The necessity of real fight experience in teaching?

[william]

The necessity of real fight experience in teaching?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just after some thoughts

W

[ghostofwingchun]

The necessity of real fight experience in teaching?

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

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

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

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

If you love doing it then just do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just after some thoughts

W

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

Thanks,

Ghost

[Sihing73]

Hello,

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

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

[ghostofwingchun]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Ghost

[anerlich]

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

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

[Sihing73]

Hello Ghost,

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

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

[Vajramusti]

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

Back to the usual (MMA?) programming.
joy

[viper]

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

[ghostofwingchun]

Hello Ghost,

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

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

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

Thanks,

Ghost

[Kapten Klutz]

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

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

[Sihing73]

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

Thanks,

Ghost

Hello Ghost,

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

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

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

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

[ghostofwingchun]

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

Hello Ghost,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Ghost

[kj]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[grashoper]

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


A wise man always keeps an open mind.

[Fajing]

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

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

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

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

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

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