets fighters they can be.

there is no translation issues because the language is universal - effectievness and testing of effectiveness.

EX: while some coaches prefer the thumb up hook and other prefer the palm down hook, NO COACH will stop you from doing which ever one feels more natural and works best for you.

t_niehoff

02-15-2008, 07:05 AM

True, boxers do train to be fighters that fight other boxers, what happens when you put a wrestler in the ring with a boxer (without the boxer knowing you did this), whatta think would happen?

That's not what we were talking about.

Fighting involves stand-up, clinch, and ground. You went from comparing how people train -- theri trianing method -- to what they train to do. Boxers train certain skills, wrestlers train another group of skills.

WC teaches fundamental skills for fighting, balance, structure, power development, mobility, focus, sensitivity, spatial awareness, etc, just in a different way than boxing.

WCK, like boxing and wrestling, is an approach to fighting, and that approach has certain skills, tools, etc. What a WCK fighter does is different that what a boxer does because it is a different approach to fighting. You could also say that wrestling teaches "fundamental skills for fighting, balance, structure, power development, mobility, focus, sensitivity, spatial awareness, etc, just in a different way than boxing." Andf you'd be right -- since wrestling is a different approach than boxing.

What I am talking about is the training model. And boxers and wrestlers use the same model, adapted to their specific approach. TMAs don't use that model. They use a different one, one that has provedto be ineffective.

I don't use tan as a technique with the idea that I have to express it in a fight, lol, (like you seem to think I am, it is an idea or concept to spread something away. When there is nothing to spread I hit, not thinking about spreading or subduing or slapping, but hitting, only when something interferers with it do I use those things, and only as much of it as I need, due to built in reaction, not a preconceived motion learned from a form.

You ahve "built in reaction" from unrealistic drills, like chi sao. Those "reactions" aren't realistic -- they won't work like that in fighting -- since they were not trained realistically, in the same context that they will really be used. You ahve developed chi sao reactions, not fighitng skills.

All you need to do is tape yourself doing chi sao/gor sao. Then, get a nonWCK partner, begin in contact
(as you are in chi sao) and really fight -- you'll see that all your chi sao reactions are worthless.

I fight, with the idea to win, not express WC. Most of the time I will never have to use it, and if I did you wouldn't see me using it, as it is all a part of the motion. Just like a boxer has the built in ability to adjust his blows, and defend at the same time, it because they train it and it is seldom seen but always felt).

You are not "using it most of the time" because you're not fighting in contact, and tan sao is a contact move -- and like many WCK people, you don't see WCK as a contact fighting method. So you do kickboxing with WCK. If you do that, most of WCK's tools can't be used (because they arecontact tools).

WC teachers, like me are proficient in WC, it is up to the student learning it to bring it out in a fight or self defence situation. Are you saying that the Boxing trainer physically transfers his skill to his pupil? It's the same process, just a different method, so no difference.

Classical WCK people don't train or learn as boxers do. The process is entirely different. There is not that 1 to 1 to 1 correspondence (learning to training to doing), sparring isn't the core of the training, condititioning isn't empahsized, etc. WCK people practice forms (that are worhtless as training), unrealsitic drills (which won't and can't develop fighting skills or attributes, including sensitivity), try to follow silly theories of fighting expoused by nonfighters, etc.

What you mean by "proficient" is that you "know" the forms, know the drills, can talk theory (how you beleive it will work), and can spar reasonably well with other WCK people. And that's what shotokan karate people call "proficient" too. And so do tai ji people. And aikido people.

But, you will fail the test for proficiency: whether you can do in fighting/saprring those things you train to do as you train to do them. You'll see that you can't really pull off most of them -- and you'll end up doing what most WCK people do, either caveman WCK (charging in with straightblast and front kicks) or kickboxing. And, if you spar/fight against decent functionally-trained fighters, you will get wiped.

I emphasize application specific conditioning practices as well, bag work, power work, accuracy work, timing work, you think we are all just standing still all class trying to generate our chi? lol..

You can only get timing from sparring -- there is no other "timing work". I think what you are doing is essentially the blind leading the blind.

How about this? -- take some time off and go spend it with a good, proven fight trainer. See how fighters really train. Actually learn from genuine proven experts in the field. Do the training yourself. Then take what they do, how they train, and try to apply that to your WCK.

If sparring is the core of their training, why is there mitt work, bag work, road work, skipping, dbl ended bag, situps pushups physical conditioning.

That'a all conditioning, sport specific conditioning. As I said, they emphasize conditioning. Because when sparring is the core of your training, and you recognize that your skill *only* comesfrom sparring, you will wanttodo as much of it as possible, right? And to do that, you need to be in very good condition.

All of these things sharpen the tools a boxer has, and it is combined with non contact sparring because this is where the boxer uses it, they are non contact fighters.

"Sharpening the tools" is a poor analogy becauase it suppests that the sharpening and the use of the tools are two different things. They're not. You only sharpen combative tools by using them, by sparring or by realsitic drills (which aresnippets or snapshots of sparring).

WC does the same, but we use contact as an ally, but we are not dependent on it, as hitting is the thing. It is actually easier since we only have one punch to train, the straight punch, they have hooks, crosses, jabs, upper cuts, but they need these things since they are competiting in a sport environment with other conditioned athlete's in a ring with rules, meant to bring forth entertaining bouts, with the idea to make money.

For me, WCK's approach is to control while hitting. And the control is at least as important as the hitting. I don't see WCK has only having one punch.

Boxing has different tools not because it is a sport (it had those before it was a sport) but because it is a different approach to fighting and that approach is for stand-up, free-movement, not contact fighitng.

t_niehoff

02-15-2008, 07:18 AM

On learns to fight by fighting, starting with light contact sparring ( for a very limited time), to hard contact ( got get the honest reactions) to full contact, then one moves on the actual "fighting" ie: competition.

That's not exactly the "progression". What's important is that the learning, the training, and the doing correspond 1to 1 to 1. That you make sparring the core of your training, and that you mix light, heavy, etc. And realize that competition is not the object of the training; the object is to develop the skills.

The core of a fighter fighting ability is his ability to fight ie: the core is sparring.
The core of a fighters technical skill level is his equipment training.

Equipment training can never develop technical skill. That is all conditioning. Skill -- which is your ability to successfully do in fighting the things you train to do -- comes from sparring or from realistic drills(which are snippets of sparring).

In many ways we come back full circle to the theme of this thread, whicl some TCMA schools (like WC) tend to focus on "irrelevant" stuff liek what is a Pak Sao and how is it suppose to be done, other schools focus on training their students/trainees to be the best that can be, bets fighters they can be.

there is no translation issues because the language is universal - effectievness and testing of effectiveness.

EX: while some coaches prefer the thumb up hook and other prefer the palm down hook, NO COACH will stop you from doing which ever one feels more natural and works best for you.

Yes, we have run the circle. Theory, whether how to fight, how to apply WCK, how to train, etc. is the issue. TMAs are theory-based. Whereas functional martial arts are result-based. You can even see this in the marketing of the TMAs and the functional martial arts.

sihing

02-15-2008, 08:32 AM

That's not what we were talking about.

Fighting involves stand-up, clinch, and ground. You went from comparing how people train -- theri trianing method -- to what they train to do. Boxers train certain skills, wrestlers train another group of skills.

WCK, like boxing and wrestling, is an approach to fighting, and that approach has certain skills, tools, etc. What a WCK fighter does is different that what a boxer does because it is a different approach to fighting. You could also say that wrestling teaches "fundamental skills for fighting, balance, structure, power development, mobility, focus, sensitivity, spatial awareness, etc, just in a different way than boxing." Andf you'd be right -- since wrestling is a different approach than boxing.

What I am talking about is the training model. And boxers and wrestlers use the same model, adapted to their specific approach. TMAs don't use that model. They use a different one, one that has provedto be ineffective.

You ahve "built in reaction" from unrealistic drills, like chi sao. Those "reactions" aren't realistic -- they won't work like that in fighting -- since they were not trained realistically, in the same context that they will really be used. You ahve developed chi sao reactions, not fighitng skills.

All you need to do is tape yourself doing chi sao/gor sao. Then, get a nonWCK partner, begin in contact
(as you are in chi sao) and really fight -- you'll see that all your chi sao reactions are worthless.

You are not "using it most of the time" because you're not fighting in contact, and tan sao is a contact move -- and like many WCK people, you don't see WCK as a contact fighting method. So you do kickboxing with WCK. If you do that, most of WCK's tools can't be used (because they arecontact tools).

Classical WCK people don't train or learn as boxers do. The process is entirely different. There is not that 1 to 1 to 1 correspondence (learning to training to doing), sparring isn't the core of the training, condititioning isn't empahsized, etc. WCK people practice forms (that are worhtless as training), unrealsitic drills (which won't and can't develop fighting skills or attributes, including sensitivity), try to follow silly theories of fighting expoused by nonfighters, etc.

What you mean by "proficient" is that you "know" the forms, know the drills, can talk theory (how you beleive it will work), and can spar reasonably well with other WCK people. And that's what shotokan karate people call "proficient" too. And so do tai ji people. And aikido people.

But, you will fail the test for proficiency: whether you can do in fighting/saprring those things you train to do as you train to do them. You'll see that you can't really pull off most of them -- and you'll end up doing what most WCK people do, either caveman WCK (charging in with straightblast and front kicks) or kickboxing. And, if you spar/fight against decent functionally-trained fighters, you will get wiped.

You can only get timing from sparring -- there is no other "timing work". I think what you are doing is essentially the blind leading the blind.

How about this? -- take some time off and go spend it with a good, proven fight trainer. See how fighters really train. Actually learn from genuine proven experts in the field. Do the training yourself. Then take what they do, how they train, and try to apply that to your WCK.

That'a all conditioning, sport specific conditioning. As I said, they emphasize conditioning. Because when sparring is the core of your training, and you recognize that your skill *only* comesfrom sparring, you will wanttodo as much of it as possible, right? And to do that, you need to be in very good condition.

"Sharpening the tools" is a poor analogy becauase it suppests that the sharpening and the use of the tools are two different things. They're not. You only sharpen combative tools by using them, by sparring or by realsitic drills (which aresnippets or snapshots of sparring).

For me, WCK's approach is to control while hitting. And the control is at least as important as the hitting. I don't see WCK has only having one punch.

Boxing has different tools not because it is a sport (it had those before it was a sport) but because it is a different approach to fighting and that approach is for stand-up, free-movement, not contact fighitng.

Define Classical Wing Chun People?

You've said some good things, most of it makes sense. You said Boxers train to fight, I said put a wrestler in the ring and don't tell the boxer, you said the wasn't fair. Did I break a rule there? I didn't realize fighting has rules. Get me my point? You chastize me about unrealistic training, training that won't stand up to real fighters, I throw a wrench in your stated idea and you come back and yell not fair game. If someone throws out a idea, even a guy like sanjuro, you dismiss it as not the real way, something is wrong, but the guy has done it (according to him), so how do you dispute it?

If hitting the various bags and such is not sharpening the tools why are they there, strictly for conditioning? The speed bag is a conditioning tools, dbl ended bag a conditioning tool? Not from what I understand. The ultimate goal behind everything a boxer does in the gym is the application of it in the ring, so yes I agree on that part, but they always go back to relatively the same routine to bring the tools up to par, while conditioning and getting them ready for the sparring that will happen and the fight at the end of the road.

I remember the last TUF, and earlier on in the series the guy that won it stated he wasn't liking his time necessarily there at the place, as he hasn't sparred in 5 weeks. Why would top notch, world class trainers (most of them fighters as well), not have them spar for that long when sparring is the thing (according to you), that you must do, most of the time? And these guys are training to be pro's, never mind the ameatuer gyms out there that teach people not even interested in fighting in comps? Interesting how these guys differ from your view of it, and they do it for a living. It is not that I don't think sparring has value or anything like that. From what I understand of the process you hard spar only 10% of the time, lighter sparring and things like that the rest of the time. The problem is if you hard spar all the time you burnout, and injuries arise.

James

sanjuro_ronin

02-15-2008, 08:41 AM

Equipment training can never develop technical skill. That is all conditioning. Skill -- which is your ability to successfully do in fighting the things you train to do -- comes from sparring or from realistic drills(which are snippets of sparring).

Yes, technical was the wrong word to use.
Though you develop the stributes for better technique with equiment work and by better I mean, faster, stronger, more conditioned.

That's not exactly the "progression". What's important is that the learning, the training, and the doing correspond 1to 1 to 1. That you make sparring the core of your training, and that you mix light, heavy, etc. And realize that competition is not the object of the training; the object is to develop the skills.

Pretty much the progression in the 5 boxing gyms I have trained at, to one extent or they other.

sihing

02-15-2008, 08:46 AM

In a nutshell, equipment like the HB, mitts and pads are used to develop striking attributes - speed, force, follow-through, endurance ( both muscular and cardiovascular).
On learns to fight by fighting, starting with light contact sparring ( for a very limited time), to hard contact ( got get the honest reactions) to full contact, then one moves on the actual "fighting" ie: competition.
The core of a fighter fighting ability is his ability to fight ie: the core is sparring.
The core of a fighters technical skill level is his equipment training.

I don't train now like I used to train when I was either competing or when is was even more obsessed with MA, ex:
There was a tiem that I took a year off school and work and all I did was train, 7 days a week, twice a day, I got my nidan in kyokushin and my shodan in judo at that time.
Can I do that now?
Nope, but the fact that I did, carries over to what I do know, the body remembers and it keeps what you have done, as long as you maintain it.
I don't train like a pro fighter because I am not one, nor do I care to be one.
What is the difference in what I do now?
I train less and spar less, but the rest is exactly the same, so what is the diference?
Conditioning, and that is a huge thing my friend, trust me on that.

In many ways we come back full circle to the theme of this thread, whicl some TCMA schools (like WC) tend to focus on "irrelevant" stuff liek what is a Pak Sao and how is it suppose to be done, other schools focus on training their students/trainees to be the best that can be, bets fighters they can be.

there is no translation issues because the language is universal - effectievness and testing of effectiveness.

EX: while some coaches prefer the thumb up hook and other prefer the palm down hook, NO COACH will stop you from doing which ever one feels more natural and works best for you.

Agreed, in the end, you have to have the timing, the ability to deal with somone coming at you full force, and unpredicably, and get used to getting hit in those situatiuons and still be able to complete your task, that comes from fighting per say or sparring as we like to call it (even though sparring in most cases is still not realistic in alot of ways, it becomes a game for some). The drills and forms in WC for example develop the base skills, you as the practitioner have to bring it out and use them in a non rehearsed way with ever increasing intensity to develop the ability to use it. The more skills you want the more intensity (conditioning as well) you will need. Once again, it comes down the individuals needs and wants.

Good post:)

James

P.S. You realize in T's view, as soon as you started to ease off on the training you instantly started to lose effectiveness as a fighter (not a competition fighter, as you will always need conditioning for that environment). What you did, and the result you found (that it is easier to maintain a skill than to obtain it), is something I have been stating here for a long time, only to be told it doesn't work that way. I've seen it within myself and others, and now you have said the same, but the naysayers will not see it that way, because it goes against their "Theory" of how it all works. I agree that conditioning is important, for sure, as I have my self started one such program, and it is fun but dam hard. What I've been saying is related to the skills of the thing we are doing, skills are important too, otherwise the triathlete, olymipic sprinting champs would all be good fighters automatically, and that is not the case.

sanjuro_ronin

02-15-2008, 08:48 AM

I remember the last TUF, and earlier on in the series the guy that won it stated he wasn't liking his time necessarily there at the place, as he hasn't sparred in 5 weeks. Why would top notch, world class trainers (most of them fighters as well), not have them spar for that long when sparring is the thing (according to you), that you must do, most of the time? And these guys are training to be pro's, never mind the ameatuer gyms out there that teach people not even interested in fighting in comps? Interesting how these guys differ from your view of it, and they do it for a living. It is not that I don't think sparring has value or anything like that. From what I understand of the process you hard spar only 10% of the time, lighter sparring and things like that the rest of the time. The problem is if you hard spar all the time you burnout, and injuries arise.

Many coaches get their fighters of Hard contact sparring a week or so before their fight, to avoid injuries and allow for recovery.

sanjuro_ronin

02-15-2008, 08:52 AM

P.S. You realize in T's view, as soon as you started to ease off on the training you instantly started to lose effectiveness as a fighter (not a competition fighter, as you will always need conditioning for that environment). What you did, and the result you found (that it is easier to maintain a skill than to obtain it), is something I have been stating here for a long time, only to be told it doesn't work that way. I've seen it within myself and others, and now you have said the same, but the naysayers will not see it that way, because it goes against their "Theory" of how it all works. I agree that conditioning is important, for sure, as I have my self started one such program, and it is fun but dam hard. What I've been saying is related to the skills of the thing we are doing, skills are important too, otherwise the triathlete, olymipic sprinting champs would all be good fighters automatically, and that is not the case.

Even pro fighters dont' train hard all the time, the cycle and peak for competitions.
Burn out is a fact.
If you are not competing and you have a solid base, maintaing is all you can do.
I don't have the time or energy to train like a pro fighter, so I try my best to train like an Amateur going through a "mainteance phase".
I have found that doing that I can switch to competition mode and shape in about 8 weeks, maybe less.

LoneTiger108

02-22-2008, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by sihing
True, boxers do train to be fighters that fight other boxers, what happens when you put a wrestler in the ring with a boxer (without the boxer knowing you did this), whatta think would happen?

That's not what we were talking about.

Interesting, as this isn't really what this post is about either :confused::D:confused:

It seems that any attempt to relate to the actual 'language' of Wing Chun is always bypassed, sidetracked or ignored as maybe people feel a lil bit frustrated that they never learnt their Art in this manner.

Seriously, can anyone actually contribute anything that's actually on subject??? :cool:

After a continual battle to find the time to read through the vast ammounts of posts in this forum, and write myself, it concerns me that most of the common errors, misunderstandings and forum 'back-biting' tends to originate from one thing and one thing only; Language, or dare I say 'lack-of' common Wing Chun language!

My Original idea seems lost already! Mind you, it was a longshot...

What I would like to propose is for everyone to search their trainig notes, look deep into your memories (NOT any ...Pedia site lol!) and try to come up with all the references to the language of Wing Chun you can remember. Then, post your findings on this thread and see if we can come up with a basic outline of, not what makes us all different, but what makes us all the same.

It's a looooooong shot, I know... but I live in hope we all have 'something' in common here!

sanjuro_ronin

02-22-2008, 05:16 AM

t_niehoff

02-22-2008, 07:46 AM

Interesting, as this isn't really what this post is about either :confused::D:confused:

It seems that any attempt to relate to the actual 'language' of Wing Chun is always bypassed, sidetracked or ignored as maybe people feel a lil bit frustrated that they never learnt their Art in this manner.

You ASSUME much.

I've been practicing WCK much longer than you and I learned "the language" -- the faat, the kuit, the terminology, etc. -- in a traditional way.

What I've come to realize, from experience, is that the language, which is theory, is BS, is nonsense. And my reference to functional methods was to show examples of well-proven fighting methods that do very, very well in terms of giving its practitioners what they need, yet do so without all "the language". And, when we look at all the people with "the language" we see the overwhelming majority have very little in the way of real fighting skills. What the functional methods show us is that we need very little in the way of theory, and that the less theory the better.

Theory is for the most part BS, nonsense. What matters is experience, the amount and quality of experience. And I mean experience actually using your method -- whether boxing, wrestling, judo, BJJ, or WCK. Fighting. Not chi sao or kiu sao or other unrealistic stuff. Theory is for beginners, for people who have little or no real experience. Those people need some "idea" (concept/principle) of what to do, because they have no experience telling them what to do. The theory("the anguange") provides them with some notion until they replace it with their experience.

Theory doesn't teach people to box -- their opponent's do. They learn to box by boxing. It's the same with WCK. Theory doesn't teach you how to apply WCK, how to fight: your opponent's do. You learn application/fighting by fighting.

Seriously, can anyone actually contribute anything that's actually on subject??? :cool:

After a continual battle to find the time to read through the vast ammounts of posts in this forum, and write myself, it concerns me that most of the common errors, misunderstandings and forum 'back-biting' tends to originate from one thing and one thing only; Language, or dare I say 'lack-of' common Wing Chun language!

The language is theory. And when theoretical nonfighters (so-called boxers who never box) discuss things, they can only discuss theory -- that's all they have. How their theory is better, how their theory is deeper, how their theory is different, or, like you, how the theory or language is common. Boxers and wrestlers don't have the "back-biting" because they don't have the theory, they don't have the langauge. They have shared common experience actually boxing and wrestling. The theory, the language is the problem, not the solution.

KPM

02-22-2008, 09:14 AM

sihing

02-22-2008, 10:20 AM

Hey Terence!

---I agree with Spencer's basic premise. Part of the problem is that different WCK groups use different terminology to talk about things. Sure its "theory." Words that represent actions are always "theory." But that's not necessarily a bad thing. How else would be talk and write about it? This is a forum in a virtual world. Nobody comes here to fight. They come here to discuss. In order to discuss you need to use language. One of the sources of misunderstanding and dispute in any discussion is not sharing the same language.

The language is theory. And when theoretical nonfighters (so-called boxers who never box) discuss things, they can only discuss theory -- that's all they have.

----Then you must consider yourself a "theoretical nonfighter", because you are participating in a DISCUSSION forum that uses language to convey ideas and describe actions. In any discussion, its all "theory."

Boxers and wrestlers don't have the "back-biting" because they don't have the theory, they don't have the langauge. They have shared common experience actually boxing and wrestling. The theory, the language is the problem, not the solution.

---Sure, in the ring all language drops away and its pure action and experience. But in training and "discussing", a common language is important. If the wrestling coach told his fighters to do a "****zer", and they didn't know what he meant....what good would it do them? If the boxing coach told his fighter to do a "overhand", and they didn't know what he meant...what good would it do them?

---If there were a wrestling forum, or a boxing forum, or a kickboxing forum...all "functional" martial arts....that didn't use consistent terminology and language, they would have the same problems and issues as far as misunderstandings as we see in WCK or any other TMA.
Keith,

I agree totally and completely with what you said above, as I have said the same here, only for it to come across deaf ears. All we CAN do here is discuss, rationalize, analyse, argue, etc etc...about things WC related, with people that are like ourselves interested in Wing Chun. That's it. As human beings, we have intelligence, which makes us think about things we are doing in our lives, but we also have other needs and wants, part of which involves communicating with other people, especially like minded people. At work you discuss work related things, at the gym, gym things, here it is about WC. Your experiences with Wing Chun are exactly that, YOUR EXPERIENCE. It may be fact for you, but it is theory for me, which is great because you can learn something (Intellectually) from someone else's experience (they say experience is the best teacher, I agree, but someone else's experience is a good teacher as well, as it teaches you short cuts, that may allow you to achieve the same skill or knowledge, but only faster). The key is to put that knowledge into action, for one to be able to actually know it completely for themselves. This is what Terrence is constantly repeating to us about, it is good advice, but it is not the only activity some may want to participate in when they find something they like/love to do. For me, when I played tennis, or skied, I bought tennis and skiing magazines to see/read about the activity I was participating in, its human nature.

I am not here on this forum to learn how to fight, I am here to discuss WC things, learn about other's experiences with it and make a few friends in the process (fulfill the human need to seek commonality with others). The learning how to use it, is done in the kwoon, mats, training hall, park, where ever you get together with others, not on the forums.

James

LoneTiger108

02-22-2008, 03:52 PM

I am not here on this forum to learn how to fight, I am here to discuss WC things, learn about other's experiences with it and make a few friends in the process (fulfill the human need to seek commonality with others). The learning how to use it, is done in the kwoon, mats, training hall, park, where ever you get together with others, not on the forums.

James, I like your thinking and the way you project your self. I also find Terences posts very interesting and full of practical advice. An obvious senior, or Sihing imo. But there are sometimes I still feel as if there isn't anyone that joined this forum who shares a similar reason. I've never claimed to have experience outside my family. I hold this trait very dear to my heart actually.

Nuff said :D Question is, how to move forwards?

In our own vague and long winded way, we were on subject Spencer, we were just giving examples of systems that are taught all over the world, in all different languages with the same results.

I can see and understand this. I know we're typing in English and most things can be explained in this crazy tongue, but what about our core curriculums? The terminologies? Are they not in Chinese? If they are, and have always been, why would I ever 'feel' like a boxer?

I feel like a Wing Chun student, and will forever be trying to understand why? :(

Liddel

02-22-2008, 05:02 PM

Further to the boxing example - most of my friends for practical sake when hitting the pads while doing isolate/specific sparrring, replace names of actions with numbers....im sure this is quite common.

Guy holding the pads yells 1 2 4, boxer launches Jab cross, hook to the body.

For the most part the names are to determine the differences between each punch wether its a number or a noun. But also they infer the type of action in the name.

A hook, well is rounded. A jab - jabs. An uppercut - defining path etc etc.

The definitions of VT actions are held in the names so for the most part they are important. Although i agree with Terrence that they are for beginners as a reference until you replace it with your own understanding, through experience as you progress.

As far as common language, im of Lok Yiu Lineage.....

The terms that i dont share (being a shorter list than those i do share with other schools) is IME as follows -

- Po Sao, from my CK form which most other lineages dont do during CK and those that do share this action, call it something else.

- Gwat Sao, this is not lower Guarn with differnt behaviour as other schools refer to it. For me it is the combination of Jut and a punch used as a training tool in Poon, Lux and Gor Sao, usually to help a student with his/her Kwan Sao turning.

- Mun Sao, from my BJ form. After a recent thread it appears i have a completly different formal action of Mun. (formal meaning the actual form action, not an altered one due to experience or preference)

Thats just off the top of my head, im sure i have one or two more ive come across in my time. If they come to me ill re post.

Ultimately language is to communicate, so after talking to those that use different terms and discussing the actual action i get a fair idea about what they are talking about so in that sence a common lanuage is not needed persay but a common experience of actual application is needed to bridge the gap....

DREW

t_niehoff

02-23-2008, 06:13 AM

Hey Terence!

---I agree with Spencer's basic premise. Part of the problem is that different WCK groups use different terminology to talk about things. Sure its "theory." Words that represent actions are always "theory." But that's not necessarily a bad thing. How else would be talk and write about it? This is a forum in a virtual world. Nobody comes here to fight. They come here to discuss. In order to discuss you need to use language. One of the sources of misunderstanding and dispute in any discussion is not sharing the same language.

I'm not surprised you agree with Spencer.

To have a common language, you first need a shared, common experience.

The language is theory. And when theoretical nonfighters (so-called boxers who never box) discuss things, they can only discuss theory -- that's all they have.

----Then you must consider yourself a "theoretical nonfighter", because you are participating in a DISCUSSION forum that uses language to convey ideas and describe actions. In any discussion, its all "theory."

It is not the langauge that is the problem, it is what the language is describing (or trying to describe) that is the problem. Boxers and wreslters have forums too, they have no problem talking about things because they are talking about what they *do* and because they all *do* it, they have a shared common experience.

Boxers and wrestlers don't have the "back-biting" because they don't have the theory, they don't have the langauge. They have shared common experience actually boxing and wrestling. The theory, the language is the problem, not the solution.

---Sure, in the ring all language drops away and its pure action and experience. But in training and "discussing", a common language is important. If the wrestling coach told his fighters to do a "****zer", and they didn't know what he meant....what good would it do them? If the boxing coach told his fighter to do a "overhand", and they didn't know what he meant...what good would it do them?

But the wh1zzer is not theory -- it is something that came from fighting/wrestling (not theory), something you *need* if you wrestle, and is being shown by someone who really does it and can do it. It is something real. So what is being described is not theory, it is something they *do*, and they do it because it really works. For the most part, we don't have that.

---If there were a wrestling forum, or a boxing forum, or a kickboxing forum...all "functional" martial arts....that didn't use consistent terminology and language, they would have the same problems and issues as far as misunderstandings as we see in WCK or any other TMA.

Again, you miss the point. In WCK we have "consistent terminology", we all have tan sao, the centerline, kiu sao, etc. We all just have different "meanings" for them. That arises because of "theory" -- our tan saos are different, not because of application, but because we have different ideas of how it "should" work, what we "should" be doing, etc. This is because our terminology isn't grounded in reality, grounded in application, grounded in fighting like the functional arts. Our terminology is for the most part theory.

t_niehoff

02-23-2008, 06:32 AM

I am not here on this forum to learn how to fight, I am here to discuss WC things, learn about other's experiences with it and make a few friends in the process (fulfill the human need to seek commonality with others). The learning how to use it, is done in the kwoon, mats, training hall, park, where ever you get together with others, not on the forums.

James

Let me rephrase what you just said:

"I am not here on this forum to learn how to fight, I am here to discuss fighting things, to learn about other's expereinces with fighting and make a few friends in the process."

You can look at WCK one of two ways.

WCK is fighting. Just as boxing, wrestling, MT, etc. is fighting. Different approaches to fighting, but they are all fighting. And as fighters, as people using their various approaches, they have a common experience to talk about what they *do*.

Now, there will be others who say, WCK is not fighting. And to them, true enough, it is not fighting. It is theory, it is "knowledge", it is a "system" -- in other words, it is a belief structure. And when these people talk, you have two people from two different belief systems talking, like people from two religions talking.

LoneTiger108

02-25-2008, 05:21 AM

Now, there will be others who say, WCK is not fighting. And to them, true enough, it is not fighting. It is theory, it is "knowledge", it is a "system" -- in other words, it is a belief structure. And when these people talk, you have two people from two different belief systems talking, like people from two religions talking.

Well, I wouldn't exactly label all WC practitioners as Religious Followers to be honest. Just my pov, but there is no place for Religion in Martial Arts. End of.

Sometimes I wish you would only look at what you're implying a bit more Terence (as I'm sure you do to some extent!) You are illustrating the divide between fighter and teacher. They are both completely separate entities imo. A boxer may have a very limited amount of techniques to drill, whereas we do tend to have a little more to contend with in WCK.

You would be doing the whole style an injustice to just pass on your own refined version, as this is what Ip Man already completed, is it not? Like I've always 'believed', make any modification for yourself as long as you pass on the minimum standard as it was intended first. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is mainly the three forms, wooden man, pole and knife sets?

ANY sansau/freestyle applications that 'proves' it works for YOU are your own! A system made of just these techniques will never offer a thorough WCK experience imho. Similar to the Kulo/Gulao or some mainland approaches actually. Everything needs to be taken into consideration, and the three forms are a must imhhho!

I've been practicing WCK much longer than you and I learned "the language" -- the faat, the kuit, the terminology, etc. -- in a traditional way.

What I've come to realize, from experience, is that the language, which is theory, is BS, is nonsense.

I am sorry to hear that the 'language' you have had access to was dismissed so easily. I'll always hold respect for my elders, so I only hope you dig out your notes and have another look.

If all you have are terms, glossary and hints & tips (kuen kuit) I can see what you're saying. :rolleyes: I have seen curriculums, training programs and progressive methods which have been tried and tested on at least three generations. I can't ignore them. They are what they are. And they produce teachers, not just fighters.

As an example there is a VERY famous 'saying':

Loi Lau Hoi Song, Lut Sau Jiik Chung.

What comes next? What comes before? What area of training does this 'tip' belong to?

All questions we were asked while studying and what I would expect ANY Apprentice from our own Academy to know.