The problem with some ways of teaching

[KC Elbows]

Some schools and teachers teach teaching more than they teach using.

You can watch, every moment you see them, they are breaking something down, but when it comes to it, they are never actually doing the thing they break down: they run through the stylized version of it, but never or rarely train the real version of it.

We've all been there, and done that, many times I'm sure.

The problem is, if you don't see some people in every class doing it, not breaking it down, not being told the breakdown yet again, but some people who have been practicing for a time actually doing it, this doesn't bode well for your training future in such an environment, imo. You are training to be a "teacher", but not someone who can do what you are teaching.

The idea that this is all rocket science is preposterous. It simply isn't. There's detail work, but there is in everything.

If the culture of a school does not include students who are doing(not apps work, but drills and sparring), if everyone is always around the teacher doing the same lesson regardless of experience, if there are not a group of knowledgeable people who can all answer consistently why this move is this way and show it against real attacks(not "apps training"), and the school has been around for a few years, there is a problem.

If class always breaks down to everyone standing around the teacher and crossing hands with little intent to try their best against him, there is a problem.

If the students all hesitate to cross hands with the teacher, yet the teacher has never injured any of them, there is a deep problem.

The traditional way presumed combat, war, gang fights between schools, etc. One cannot truly encapsulate the tradition today, legally, and so, if the school eschews real contact training with others because of a claim to "tradition", there is a problem.

Most moves trained in kungfu pretty much require an attack that has real intent, yet most training lacks this, and the easiest way to achieve this, gloves, are argued against as being associated with sport. If your debate is more important than the realism of training your system, which tradition requires have contact involved in a greater extent than can be achieved without tools, then there is a problem.

If the understanding of a technique in ones head is based entirely around a method of explaining it, and not informed by a practice of doing it, one is training to teach, but will not know what he or she teaches.

If, in six months, students get nothing but this kind of teaching, odds are strong they will never get anything different, and if the whole class always does the same lesson, odds are 100% that this is true.

/rant.:D

[Violent Designs]

What I dislike are the teachers (a large majority) who teach this or that and then never do anything themselves or just demo techniques in a vacuum. Instead they go sit and read their book or some crap.

[SanHeChuan]

One thing I really liked from Marine Corps Physical Training is that whoever was leading the exercise had to do it too.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We learn by doing, that is why sport systems that have the practitioner doing "IT" ASAP turn out better fighters in a quicker time frame.
In Boxing you are punching the bag and mitts from the first day, learning right away HOW to punch and how NOT to, you are learning right away to o and keep moving, to keep your guard up and EVERYTHING you learn is DIRECTLY applicable to USING boxing in the area it was designed to be used.
Heck, I was sparring the first day and hard sparring the first week !
LOL !

I hazard to say that the first 6months, for sure that first year, is critical to what that person is going to take from his MA.

Nothing is more enlightening then puking after a hook to the liver or waking up after being choked out, or lying down trying to catch your breath after getting the wind knocked out of you by a throw.

MA should follow the rule of Gross motor skills first and fine motor skills after, in other words:
Fighting power, speed and endurance first, fine tuning after.

[taai gihk yahn]

agree w/SJ - my son started in an MMA class about a month ago, 2x week; from day one he was hitting a standing heavy bag with jabs, crosses, hooks, front push kicks and roundhouse kicks (that's about all they teach for striking, which, frankly, is plenty); they also have done some rudimentary grappling - like what the first thing to do is if you get grabbed in a guillotene (ans. - make sure you can breathe)

anyway, he's never done anything "in the air"; and when I tell you his roundhouse kick looks like a roundhouse (and feels like one, ouch...), it's because he figured out right from the start that to get power, you have to kick w/correct mechanics - because of that immediate and constant feedback, he didn't need someone correcting him about his form as he struggled to kick in the air (and we know how beginners doing RH kicks in the air look); and on the continuum of inherently coordinated, I'd give him about a 6-7 /10, so he's not a total natural, either;

I took some vid of him kicking the air shield, perhaps I'll post it if I get a moment...

[Violent Designs]

We learn by doing, that is why sport systems that have the practitioner doing "IT" ASAP turn out better fighters in a quicker time frame.
In Boxing you are punching the bag and mitts from the first day, learning right away HOW to punch and how NOT to, you are learning right away to o and keep moving, to keep your guard up and EVERYTHING you learn is DIRECTLY applicable to USING boxing in the area it was designed to be used.
Heck, I was sparring the first day and hard sparring the first week !
LOL !

I hazard to say that the first 6months, for sure that first year, is critical to what that person is going to take from his MA.

Nothing is more enlightening then puking after a hook to the liver or waking up after being choked out, or lying down trying to catch your breath after getting the wind knocked out of you by a throw.

MA should follow the rule of Gross motor skills first and fine motor skills after, in other words:
Fighting power, speed and endurance first, fine tuning after.

agreed SJ

-enjoy

[Dragonzbane76]

teachers should lead by example in my book. When they say do "X" then they should be doing "X" along with the class. My biggest b!tch about traditionals is that modern perspectives think everything is so fu cking deep. It's not, it a kick, it's a punch, nothing special, there are mechanics to follow and guidelines but it's not extreme brain surgery. Teach it, show it, do it full speed.

whoever said modern sport art is about producing is absolutely correct in that statement. They produce plain and simple, you want results, you want to be able to do it and see it done, you want to see your teacher step in and take the punishment and deal it? Then that is where you will see it.

M. traditional spend to much so much time on the concepts, that they lost the most important perspective of MA's TO LEARN HOW TO FIGHT BY FIGHTING.

[bawang]

the problem is the performance mindset. street performance and selling fake medicine was done out of poverty and desperation

[mooyingmantis]

the problem is the performance mindset. street performance and selling fake medicine was done out of poverty and desperation

Very true! I believe the transition from training simple techniques to practicing complex forms during the 19th and 20th centuries was mainly due to "street performances".

[taai gihk yahn]

Very true! I believe the transition from training simple techniques to practicing complex forms during the 19th and 20th centuries was mainly due to "street performances".

Yep
in fact I seem to recall my taiji/qigong sifu showing me some documentation about how a lot of the oft seen qigong demos took a lotmof their material from Russian circus / strongman arts sometime in the last hundred yrs or so; I could b wrong about that, but the point is that somewhere along the line a tremendous disconnect occurs btw classical daoist inner practice and what we see currently in terms of performance oriented qigong which in a way completely subverts the entire point of internal work (eg - "traditional" practice is predicated on non-linear progression and spontaneous manifestation of various "phennomena" and intrinsc self- balancing of the organism; the performance stuff has nothing to do w that and in fact impo violates man of the essential principles, not to mention being somewhat ego driven Whig is the antithesis of true cultivation)

so there seems to have been a reversal of each: fighting arts loosetheir functionality and cultivation arts become too functional!

[YouKnowWho]

the problem is the performance mindset. street performance and selling fake medicine was done out of poverty and desperation
In the Longfist system, there is a combo called 五鳳齐飛(Wu Feng Qi Fei) - 5 phoenix fly in the air. In that combo, you will make 5 loud sound by:

- right punch hits left hand.
- right hand hits right foot instep.
- right hand hits left foot bottom.
- right palm hits left hand.
- right hand hits right foot edge.

When you perform your form, you have your own drum to go with it. It's good for performance but with no combat value.

[TenTigers]

In the Longfist system, there is a combo called 五鳳齐飛(Wu Feng Qi Fei) - 5 phoenix fly in the air. In that combo, you will make 5 loud sound by:

- right punch hits left hand.
- right hand hits right foot instep.
- right hand hits left foot bottom.
- right palm hits left hand.
- right hand hits right foot edge.

When you perform your form, you have your own drum to go with it. It's good for performance but with no combat value.
reminds me of the combo Bruce Lee does in his room in Enter The Dragon.
It's also done in Chinese Opera.

[MysteriousPower]

Some schools and teachers teach teaching more than they teach using.

You can watch, every moment you see them, they are breaking something down, but when it comes to it, they are never actually doing the thing they break down: they run through the stylized version of it, but never or rarely train the real version of it.

We've all been there, and done that, many times I'm sure.

The problem is, if you don't see some people in every class doing it, not breaking it down, not being told the breakdown yet again, but some people who have been practicing for a time actually doing it, this doesn't bode well for your training future in such an environment, imo. You are training to be a "teacher", but not someone who can do what you are teaching.

The idea that this is all rocket science is preposterous. It simply isn't. There's detail work, but there is in everything.

If the culture of a school does not include students who are doing(not apps work, but drills and sparring), if everyone is always around the teacher doing the same lesson regardless of experience, if there are not a group of knowledgeable people who can all answer consistently why this move is this way and show it against real attacks(not "apps training"), and the school has been around for a few years, there is a problem.

If class always breaks down to everyone standing around the teacher and crossing hands with little intent to try their best against him, there is a problem.

If the students all hesitate to cross hands with the teacher, yet the teacher has never injured any of them, there is a deep problem.

The traditional way presumed combat, war, gang fights between schools, etc. One cannot truly encapsulate the tradition today, legally, and so, if the school eschews real contact training with others because of a claim to "tradition", there is a problem.

Most moves trained in kungfu pretty much require an attack that has real intent, yet most training lacks this, and the easiest way to achieve this, gloves, are argued against as being associated with sport. If your debate is more important than the realism of training your system, which tradition requires have contact involved in a greater extent than can be achieved without tools, then there is a problem.

If the understanding of a technique in ones head is based entirely around a method of explaining it, and not informed by a practice of doing it, one is training to teach, but will not know what he or she teaches.

If, in six months, students get nothing but this kind of teaching, odds are strong they will never get anything different, and if the whole class always does the same lesson, odds are 100% that this is true.

/rant.:D

This is a great post. We do not ever see eye to eye but I have to say this post is quality.

The problem is the way of training. Doing forms and then saying, "This move can be used like this and like this" is not a good way to train students to spontaneously react. Even if I trained this "fake" technique in the air one million times all that does is train me to react, unrealistically, to that specific punch or situation. This kind of training will not allow me to use the technique against a live opponent. Then there is the problem with the technique itself. It ONLY works because of the specific situation it is being used in and because the attacker is not really attacking.

It might be better to do away with SPECIFIC technique drilling in favor of training general skills sets such as striking, throwing, joint locking, etc. Give students tools to work with and have them spar with each other. Each student will manifest slightly differently in the end. This will save time from students having to drill thousands of times a move that will only work in that situation.

I do not agree with the students full heartedly attacking their teacher. Unfortunately striking is more dangerous than grappling. A person can do bjj with his teacher because in the end someone will get submitted and tap rather safely. If two people spar balls out then the teacher might get hurt and lose students for not winning. It is time to shift this view of "teachers" to coaches. Teachers are expected to be deadly and be able to kill any of their students if needed...but he is also years older than most of his students and tired. Tired of teaching, tired of martial arts, tired in general. Coaches are never expected to do anything accept give advice. Tennis coaches do not have to be able to play tennis well. They just have to be able to demonstrate unless they still compete.

[KC Elbows]

There are a number of specific techniques boxers train. By technique, I'm including the standard counterpunches, etc. Pretty much all boxers train them.

There are specific techniques bjj guys will train.

I'm not talking working a tech against a contrived attack, but a common one. Jab, cross, what have you. If you drill working it with distance, timing, unscripted, all that, against a common tech, until it can be reasonably pulled off in those conditions, this is hardly training an obscure tech.

General principles do not a style make. They are a big part of it, but all styles have techniques that they train. To train only general principles is, imo, largely one step out from reinventing the wheel, if there are a body of techniques considered to be the best, most commonly occurring approaches using those principles, which there usually are.

If one has taken a style and done this sort of drill work, then they might be able to judge whether it's techs are worthy or too obscure, but most who speak as if they are qualified to judge this have never done the work at all, imo. That's another problem entirely.

[ShaolinDan]

originally posted by youknowwho
In the Longfist system, there is a combo called 五鳳齐飛(Wu Feng Qi Fei) - 5 phoenix fly in the air. In that combo, you will make 5 loud sound by:

- right punch hits left hand.
- right hand hits right foot instep.
- right hand hits left foot bottom.
- right palm hits left hand.
- right hand hits right foot edge.

When you perform your form, you have your own drum to go with it. It's good for performance but with no combat value.

In my experience, the slaps in longfist generally do have a martial application.

For example the slaps on crescent kicks will simulate grabbing/striking the head/arm with the hand(s) from one side while the kick strikes from the other side.
The slaps also give feedback on coordination and power, and provide a preliminary level of conditioning of striking surfaces.
And yes, they definitely also heighten the performance/entertainment value as well.

[KC Elbows]

As for forms, the argument is overplayed. If you do more than one empty hand form, none of your problems apply to what I do. I do one. Three times a day, on days I do it, maybe 15-20 minutes combined, but never consecutively, so it's 3-7 minutes three times a day more like.

Every time, I'm reviewing all the empty hand techniques from the system. The ones I use, the ones I'm working on using, the ones I have an internal debate on the usage of, every time. I don't teach students this form(except the occasional student who enjoys it), though all the techs I teach are straight from it. But, unlike probably 90% of teachers in bjj, judo, what have you, I, three times daily, cover the entire material that makes up the style I teach in a way that, at minimum, makes me constantly examine each techs place and worth. It doesn't get in the way of sparring, drills, chin ups, push ups, abs, swimming, roadwork, or any of the other work I do.

I bring up judo and bjj because online, many will speak of their practicality, but we all know the books on those styles, as any other, cover a lot of things that don't see much use.:D

If your system is spread among nine billion forms repeating the same material often, you have my condolences.:p:D

[MysteriousPower]

As for forms, the argument is overplayed. If you do more than one empty hand form, none of your problems apply to what I do. I do one. Three times a day, on days I do it, maybe 15-20 minutes combined, but never consecutively, so it's 3-7 minutes three times a day more like.

Every time, I'm reviewing all the empty hand techniques from the system. The ones I use, the ones I'm working on using, the ones I have an internal debate on the usage of, every time. I don't teach students this form(except the occasional student who enjoys it), though all the techs I teach are straight from it. But, unlike probably 90% of teachers in bjj, judo, what have you, I, three times daily, cover the entire material that makes up the style I teach in a way that, at minimum, makes me constantly examine each techs place and worth. It doesn't get in the way of sparring, drills, chin ups, push ups, abs, swimming, roadwork, or any of the other work I do.

I bring up judo and bjj because online, many will speak of their practicality, but we all know the books on those styles, as any other, cover a lot of things that don't see much use.:D

If your system is spread among nine billion forms repeating the same material often, you have my condolences.:p:D


I do not train forms kung fu anymore so it is not my problem. It could be a problem for many other people who still train in such a way. It does not matter what is in judo books. What matters is what each man can pull off in randori at the end of EVERY class.

Doing a form or forms is not "going over your whole style." It is possibly helping to internalize stylistic movements but not the style. A person's style is his own timing, power, footwork, strikes, throws, etc. Forms do not train any of these attributes.

[sanjuro_ronin]

originally posted by youknowwho

In my experience, the slaps in longfist generally do have a martial application.

For example the slaps on crescent kicks will simulate grabbing/striking the head/arm with the hand(s) from one side while the kick strikes from the other side.
.

Dude...seriously now.

[sanjuro_ronin]

agree w/SJ - my son started in an MMA class about a month ago, 2x week; from day one he was hitting a standing heavy bag with jabs, crosses, hooks, front push kicks and roundhouse kicks (that's about all they teach for striking, which, frankly, is plenty); they also have done some rudimentary grappling - like what the first thing to do is if you get grabbed in a guillotene (ans. - make sure you can breathe)

anyway, he's never done anything "in the air"; and when I tell you his roundhouse kick looks like a roundhouse (and feels like one, ouch...), it's because he figured out right from the start that to get power, you have to kick w/correct mechanics - because of that immediate and constant feedback, he didn't need someone correcting him about his form as he struggled to kick in the air (and we know how beginners doing RH kicks in the air look); and on the continuum of inherently coordinated, I'd give him about a 6-7 /10, so he's not a total natural, either;

I took some vid of him kicking the air shield, perhaps I'll post it if I get a moment...

And here is the thing, taking the RH as an example:
It CAN'T be done biomecanically correct in the air, it has to actually HIT something, if not you are actually working AGAINST the correct movement.
Doing it in the air cause it to lose much of what it has to have to be effective when it actually makes contact.

[ShaolinDan]

Seriously.

Is boxing the ears an effective technique?
Take away the opponents head...look, you're just clapping. :)

[KC Elbows]

It does not matter what is in judo books. What matters is what each man can pull off in randori at the end of EVERY class.

For a judo teacher, it does matter what techs the style is made up of. I am not talking about from a straight usage perspective, but to call onesself a teacher of the style, one has to know the entire style, and be able to teach the useful part. To determine the useful part, one must try to work in different parts at different times into randori, including moves that may not favor one's attributes, but must be understood for teaching people who it would favor. Some judo simply gets no use, but it is in most books on the subject, no?


Doing a form or forms is not "going over your whole style."

It is doing the techniques that make up the style. It should reference the full tech(the tech live against an opponent) and be informed by it.


It is possibly helping to internalize stylistic movements but not the style. A person's style is his own timing, power, footwork, strikes, throws, etc. Forms do not train any of these attributes.

Perhaps "method" would be the term you prefer. The method's form should be an encyclopedia of the moves that make up that method: the strikes, throws, kicks, footwork, etc. The way the techs are done in the form should be informed by live usage. Still, it is more review of the overall material than randori or tuishou will give a teacher, as the teacher will tend to use moves that favor his attributes, but also must teach moves that favor other people's attributes, which cannot be solely informed by his own randori practice.

I will now go back to using style to reference a specific style of fighting, you may translate to "method". I am not talking about style in the personal sense, I am using the common term as it is used in these discussions, style as a body of fighting techniques meant to be one means to train fighting.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Seriously.

Is boxing the ears an effective technique?
Take away the opponents head...look, you're just clapping. :)

When was the last time you grabbed a guys head and kicked him in the head?

[KC Elbows]

When was the last time you grabbed a guys head and kicked him in the head?

That's my point. People do apps and mistake it for reality. Drill the move, and you're a lot closer to reality. Don't drill, and you "know" the explanation for a move, but cannot apply it. Do that long enough, and you're a teacher of teaching the move who can't do the move.

Just drill the **** in your form or don't bother with that form.

[ShaolinDan]

Ha ha...well I haven't, but I've grabbed an arm and kicked to the head, or hooked leg over the elbow (no, not in a full contact environment, basic defend and counter drills, but you know I'm just a beginner...). This is still the same basic movement as described by slapping the kick.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ha ha...well I haven't, but I've grabbed an arm and kicked to the head, or hooked leg over the elbow (no, not in a full contact environment, basic defend and counter drills, but you know I'm just a beginner...). This is still the same basic movement as described by slapping the kick.

Unless you have done it VS someone trying to knock your head off, what exactly have you done in regards to testing this?

[ShaolinDan]

What do my personal tests have to do with the technique's place in longfist kung fu?

I simply wished to provide examples of martial applications for the slaps.

Do I personally have to prove that removing someone's guard with a hand, to kick their head with a foot is effective?

I think not.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do my personal tests have to do with the technique's place in longfist kung fu?

I simply wished to provide examples of martial applications for the slaps.

Do I personally have to prove that removing someone's guard with a hand, to kick their head with a foot is effective?

I think not.

Enough said.

[ShaolinDan]

Hmm...I don't have very good hip flexibility, I rarely kick to the head when I spar.

For my own technique library of course I must test and prove for myself. I do believe in sparring and bag training and all that 'modern' stuff.

However, for the longfist library this is another matter...even if I personally won't use it much, it's still good for me to know it.
I have seen other people remove the guard to kick head in full contact fighting, that's good enough to justify it's place in longfist, even though it won't justify my using it.

[ShaolinDan]

Personally I think it would be nice if people could post their knowledge without constantly being asked to prove they can fight. Even ma's who can't actually fight still may know techniques fighters can use.

The more information available, the better chance users of this forum have for making their own evaluations. Constant challenges of this type discourage the sharing of information that others could benefit from.

I don't think misinformation is tma's biggest problem...I think it is the lack of correct information. People have to learn to tell for themselves what is real and what is not. If they cannot manage this then maybe they don't deserve the real. I see no reason to try to shout anyone into silence, or into taking back what they've said, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

It's all beneficial to the people reading these posts.

[KC Elbows]

Personally I think it would be nice if people could post their knowledge without constantly being asked to prove they can fight. Even ma's who can't actually fight still may know techniques fighters can use.

You don't need to prove this, it's more a matter of, if any of us say "X works," it presumes that we know this. If we don't, it would be better if someone clarified this. If I'm wrong, point it out.


The more information available, the better chance users of this forum have for making their own evaluations. Constant challenges of this type discourage the sharing of information that others could benefit from.

He's not challenging you. It's just that, if the person saying "X can work" can't show that, he should work on it, show it, and then he's shared something real. You've taken the right approach, you say "My experience is A, I like B, I think it would be useful," from there, if later you go "Here's how I'm using B, what do you think," that's the same thing to the next level.

If I'm a teacher and I never took this step, in China I'd be called a cheat by respected sifus, and they'd be right to some extent.



I don't think misinformation is tma's biggest problem...I think it is the lack of correct information.

I would say the introduction of the incorrect came from those not using the style being the ones defining the style, but otherwise I agree with you.


People have to learn to tell for themselves what is real and what is not. If they cannot manage this then maybe they don't deserve the real.

If I'm a fraud, I'm a fraud regardless of whether students deserved it or not.


I see no reason to try to shout anyone into silence, or into taking back what they've said, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

We should strive to be respectful, true, and to take the high road, but there will be disagreements. I do not argue what usage is with anyone. But, I will argue that a teacher has to show a certain level of skill beyond showing application: and, when I'm fairly certain that a teacher has that level and doesn't show it, I'll try to coax it out of him, even if it makes him surly in the process.;):D

Some good students will choose to avoid wasting time if it is not clear that the teacher can apply what they are doing realistically. If we only resort to teaching people who "want to learn gongfu", we limit ourselves to a group that largely approaches it as an exotic thing, and so are doubly incapable of recognizing it as a simple practice.


It's all beneficial to the people reading these posts.

The critical questioning is also sometimes valuable as well.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Personally I think it would be nice if people could post their knowledge without constantly being asked to prove they can fight. Even ma's who can't actually fight still may know techniques fighters can use.

Indeed, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if it can be produced.
I have never seen ANYONE in any contact MA, in a free style match, ever, grab someone's head and then kick that same head with their foot while still holding on.
EVER.

[Frost]

Some schools and teachers teach teaching more than they teach using.

You can watch, every moment you see them, they are breaking something down, but when it comes to it, they are never actually doing the thing they break down: they run through the stylized version of it, but never or rarely train the real version of it.

We've all been there, and done that, many times I'm sure.

The problem is, if you don't see some people in every class doing it, not breaking it down, not being told the breakdown yet again, but some people who have been practicing for a time actually doing it, this doesn't bode well for your training future in such an environment, imo. You are training to be a "teacher", but not someone who can do what you are teaching.

The idea that this is all rocket science is preposterous. It simply isn't. There's detail work, but there is in everything.

If the culture of a school does not include students who are doing(not apps work, but drills and sparring), if everyone is always around the teacher doing the same lesson regardless of experience, if there are not a group of knowledgeable people who can all answer consistently why this move is this way and show it against real attacks(not "apps training"), and the school has been around for a few years, there is a problem.

If class always breaks down to everyone standing around the teacher and crossing hands with little intent to try their best against him, there is a problem.

If the students all hesitate to cross hands with the teacher, yet the teacher has never injured any of them, there is a deep problem.

The traditional way presumed combat, war, gang fights between schools, etc. One cannot truly encapsulate the tradition today, legally, and so, if the school eschews real contact training with others because of a claim to "tradition", there is a problem.

Most moves trained in kungfu pretty much require an attack that has real intent, yet most training lacks this, and the easiest way to achieve this, gloves, are argued against as being associated with sport. If your debate is more important than the realism of training your system, which tradition requires have contact involved in a greater extent than can be achieved without tools, then there is a problem.

If the understanding of a technique in ones head is based entirely around a method of explaining it, and not informed by a practice of doing it, one is training to teach, but will not know what he or she teaches.

If, in six months, students get nothing but this kind of teaching, odds are strong they will never get anything different, and if the whole class always does the same lesson, odds are 100% that this is true.

/rant.:D

the real problem is that because so few teachers actually compete (or have ever had a fight) then they dont know how to teach in an alive manner (sorry couldnt resist using the term :D ) and lots of people who think they are training their system in an alive manner are deluding themselves. Add to that so few people want to break a sweat or get hit and you have the current mess we are in


All sports orientated schools train this way as a matter of course so look at arguements about ways to teach and how to make techniques work as just silly

[KC Elbows]

the real problem is that because so few teachers actually compete (or have ever had a fight) then they dont know how to teach in an alive manner (sorry couldnt resist using the term :D ) and lots of people who think they are training their system in an alive manner are deluding themselves. Add to that so few people want to break a sweat or get hit and you have the current mess we are in


All sports orientated schools train this way as a matter of course so look at arguements about ways to teach and how to make techniques work as just silly

You just said the same thing I did, except saying alive.:p:D

I prefer to say fo rizzle.

[Frost]

Indeed, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if it can be produced.
I have never seen ANYONE in any contact MA, in a free style match, ever, grab someone's head and then kick that same head with their foot while still holding on.
EVER.

true TCMA is in the mess its in largely because of claims made that have never been proved, if you are teaching stuff that you cant prove works in a majority of situations (either from personal expereince or from seeing it used in confrontations, be they sport or street) then you are by and large a fraud and an immoral teacher

[ShaolinDan]

KC thanks for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I pretty much agree with all you've said.

However, I am a student, not a teacher. What I have done with my techniques is not a reflection of what my teacher and seniors have done. (And what I therefore hope/intend to one day be able to do as well).

Also I was not saying I could/have used said technique. I was simply responding to a post that said there were no applications for the slaps. I have been shown applications for a number of them, just thought that would be good to share.

Finally, I really think that removing the guard with a hand to kick the head is something so elementary and practical that there would be no need to prove that this was something that could work. You all ought to know that for yourselves. None of you should need me to demonstrate that technique in order for you to evaluate it, this is not some advanced esoteric fancy move, it's something basic that can be seen all over the place.

Thanks for your reply.

(sanjuro...you've seen it with a knee, I know)

[KC Elbows]

true TCMA is in the mess its in largely because of claims made that have never been proved, if you are teaching stuff that you cant prove works in a majority of situations (either from personal expereince or from seeing it used in confrontations, be they sport or street) then you are by and large a fraud and an immoral teacher

The problem is that, frankly, I've seen silly things work in street fights that I'd never advocate. Most fights are not against stone cold killing machines. So the bare minimum is actually lower than the sports oriented guys like to claim. When they claim it's so much higher, they invalidate their good points by making patently clear that they are also romanticizing the street.

The stuff to be afraid of on the street is exactly the stuff that unarmed combat is possibly the last choice in using.

[SanHeChuan]

Personally I think it would be nice if people could post their knowledge without constantly being asked to prove they can fight. Even ma's who can't actually fight still may know techniques fighters can use.

The more information available, the better chance users of this forum have for making their own evaluations. Constant challenges of this type discourage the sharing of information that others could benefit from.

I don't think misinformation is tma's biggest problem...I think it is the lack of correct information. People have to learn to tell for themselves what is real and what is not. If they cannot manage this then maybe they don't deserve the real. I see no reason to try to shout anyone into silence, or into taking back what they've said, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

It's all beneficial to the people reading these posts.

You should question everything everyone ever says about anything.

It's called Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), don't leave home without it. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

(sanjuro...you've seen it with a knee, I know)

Dude.
Come on, I know that apples and oranges are both fruits, both have skin, both make juice and both have pits, but no one will ever confuse one with the other.

[KC Elbows]

KC thanks for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I pretty much agree with all you've said.

However, I am a student, not a teacher. What I have done with my techniques is not a reflection of what my teacher and seniors have done. (And what I therefore hope/intend to one day be able to do as well).

Also I was not saying I could/have used said technique. I was simply responding to a post that said there were no applications for the slaps. I have been shown applications for a number of them, just thought that would be good to share.

Finally, I really think that removing the guard with a hand to kick the head is something so elementary and practical that there would be no need to prove that this was something that could work. You all ought to know that for yourselves. None of you should need me to demonstrate that technique in order for you to evaluate it, this is not some advanced esoteric fancy move, it's something basic that can be seen all over the place.

Thanks for your reply.

(sanjuro...you've seen it with a knee, I know)

I think he's referring to the lotus kick with the slap. That's what I assumed.

[KC Elbows]

You should question everything everyone ever says about anything.

It's called Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), don't leave home without it. ;)

You're lying.:D

I know this because you cited wikipedia, and everyone knows that you can't cite them with any reliability! I believe they even say so on wikipedia.

[Frost]

You just said the same thing I did, except saying alive.:p:D

I prefer to say fo rizzle.

what can i say im a SBG guy at heart Matts a funny guy :D

and as i said those schools that train properly (or are sport orintated) get this and wonder what all the f*cking arguemnets are about

[Frost]

The problem is that, frankly, I've seen silly things work in street fights that I'd never advocate. Most fights are not against stone cold killing machines. So the bare minimum is actually lower than the sports oriented guys like to claim. When they claim it's so much higher, they invalidate their good points by making patently clear that they are also romanticizing the street.

The stuff to be afraid of on the street is exactly the stuff that unarmed combat is possibly the last choice in using.

doesnt matter what the level is, unless you have done it or seen it work on a number of occasions then how do you know it works, and if you dont know why teach it?

And i didnt say just the street i said seen working, in any enviroment sport, street etc the point is teaching something you dont know actually works is morally wrong and dangerous (in my view) and how all this cr*p starts

[SanHeChuan]

You're lying.:D

I know this because you cited wikipedia, and everyone knows that you can't cite them with any reliability! I believe they even say so on wikipedia.

Can your really trust what everyone knows? ;)

You just have to fact check Wikipedia like you have to fact check everything else, that isn't peer reviewed. They even give you a nice list of references to source their material. People need to stop HATEN on the WIKI. :mad::cool:

[KC Elbows]

Wikipedia is the only source of all wiki haters.

[sanjuro_ronin]

doesnt matter what the level is, unless you have done it or seen it work on a number of occasions then how do you know it works, and if you dont know why teach it?

Correct, but I will say this, if I see a technique that someone else can use, effectively and consistently (those are the keys) and I can't, maybe because I am too short or too sexy :D, I MAY keep it to teach to others.

[KC Elbows]

doesnt matter what the level is, unless you have done it or seen it work on a number of occasions then how do you know it works, and if you dont know why teach it?

And i didnt say just the street i said seen working, in any enviroment sport, street etc the point is teaching something you dont know actually works is morally wrong and dangerous (in my view) and how all this cr*p starts

If you don't know it works, but believe it does, I'm not sure that there's a big moral lapse here, it's just a lameness effect.

Unless you or them are equating h-t-h with self defense. But there's a whole lot of schools that swear off all violence altogether. Where's their moral lapse if they believe it works? You can't claim fraud and say they were ignorant of the fact it doesn't work. And everyone thinks their stuff works.

The first martial art I was in was useless, but we worked out hard, and conditioning allowed for some people to have successful confrontations. Now, those guys had other moral lapses, but that's another story...

[Frost]

Correct, but I will say this, if I see a technique that someone else can use, effectively and consistently (those are the keys) and I can't, maybe because I am too short or too sexy :D, I MAY keep it to teach to others.

hence the bit, seen it work, i understand that and agree 100%

i know guys that hit the flying arm bar at will, i weight a little too much for that :Dbut if someone smaller wants me to teach it to them i will, even though i will never pull it of in comps or sparring

theres a difference between knowing stuff works and being able to pull it all off :D

[ShaolinDan]

Kicks and knees have more in common than apples and oranges. More like a plantain and a banana, one is just longer than the other. :)

Everyone should be a critical thinker. But, as a martial artist(and as someone who understands logic) when you see a technique you should critically evaluate the technique, not the person demonstrating it.
If you really have fight experience you can figure out what can work without necessarily seeing it demoed as it would work.
A poor demo of a jab, does not mean a jab is a poor technique, right? Again I was not describing anything fancy, just a hand strike/block/catch, coupled with a kick. Nice basic useful stuff which longfist has found a way to make pretty.

Being overly critical can really detriment one's quality of life...it's nice to enjoy the meal you are eating once in a while, or at least let others enjoy it.

I agree with nearly all you guys have to say about training, but I don't think it needs to be said in response to every single post anyone makes.

I think I've said all I wanted to. I hope so anyway, this has gone on long enough.
Keep up the good work/thinking. :)

[MysteriousPower]

I do not aree with having a teacher that fought in the street being able to teach better. My old teacher fought street fights and only taught techniques that he had used. The problem was HOW he taught. He taught us to drill crap for hours off of weak punches saying that that is how you learn. The main "alive" drill consisted of different kinds of rolling arm drills with strikes. He would never watch us spar and never have any useful sparring input. The only input he gave was the crappy kind: "first you do this. Then he reacts like that. Then that opens him up for the this.". This kind of crappy technique drilling is worthless.

"I once used this on a guy..." The problem with that is that it fit THAT one situation and having people do it against fake punches is not even close.

[taai gihk yahn]

And here is the thing, taking the RH as an example:
It CAN'T be done biomecanically correct in the air, it has to actually HIT something, if not you are actually working AGAINST the correct movement.
Doing it in the air cause it to lose much of what it has to have to be effective when it actually makes contact.
the simple fact is that when you throw the kick in the air, you have to contract eccentircally and isometrically to slow the kick and stabilize the core; when you hit a target, it's no eccentric, and the isometric occurs in the directly opposite muscle groups which you fire when it's in the air; so it's literally like learning two completely different movements, LOL!


You should question everything everyone ever says about anything.
It's called Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), don't leave home without it. ;)
one of my sifu's favorite expressions is something to the effect that the optimal student "has faith in the teaching, is diligent in their studies, and independently verifies everything that they are taught"; after studying with him for about 8 years, one day I turned to him and said, "I don't believe a single word of anything that you have said to me"; he smiled broadly...
so, dramatic tales aside, the point is that, a TRUE teacher gives you information that you have to work at over time, but not just by rote repetition - you have to go out, verify it, make it your own; otherwise, you are "eating the dregs of another's meal", as the Ch'an folk like to put it (which is why you have Hui Neng burning the sutras and all that jazz); unfortunately, many people have a hard time handling the dichotomy and apparent contradiction of on the one hand accepting what their teacher has to offer, but on the other, having a "great doubt" and verifying on their own (which is a bit scarier, of course); to me, THIS shows the hallmark of a great teacher, one who has NO personal investment whatsoever in their student's personal progress - because that progress might just one day cause the student to place his hands together, bow to his teacher, say thank you, and leave - for a teacher who needs students for self-validation of himself as a teacher, this is deadly, and so many teachers foster dependance on their students, instead of holding the door open for them as they leave...(I've seen my sifu literally push people out the door who were waffling about whether they should stay or go when he would push their buttons - well, he's a dharma teacher, it's what they do - he would "help" them decide by pushing their buttons even more! of course, once or twice, I've seen this have the opposite effect, where the student realized how he was reacting out of his ego-projection, dropped it, and stayed; for myself, it was about 5 years in, when i was at a point in my taiji development and had hit a wall, so to speak, and sifu was like, "you really have NO idea what taiji is about at ALL"; well, I almost walked out the door for good; glad I didn't though...because he was right!)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Test everything, that is the motto of any good teacher.
That is why I care so little about what Sifu so-n-so did 20 years ago or 100 or even can still do today because, unless I Can do it, it won't do **** for me.
There are always freaks and exceptions to the rules, many people train finger strikes, but how many can actually DO THEM for real?
We all love that IP pic of the skinny Chinese MA sifu breaking all those bricks with a slap and it may even be real, but how many will be bale to develop THAT?
About as many as can run the 100 meter under 10 seconds, maybe less.

[YouKnowWho]

If you don't know it works, but believe it does,...

Onetime I suggested someone to train the "cracking" skill as the following:

- go to the woods,
- left hand hold on a tree branch,
- drop right shoulder into that branch, and
- break it.

I told him that if he could break 1,000 tree branches that way, he might have developed some useful skill. Oneday he came back to me and said that he had broken 1,000 tree branches but he still didn't know how to use that skill. I asked him to use his right hand to hold on my neck (like the Judo lapel hold). I used my left arm to

- bend his right holding arm,
- put my right hand on the right side of his body (below his right shoulder),
- use my right shoulder to smash into his right upper arm, and
- take him down.

I like this kind of teaching method. The reason is simple. If someone

- has no faith in your training method, he doesn't deserve your teaching.
- doesn't want to spend time to develop Kung Li, his skill may not work against strong resisted opponent.

IMO, this is the true TCMA teaching method.