Different instructors

[LSWCTN1]

got a question for you all...

(inspired by a discussion on a competition based MA)

how would you feel if one of your students trained under another sifu too.

what i mean is; say you run your classes 3x pw with no private lessons. would you allow your student to study elsewhere in the remaining days?

would it matter if it was under your student/your lineage?

what about another wing chun lineage?

would you outright disagree with it? if so why?

in particular, people like Phil - i know you've hasd numorous different instructors. did you ever continue with 2 or more at the same time? if so why? if not why?

do you feel it would hamper or restrict their learning?

[HumbleWCGuy]

I would allow them but I would recommend that they stick with my program only for at least a year. My program is structured to build skill in a particular way. It is better if people just train things in the order that I prescribe rather than potentially jumping important aspects of the curriculum because another sifu teaches differently. Students should practice on their off days, but novices should not be learning something new every single day.

Edit:
Even if it were a sifu under my own lineage, I would feel the same way because they do things uniquely.

I think that training in 2 WC lineages is a waste of time. One's time could be better spent learning boxing/kickboxing, grappling, or a radically different system of kung fu.

[Vajramusti]

Ip Man apparently learned from several people but listed only one sifu- a notable genuflection to tradition.

joy chaudhuri

[t_niehoff]

Ip Man apparently learned from several people but listed only one sifu- a notable genuflection to tradition.

joy chaudhuri

In fact, you could point that just about every "notable", including Leung Jan, Yip Man, Sum Nung, Yuen Kay San, etc. trained with more than one person.

Like mcuh of the "history" of WCK, whether that is factually true or not isn't significant. What is true is the "lesson" underlying the story.

[Wayfaring]

In fact, you could point that just about every "notable", including Leung Jan, Yip Man, Sum Nung, Yuen Kay San, etc. trained with more than one person.

Like mcuh of the "history" of WCK, whether that is factually true or not isn't significant. What is true is the "lesson" underlying the story.

Oh, no. That just couldn't be true. You mean the notable skilled masters in WCK actually CROSSTRAINED? They didn't have "a complete system" that could stand on it's own?

Blasphemy.

[hunt1]

My opinion only. I think it is essential to train with or be exposed to many different teachers or methods. Not only did I learn something new from everyone I trained with but it was only because of what I had learned in the past that I was able to understand and apply new information . This also lead me to reevaluate old information and get a better understanding of that as well.

[CFT]

Oh, no. That just couldn't be true. You mean the notable skilled masters in WCK actually CROSSTRAINED? They didn't have "a complete system" that could stand on it's own?Not quite. Each of those individuals learned WCK under multiple teachers (2-3).

[CFT]

My opinion only. I think it is essential to train with or be exposed to many different teachers or methods. Not only did I learn something new from everyone I trained with but it was only because of what I had learned in the past that I was able to understand and apply new information . This also lead me to reevaluate old information and get a better understanding of that as well.It's good that you could integrate so many methods. Were there any contradictory practices and how did you resolve those?

[hunt1]

CFT there were and are several contradictory practices. Which in and of itself should tell you most methods of wing chun taught are in error. The question is which ones.

You must start with and admit there is one true fact and one constant. We are human. We all are built the same and operate within the same parameters of the human body. If you don't accept this then you can't combine different methods and determine what is right and what is wrong. 1+1=2 and anyone that teaches a method the adds to 3 is wrong no matter what reasoning they use. Prime example is the slant body structure taught by Leung Ting. There is no human athletic activity other than wing chun that uses this structure. You have to ask yourself why is that. If this structure is so great why is it not used in any other activity? If it worked you would see it in football,golf, MMA. Anywhere where you see millions of $s going to the winner of an athletic activity you will see the best possible use of the human body and human dynamics.

There are methods of wing chun that teach body mechanics that you will find across all different types of activities. For example when watching the Olympic downhill they talked about the skiers body usage and positions. Guess what ,that same as wing chun.

That's how I resolved the contradictions. If it didn't add up,if I could'nt use it when playing golf or Olympic lifting or playing tennis or skiing or wrestling I knew to dump it or change it.

[anerlich]

If I only offered classes 3 days a week and the guy wanted to train 6, IMO it would be disingenuous to place said restriction on them.

If he wanted to train two days with me and one with someone else, I'd be expecting the other guy to be offering something I couldn't. If not, I'd still take the guy's fees but probably wouldn't invest the same energy in him that I might with someone who did the three days with me. If the student wants me to give more than a commercial transaction, he's got to be more committed to the relationship as well.

I would expect the guy to tell me what he was doing himself before I found out about it from someone else. That's just common courtesy.

I think the emphasis on "only train with me or in WC or you'll get confused" is about the instructor's ego and protecting the rice bowl than anything practical.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If I only offered classes 3 days a week and the guy wanted to train 6, IMO it would be disingenuous to place said restriction on them.

If he wanted to train two days with me and one with someone else, I'd be expecting the other guy to be offering something I couldn't. If not, I'd still take the guy's fees but probably wouldn't invest the same energy in him that I might with someone who did the three days with me. If the student wants me to give more than a commercial transaction, he's got to be more committed to the relationship as well.

I would expect the guy to tell me what he was doing himself before I found out about it from someone else. That's just common courtesy.

I think the emphasis on "only train with me or in WC or you'll get confused" is about the instructor's ego and protecting the rice bowl than anything practical.

It seems to me like you really don't like the idea of someone training elsewhere. You want them to inform you and you will not teach them the same if they get outside instruction.

[anerlich]

It seems to me like you really don't like the idea of someone training elsewhere. You want them to inform you and you will not teach them the same if they get outside instruction.

I expect the quality of a student-teacher relationship to be a two way street. I don't have a regular class or make any money from MA so it's all hypothetical anyway.

I train in and teach BJJ at my WC instructor's academy, but I have also trained at a couple of other schools and still train at one of them. My instructor and I agreed that this would be the best way forward for me as he only runs a couple of BJJ classes a week (which I have also taken for him fairly often, unpaid - I've got one coming up tonight, another Sunday), and the other academy has several black belt instructors.

Some of the students in that class approached me about outside training as well. I suggested they do it - it would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise - but discuss it with the head instructor first out of common courtesy.

If I treated my instructor like a resource or a commodity, I wouldn't expect to be treated like a adopted son. OTOH, relationships change, and sometimes run their course, over time.

Not that your opinions mean jack to me.

[Taryn P.]

I do. I like the different perspectives, but it's hard when you learn two or three different versions of the same form and have to remember to do it THIS way in front of teacher 1 and THAT way in front of teacher 2.

There have been a few cases of one flatly contradicting the other on technique or on instructions- blessedly only a few- but that can get very awkward.

[stonecrusher69]

got a question for you all...

(inspired by a discussion on a competition based MA)

how would you feel if one of your students trained under another sifu too.

what i mean is; say you run your classes 3x pw with no private lessons. would you allow your student to study elsewhere in the remaining days?

would it matter if it was under your student/your lineage?

what about another wing chun lineage?

would you outright disagree with it? if so why?

in particular, people like Phil - i know you've hasd numorous different instructors. did you ever continue with 2 or more at the same time? if so why? if not why?

do you feel it would hamper or restrict their learning?

Good thread.. Myself I would allow any student of mine to train with who ever they like. it's there money and time not mine. I've trained with many different people myself. It's up to them to find what's right for them. I can't make that dicision for them. In the long run if they going to do whatever they want anyway.

[bennyvt]

if it was a different art then i wouldn't mind. Still like to be told. But if it was vt it would depend on who it was. I have my teacher, but we also train with barry, and his guys that can teach. Having different ways of being told how to do the same thing helps as people think differently. So they may say something and its like i get it now. But i know other school that teach so much that the person doesn't learn the reflex just the moves. So it would depend on imy good the other guy was.. I have sent private students to other people because they could show or do something better them me. So on ego just want the guy to be the best he can

[LSWCTN1]

hell fire - it has the makings of a real thread!

i know that many different 'lineages' of wing chun have VASTLY different approaches, as HumbleWC so rightly pointed out.

i myself still train with my own father (Lee Sing lineage) sporadically and my instructor (Ng Chun Hong lineage) regularly.

i notice that the methods have different developmental skills and in terms of my regular class i am picking up 'bad' habits from my father. those 'bad' habits have worked for him for almost 40 years, so they obviously have a purpose - horses for courses i guess!

i can see why, in arts that are in a sport based environment, it is a big no-no to train elsewhere.

i also feel that once you have built up a basic skill in one system of the art that you can probably go forward and pick up bits from everywhere.

anyone care to share - specifically those that HAVE had more than one sifu?

[t_niehoff]

CFT there were and are several contradictory practices. Which in and of itself should tell you most methods of wing chun taught are in error. The question is which ones.


That in itself is an observation that it seems many never make.

A follow up question is why does this "error" arise in the first place? And the answer is because people aren't doing it -- aren't fighting with skilled people -- or they would see it for themselves.



You must start with and admit there is one true fact and one constant. We are human. We all are built the same and operate within the same parameters of the human body. If you don't accept this then you can't combine different methods and determine what is right and what is wrong. 1+1=2 and anyone that teaches a method the adds to 3 is wrong no matter what reasoning they use. Prime example is the slant body structure taught by Leung Ting. There is no human athletic activity other than wing chun that uses this structure. You have to ask yourself why is that. If this structure is so great why is it not used in any other activity? If it worked you would see it in football,golf, MMA. Anywhere where you see millions of $s going to the winner of an athletic activity you will see the best possible use of the human body and human dynamics.


That too is a very good observation. I would only add that body structures or body mechanics are ALSO (keeping in mind these general athletic parameters) task dependent -- what is the best way to use your body to accomplish a spectific task.



There are methods of wing chun that teach body mechanics that you will find across all different types of activities. For example when watching the Olympic downhill they talked about the skiers body usage and positions. Guess what ,that same as wing chun.


I know what you are getting at and you can make those comparisons when you already have good mechanics/structure (you see the parallels). However, people without that don't and can't see it -- these things are just theories to them.



That's how I resolved the contradictions. If it didn't add up,if I could'nt use it when playing golf or Olympic lifting or playing tennis or skiing or wrestling I knew to dump it or change it.

Chee's question is how to you resolve different ways of doing things -- the answer is: by working it out for yourself (which is what you've apparently done).

You hear a lot of talk and theory about how things should be done. Most of it is nonsense. How can we know what is good and what is nonsense? By working it out for ourselves. THAT (the process of working it out for ourselves) is the MOST important thing, not the specific answer itself. It's the old give-him-a-fish-or-teach-him-to-fish metaphor: once you learn how to work things out for yourself (how to fish) you can't be fooled and you aren't dependent on someone else to give you fish (so you don't need to follow a "master" for the rest of your life!).

This process of working it out for yourself is nothing extraordinary or secret-- we do it in all forms of athletics. You did it when you learned to ride a bike or to swim. It's our natural process for learning and developing skill. Thornton calls it the I-method, others call it by other names. Robert calls it "let application be your sifu." Morris calls it "let the fight be your teacher".

But you can't work it out for yourself by not doing it.

[LoneTiger108]

anyone care to share - specifically those that HAVE had more than one sifu?

I believe that I may never had achieved what I did in my first few years of training Wing Chun if I was flipping from Sifu to Sifu. It was all far too intense for me to just do what one Sifu was teaching! Although I had a mixed/JKD-type background before I started Wing Chun. I studied as much as I could!

But I also remembering coaching guys that were training in other arts who were developing quickly and some that didn't. It all depends on your own ability and mental capacity. The guys I trained that had other Wing Chun experience were normally full of ego and could not adapt to our way. Too far gone IMHO. They normally just lost confidence and left, especially when they made silly challenges and lost face in front of others.

I also believe that the foundation of Wing Chun serves as a 'reminder' to the whole body, and once completed you see and feel the similarities other arts have to offer. Your body recognises that it's all Wing Chun in the end.

I have yet to meet anyone from another art that can say the same about what they practise. Top Judo and BJJ people I have met could not see their art within Wing Chun, but I could see my Wing Chun in their art. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

All sifus, even within the same system, have different teaching methods and prioritize on different things.
By training with more than one ( as a choice since some of us may not have a choice so it is a moot point) teacher we are exposed to difference that may make our MA that much better.
However, we must be mindful that it is UP TO US to see what is working and what is not and make the needed adjustments, just as T and Hunt1 said.

To be honest, I don't know of ANYONE that has had only 1 teacher.

[LoneTiger108]

To be honest, I don't know of ANYONE that has had only 1 teacher.

:D Well, I've only ever had one Wing Chun Sifu, and have yet to find any other (not that I'm looking!)

[sanjuro_ronin]

:D Well, I've only ever had one Wing Chun Sifu, and have yet to find any other (not that I'm looking!)

I don't KNOW you bro :)
Besides, you do WC, that doesn't count.
:p

[k gledhill]

Try them all....:D

[Lee Chiang Po]

I have only taught a hand full of people, but I was adement about them training what they are taught at home. If they did not train it I would easily be able to tell. If they didn't I would assume that they were ****ing around on off days. I did not include physical training in our sessions, that was expected to be part of their home work. Going to another sifu would take away from that time. Also, this forum is a very good example of everyone having differing opinions and doing things much differently. This would only serve to conflict with your own teaching methods. If a student came to me and was doing something that was not yet part of the instruction I would assume that the other guy was skipping stuff and moving ahead of me. I would not like this at all. I apprentice individuals in other things, and they are not allowed to seek advice as such from other sources. Once they are to a level that they want to seek different advice and instruction they would be free to go.
They would be free to go at any time of course, but in order to learn from me they would have to focus on what I was teaching them and not sharing that time with someone else. It is difficult to teach, especially when the student is preoccupied or focused on something else other than what you want him focused on. And especially difficult if the other sifu is contradicting your instructions.

[Hardwork108]

I do. I like the different perspectives, but it's hard when you learn two or three different versions of the same form and have to remember to do it THIS way in front of teacher 1 and THAT way in front of teacher 2.

There have been a few cases of one flatly contradicting the other on technique or on instructions- blessedly only a few- but that can get very awkward.

You make a valid point there.

IMHO, one should build solid knowledge in one system before adding another lineage or style.

HW108

[YungChun]

It seems reasonable that one should build an understanding of WCK before one moves onto something else.. Still, the problem remains how does the student know if what he has learned is of any real value, if in fact it is WCK?

If the base of training the student is getting is garbage how will he know it? If the student moves on to learn from another teacher the same problem presents itself.

Is the first base the same as the second? Is either valid? Is either invalid?

The Kuit may be helpful in finding out... But if everyone changes the Kuit or has a different interpretation then again how will the student know?

This business of TMA is not regulated and yet a lot of money is involved for certain people. These days you can find 'well known masters' doing all kinds of absolute crap and the crowds cheer them on...

Where is the real WCK?

Who has it and who doesn't?

And if you can't really answer that with any real certainty then what's the point? Perhaps as Kevin says, it might be better to train with them all first off, do the research, and then make your decision about who and what you really want to train....

[SAAMAG]

Or just not learn the same style from two different lineages or instructors. If you're going to learn another style, learn something that fills a gap or something you know won't be derived from your current curriculum

[Hardwork108]

It seems reasonable that one should build an understanding of WCK before one moves onto something else.. Still, the problem remains how does the student know if what he has learned is of any real value, if in fact it is WCK?

If the base of training the student is getting is garbage how will he know it? If the student moves on to learn from another teacher the same problem presents itself.

Is the first base the same as the second? Is either valid? Is either invalid?

The Kuit may be helpful in finding out... But if everyone changes the Kuit or has a different interpretation then again how will the student know?

This business of TMA is not regulated and yet a lot of money is involved for certain people. These days you can find 'well known masters' doing all kinds of absolute crap and the crowds cheer them on...

Where is the real WCK?

Who has it and who doesn't?

And if you can't really answer that with any real certainty then what's the point? Perhaps as Kevin says, it might be better to train with them all first off, do the research, and then make your decision about who and what you really want to train....

You make good points. I keep saying that most TCMA out there is "Mcdojo" but people take it the wrong way, even though deep inside they know that I am saying the truth and that there is more than good chance they themselves have gotten their ignorant and or negative view of TCMAs by training in such schools.

There is no easy answer to your question. Personally speaking, I had no idea what real kung fu was all about until I started training. How did I find a genuine sifu? No trick to it, I was just very lucky. Through him I learned how to recognize good kung fu schools and then I got lucky again because I actually found one when I moved countries.

I could give some advice on how to recognize the signs that a kung fu school is not a real deal school but even though it would help some people, that advice would not guarantee results.

I guess one could advice any one who wants to study kung fu to first find some good literature on authentic kung fu and then use that info as a basis for their quest. Of course, that is not easy either, but depending on his or her intellectual capacity one can at least increase one's chances of finding a real deal school.