I don't know what you mean by "in the context of modern fighting methods". A realistic drill is one that corresponds to fighting, so that you practice doing what you will do in fighting as you will do it. That means taking a snippet or scenario from fighting and doing it over and over again.Originally Posted by KPM
It doesn't make good sense to have a fixed "air model" (where you perform the action in the air) for a dynamic, adaptive action that will be performed against a live opponent. You can't really represent it. We don't need forms or even short forms to learn or develop any athletic activity. My view is to teach the tools of WCK, the dynamic, adaptive actions - whatever they are - as you will really do it in the context of application. IOWs, teach catching the ball by actually having you catch the ball -- not first start out pretending to do it in the air (form).I also agree that long linked sets aren't going to develop fighting skills. But they do serve as a resource or "dictionary" of moves within the system that can be drawn upon to come up with the tools we will use. They are like having a standardized math textbook to refer back to as needed. But I do think that forms in the format of short sequences of movements (san sik) ARE necessary for tool development. I pointed out that other "functional" systems use this approach. You have never explained how one would develop the WCK tools without using forms in this sense.
Lots of people do realistic sparring but never get their WCK tools to work, for example the wing chun kickboxers or the cavemen guys. They spar but use very limited WCK tools. So it takes more than sparring (although you absolutely need to do that). It also requires that you are very objective and critical of your performance, and use the sparring as a means to figure out how to use the tools, and use them consistently, regularly, etc.---So, to summarize the approach that I see as "functionalizing" WCK:
1. Keep application foremost in mind and use realistic sparring to test things and make sure they work. Seek out people doing something other than WCK to spar with. Treat sparring as a learning experience. If the local TKD guy kicks your butt, that's a good thing! Go back and work on your weaknesses and figure out why you lost the bout.
That won't work-- this is already what many people do: take some action from the form, use it in an unrealistic two-man drill, and then try to spar with it. You are going about it backwards. You need to start with what works in fighting, then drilll that -- because that is the only way to know what works. Your are starting from fantasy again.2. Either break out sections of the traditional forms into short sequences or come up with your own short sequences (san sik). Work these short sequences into a two-man drill to help learn structure and application, then apply them in sparring against a resisting opponent. If you can't make them work in sparring the way you are practicing them solo and with a partner, then change them to match what actually works.
Not "incorporate". If you want to develop significant fighting skills, then you need to train like a fighter. To train like a fighter, look at what other good proven fighters are doing and do what they do.3. Incorporate modern sports science and training methods. Make sure that a good conditioning program is part of the training. A "functionalized" WCK training hall should look like a gym, not an aerobics room. It should have heavy bags, focus mitts, medicine balls, kettlebells, etc.
This is fantasy again. You see, you are starting with how you believe tan da/pak da *should* work in fighting. But what if it doesn't work welll that way? Then you are spending your time training something that is fantasy. And this is what most WCK teachers do: teach how they beleive it will work. They teach fantasy. I'll tell you from experience, that won't work, not against anyone with any speed. Those tools are contact tools (for after you've made contact), not non-contact tools. You won't have time to block/parry, and you don't want to reach with your parry (your tan sao) since it will open lines. This is what I'm talking about: see it fought before you see it taught. Go spar with some good people, see if you can pull that off consistently, regularly first. Let application be your sifu, not your imagination.--Here's another example of what I mean (my first example was the Bong to Lop Da):
San sik: Tan Da to Pak Da: with a simple pivot, with a step in, with other footwork
Two man drill: Partner throws a Jab...evade or parry with a rear pak, partner throws a rear cross...Tan his cross as you punch across his withdrawing jab, then pak to pin his lead arm at the elbow as you punch again
Two man drill: Partner holds the focus mitts and feeds a jab-cross and you apply your Tan Da/Pak Da by striking the pads
Dummy application: you practice Tan Da/Pak Da on the dummy while stepping in at various angles...both from the side and "straight on"
Sparring: Look for the opportunity to apply the Tan Da/Pak Da combination when your opponent opens with a Jab-cross, especially if his cross is pretty sloppy and goes wide of center.
Chi sao develops chi sao applications, and so chi sao timing and chi sao contact reflexes. Those applications, timing, and contact reflexes are not fighting applications, timing, and contact reflexes. Chi sao is fine to teach certain contact skills but it is over-emphasized. Once you can perform the contact skill confortably, then it is time to drill that skill realistically.---Notice that I don't include Chi Sau in this formulation. The problem with Chi Sau is that the responses and attacks that your partner uses are not what someone who does not know WCK will use in a fight.
It is simple: if you want to make your wCK functional, then you need to do what all other functional martial arts have done, use that same process of open skill acquisition and development. Don't be guided by stories, legends, or what nonfighters do.---I'm ambivalent about the inclusion of the traditional linked sets in a "functionalized" WCK. I think that they can serve as a resource and inspiration for developing new San Sik. But I also think that if you have a set of good San Sik that covers most circumstances, you can dispense with the linked sets. As an example....Leung Jan's WCK method that he taught when he retired to Ku Lo village consisted only of San Sik that were based upon his experience in applying WCK in actual fighting. He dispensed with the traditional linked sets that he had learned previously.
That is a story -- a story. You don't know that is what Leung Jan did, and even if he did do that, it obviously didn't work! Forget Leung Jan and all the other "masters". Throw out the fantasy. That is step one. If you don't do that, you will still be following fantasy.---In short, what I am advocating has historical precedence within WCK. It is doing what Leung Jan did. He applied his WCK in fighting and found out what worked. Based on that he got rid of the traditional linked sets and developed short sequences of techniques (san sik) that he had determined were the most important for developing WCK body structure and that had the most application in fighting. Then he applied these short sequences in two-man drills to develop their application, and also performed them on the dummy. We should do the same thing,
Then let application be your sifu. To do that you need to start with application, with fighting. You can't begin to figure out combative answers (how to use WCK tools) if you are not familiar with the combative questions. Get some training partners, start in contact and fight (trying to stay in contact, not breaking out). See the problems in doing that. Try to figure out how to answer those problems with the tools you have. If you are fortunate enough to know of someone that has done that, they may be able to help you. But certainly anyone who hasn't won't have a clue. You can also isolate the problems to drills, and practice solving them with our tools in that context.
The traditional WCK learning/training does teach you the tools of WCK, it just doesn't teach you how to use them to solve genuine combative problems. The only way to learn that is by solving genuine combative problems.
Reply With Quote