"Functionalizing" WCK

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So how do you go about 'functionalizing' your WCK from a TWC perspective?
Do you break out techniques from the forms and drill them for application?
Do you ignore the forms and just work the essential 'tools' in a sparring format? What are the things that you are finding to work the best and most consistently in realistic sparring? Thanks Victor." (Keith)


***I break out techniques from the TWC forms all the time. Such as pak sao, lop sao, bil sao, bong sao, garn sao, etc. BECAUSE this is part of what it takes to functionalize WCK, imo.

But the key is to make the static drills/sparring-mobile drills fluid.

For example, as you may know, a very big part of TWC is the concept of looking at elbows and knees in order to read what's coming at you in time to react with a skillful move - even if what you're reading is just his forward movement into your space (or very close to coming into your space)...at which point you must attack.

So even though I may have just done some stationary (static) drills against a straight punch with pak as a response (or a cut punch that almost acts like a supercharged pak)...

the fact is the bong sao is another legit response to a straight punch...

or perhaps a bil sao might be used as another response to a straight punch.

But what am I getting at?

The pak attacks the outside of his punching arm...the bil attacks the inside of his punching arm...and the bong sao comes from underneath.

And if I'm watching carefully when the more spontaneous sparring drills are done - then my responses have to be fluid as my partner comes in with straight punches coming from various angles and distances. I might use pak, or bil, or bong, or cut punch, or just attack with a punch of my own.

Now throw in bil or lop against hook or round punches...and you have some very functional drills going. He could be throwing something high or low, round or staight, uppercut or overhand, etc.

So we don't ignore the forms or chi sao - we use both pieces as part of the overall game plan.
We do forms, chi sao, wooden dummy...AND...we spend a lot of time taking the pieces out of these things and working them.

QUITE A BIT OF TIME.

And we use drilling/sparring with these pieces while wearing headgear and thin gloves in a "live" environment, ie.- if I lose concentration, or whatever...I'm going to get hit in the face with his punch.

And the same with chi sao skills. I may have just come in on his straight punch with a cut punch that bridges his arm - and now he's reacting with all kinds of movement/force/push/pull/throws a punch with his other hand/tries to grab and clinch me, etc....

and I have to take my chi sao contact reflex skills and make them functional HERE...in the midst of this "live" sparring (or spontaneous close-to-sparring drills)...and take his space away/hit him/mess with his balance/take him off the "line" I want to strike on, angle in on him with a more rooted (but very mobile) footwork, pressure him with a strong forward moving body structure, etc.

But do it from "here"...not from "chi sao" position with chi sao rules.

Just some examples.

Repeat the method with kicks.

And use heavy bags, mitts, shields, etc. all the time. For precision and power striking/kicking from various angles and motions. And lots of stretching, strengthening, conditioning, cardio, etc.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Their (MMA fighters) 'mobility' comes from the 'when' and the 'why, which way and under what conditions they move--they just move--so can we.. It appears to be more of a personal stylistic choice, some very good fighters move less than VT folks some move more but few are moving around any more than needed.. With few exceptions--not bouncy bounce at all--not on their toes at all--not like the 'dancing boxer'--at all.. WCK footwork can allow one to move left, back, right, forward, and combinations thereof just as fast as X and sometimes faster IMO.." (Jim/Ying Chun)


***I'M TALKING about when you're starting from out of range. To get to the close quarters safely and efficiently you need lots of mobility against a quality fighter....and slightly up on the toes at times is a good way of doing it.

Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you'll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)

[Liddel]

Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you'll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)

Vic.... Anderson Silva Bro !!!

IMO hes one of the best strikers....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

I find him fancinating to watch... Although in this clip theres not much bridging from long to close range...


DREW

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good call! Yeah, Anderson's another one with lots of striking skills.

[Liddel]

Good call! Yeah, Anderson's another one with lots of striking skills.

When it comes to striking, elbows are one of my VT's greatest assets - check Silva in this Clip......not your average KO

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

DREW

[YungChun]

Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you'll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)

Liddell is one I'm thinking of, just watched him fighting on a couple of vids and I do not see him doing this at all.. Moving yes, he loves to move laterally, but not in the way I read your suggestions at all--no bouncy bounce, no toes, no dancing boxer, especially when he means business.. Most of his dancing happens before the fight starts IMO.

Let's see all the vids of the top fighters doing this..


Here's a clip of UFC 57.. What kind of movement do we see from two of the best and why?

http://www.mediafire.com/?5xrb0ggnh2s

Aside from a feeling out period or a delaying action the best movement IMO is minimal movement, better to make them miss by an inch rather than a mile..

In any case if folks want to move more I don't see the system stopping them..

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think we're debating trifles here, Jim.

When I say slightly up on your toes at times - I don't mean to do a Muhammad Ali or a Sugar Ray Leonard dance.

[Edmund]

As much as I think realistic drills, conditioning, grappling, sparring etc are beneficial, teaching a skill like WC so that it's functional for the student requires:
A. It's addressed and explained at a level they understand.
B. It's challenging them to improve beyond their current level.

A: If you don't make the art simple to understand, nothing will sink in. By talking in weird ways, it makes students lose their focus. Any technique/idea you teach should be at a level where it's easy to "get". If it's not easy, then that technique is too advanced and the student isn't ready for it. A lot of realistic drills are way too hard for beginners. But maybe once they've learnt something simpler first, they can appreciate the more difficult drill.

B: Whatever you're training has to be challenging to you for you to improve. If you just do whatever you already are good at you aren't going to get much better. Same with any student. They have to do something challenging to get better. If they're in their comfort zone they can just coast. There's all sorts of different areas outside people's comfort zones. Even in a particular topic like say grappling: You may think you're decent but there's always more challenging levels of ability. Unless you push yourself or someone pushes you to improve, you probably won't.

Until you make the art more learnable and accessible, you haven't made it more functional, just more complicated.

[KPM]

Forms and unrealistic drills can't by their very nature develop functional/realistic skills/tools. They can at most be used as learning/teaching devices, although in my view, the disadvantages of using them as learning/teaching devices outweighs their usefulness.

---I agree that forms and drills are learning/teaching devices. But I see them as very important for that reason. They teach structure and act as a sort of "dictionary" of movement. And I also agree that you have to go beyond those forms and drills to develop realistic skills. But what are the disadvantages of this that you think outweighs their usefulness?

You see, if you practice tan sao in forms and unrealistic drills, like chi sao, and don't use regularly and consistently in sparring, you will never develop it into a realistic skill. That only comes by using your tan sao regularly and consistently in sparring.

---Again I agree. But don't you need to train that tan sao in forms and drills as a "foundational" way of learning good structure? Even a boxer works on his various punches solo. He learns to throw a good jab by isolating it and working on it. He doesn't ONLY throw a jab when sparring. He works his jab solo, on the heavy bag, with a cooperative opponent, and then in sparring.

In my view, the forms and traditional drills is not WCK -- that is "the curriculum". Just as a math textbook is not math. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK's approach/tools. You can do the forms and traditional drills forever and you're not "doing WCK" (just like hitting the heavy bag and skipping rope is not boxing). Skill in WCK comes from "doing WCK", and the more you "do" it, just like with any skill, the better you get. You learn and develop boxing skills by boxing, you learn and develop grappling skills by grappling, and you learn and develop WCK by fighting.

---Again, I agree. But what I'm not seeing is why you feel that the "curriculum" or "textbook" is so unimportant. You have to start somewhere. You have to have a good foundation in basic skill before you can build good "functional" skill. No one does higher math without first developing a good understanding in basic math. The reason we have math textbooks is because it is the rare individual who has a "natural" grasp of mathematics without any foundational learning.



BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground.

---OK. As in the past I admit that my experience in BJJ is limited. But in my limited experience what I was taught was the basic positions, how to transition between them, how to apply various submissions, and some basic escapes for these submissions. It was all basic foundational training. This was all done is a "rote" fashion to learn the basic movements and start to understand how they work. No one was just thrown on the mat and told "go for it!" How is this any different than learning the forms and basic drills of WCK?

Boxing is a free-movement, stand-up fighting (with punches) method, right? How do you practice and develop boxing? By doing it, by boxing (punching) in stand-up, free movement fighting.

---But don't they start by learning the basic movements first? Again, a boxer isn't just thrown in the ring and told to fight without first learning what good technique is supposed to be.


Where do BJJ and boxing practitioners get their tools -- they don't have forms/linked sets?

--No. But they have a "curriculum." They work through the various elements of BJJ in a non-threatening environment so that the student learns the basics before they are expected to use those basics against a fully resisting opponent. At least that's how my BJJ teacher did it. They train with cooperative opponents (drills) before they try to apply it on resisting opponents. They train various techniques like the "shrimp" movement and standing from a grounded position without an opponent (form).


I'll tell you how to begin "the work" -- get some training partners, start in contact, and fight.

---That's good advice.

You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc.

---Ah! But I know those tools from doing the "curriculum." How do I teach them to someone else without showing them that "curriculum." You seem to think that the curriculum is unimportant and can be thrown out. That is where I find my disagreement with what you have been saying.

Keep doing contact sparring. Keep critically examining what is working, why it is working, etc. and what isn't working, why it isn't working, etc. Then you will be on the road toward making your WCK functional.

---Again. Good advice.

[t_niehoff]

---I agree that forms and drills are learning/teaching devices. But I see them as very important for that reason. They teach structure and act as a sort of "dictionary" of movement. And I also agree that you have to go beyond those forms and drills to develop realistic skills. But what are the disadvantages of this that you think outweighs their usefulness?

Yes, but the problem is while the forms and drills teach the movements, they don't teach how to use the movements in fighting. So what you have is a disconnect between learning, practice, and fighting. Not only that, but you can't really learn how perform open skill movements with modelactions, since the movement is never going to be the model. It is just a poor way to learn.

---Again I agree. But don't you need to train that tan sao in forms and drills as a "foundational" way of learning good structure? Even a boxer works on his various punches solo. He learns to throw a good jab by isolating it and working on it. He doesn't ONLY throw a jab when sparring. He works his jab solo, on the heavy bag, with a cooperative opponent, and then in sparring.

But doing the movement in an unrealistic drill is counter-productive since you are learning/practicing to do the movement one way and then needed to perform the movement another way in fighting. You want that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

Again, I agree. But what I'm not seeing is why you feel that the "curriculum" or "textbook" is so unimportant. You have to start somewhere. You have to have a good foundation in basic skill before you can build good "functional" skill. No one does higher math without first developing a good understanding in basic math. The reason we have math textbooks is because it is the rare individual who has a "natural" grasp of mathematics without any foundational learning.

You're missing my point. Of course there will be a currcilumin any MA. But inTMAs that curriculum is separated from application, so you learn and practice moving one way and then when fighting will need to move another. So yes, you need to learn the movements, however, you should learn it in the context of how you will really use it in fighting, then drill it just like you will use it in fighitng, then use it in fighting just as you've learned it and drilled it. Now you from day 1 developing a habit of use that will be constantly reinforced.

I admit that my experience in BJJ is limited. But in my limited experience what I was taught was the basic positions, how to transition between them, how to apply various submissions, and some basic escapes for these submissions. It was all basic foundational training. This was all done is a "rote" fashion to learn the basic movements and start to understand how they work. No one was just thrown on the mat and told "go for it!" How is this any different than learning the forms and basic drills of WCK?

OK, because how you learned those things in BJJ were within the context of how you would really do them in fighitng, so what you learned corresponded to what you drilled which correspondedto what you will do in sparring/fighting. You didn't learn linked forms of movements (not knowing how they were used), and you didn't practice drills like chi sao where you use the tools in waysthat won't work in reality. I'm not saying just throw people on the mat and tell them to "go for it." I'm saying that WCK should be taught like boxing, judo, BJJ, sambo, MT, etc.

And, this is critical, you were taught those things in BJJ not because of some theory or some idea of how they believe you should do things, they are teaching you from experience, from seeing those things actually work in fighting -- so they are starting with the fight (we know this and that works) and teaching from that standpoint. That is not done in WCK.

But don't they start by learning the basic movements first? Again, a boxer isn't just thrown in the ring and told to fight without first learning what good technique is supposed to be.

Where have I ever suggested that? I do think it important for beginners to begin with sparring just so they get used to that environment and to really see that they are going to need to fit their tools into that environment. But, I think teaching WCK should be structured just as learning BJJ, boxing, etc. You don't need forms to do that (and they are counter-productive), you don't need lots of unrealistic drill practiceto do that.

No. But they have a "curriculum." They work through the various elements of BJJ in a non-threatening environment so that the student learns the basics before they are expected to use those basics against a fully resisting opponent. At least that's how my BJJ teacher did it. They train with cooperative opponents (drills) before they try to apply it on resisting opponents. They train various techniques like the "shrimp" movement and standing from a grounded position without an opponent (form).

Yes, and all those things are taught within a context of proven ways to use them in fighting. Most of what is taught in WCK -- how to use the tools -- is utter nonsense. And the reason it is utter nonsense is that the teachers, including the masters and grandmasters, are working from theory not from experience. So you get people who can't really use the tools of WCK teaching others via forms (which don't show how to use the tools and which focus on the wrong things) and unrealistic drills where you practice moving in ways that don't correspond to fighting. Where will that take you? You'll be on the bus to fantasy-land.

I'll tell you how to begin "the work" -- get some training partners, start in contact, and fight.

---That's good advice.

You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc.

---Ah! But I know those tools from doing the "curriculum." How do I teach them to someone else without showing them that "curriculum." You seem to think that the curriculum is unimportant and can be thrown out. That is where I find my disagreement with what you have been saying.

You teach them from experience.

Look, of course all MAs have curriculums. I'm not saying the curriculum is unimportant --just the opposite: I'm saying it is critical. Consider this. Let's say you learn something in WCK, call it 1a. OK? Now, you then take it and practice it, 1b. With me so far. Now, don't you agree that you'd want 1a=1b? So that you learn it as you will pratice it? With an open skill, and all martial arts are open skills, a model movement, some fixed representation, can neverreally be how you willperform it, since by its very nature, the movement will need to be dynamic and adaptive. With me? It's likelearning a forehand in tennis via a fixed form. Yourforehand will neer look like that in pradtice since it will nedd to be dynamic and adaptive, aligning to the ball, how you are moving, etc. A fixed form can't properly represent (or teach) a dynamic action. As the WCK tools are dynamic, adaptive actions (and not shapes), theycan't be adequately taught via fixed forms. Then you get 1a not equal to 1b.

Then put in sparring/fighting, 1c. If you practice 1b, that is what you are habituating. But if 1b is not equal to 1c, then you are practcing one way and trying to fight another. That is poor training.

So, I'm saying let's do what all functional arts do,have 1a=1b=1c. But-- and here is the critical BUT -- to do that, you need to begin with 1c. You need to start with the fight, with what works,and we know it works from experience. Otherwise, you are starting with fantasy, with what you believe should work, etc.

[KPM]

But doing the movement in an unrealistic drill is counter-productive since you are learning/practicing to do the movement one way and then needed to perform the movement another way in fighting. You want that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

---Then it sounds like what we need to strive for is to make our drills as realistic as possible.

You're missing my point. Of course there will be a currcilumin any MA. But inTMAs that curriculum is separated from application, so you learn and practice moving one way and then when fighting will need to move another.

---Ok. I see what you're saying. Of all the TCMAs, WCK is the one with the least "flowery" movements and has always seemed to me to be the one with the most focus on application. But I do think times have changed and many have lost sight of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence that you are talking about.

So yes, you need to learn the movements, however, you should learn it in the context of how you will really use it in fighting, then drill it just like you will use it in fighitng, then use it in fighting just as you've learned it and drilled it. Now you from day 1 developing a habit of use that will be constantly reinforced.

---I agree. But it sounds to me like you are saying that the curriculum...the forms and drills...just need to be as realistic as possible....not that they are unimportant or counter-productive.

I think teaching WCK should be structured just as learning BJJ, boxing, etc. You don't need forms to do that (and they are counter-productive), you don't need lots of unrealistic drill practiceto do that.

---I think perhaps we are not defining "forms" in the same way. I agree that what you are talking about does not require the long linked sets (SLT, CK, BG). But I do think that in the process of being "structured", formal technique has to be taught before it can be applied. This would consist of short series of movements...like a combo in boxing...and is what I was previously referring to as "san sik." But these are also a type of "form".... as seen and used Ku Lo WCK.
So while you did not like my idea of developing a more functional "san sik" based WCK, it is starting to sound like we are talking about the same thing. How are you going to structure your WCK that does not make use of the classic forms, unless you teach short sequences of techniques...the tools...and then work on application? Hence my previous suggestion.....short sequences of technique (san sik), application taught in a two-man cooperative format (drill), further developed in a two-man non-cooperative format (sparring). How do you suggest formating a curriculum for "functional" WCK?


So, I'm saying let's do what all functional arts do,have 1a=1b=1c. But-- and here is the critical BUT -- to do that, you need to begin with 1c. You need to start with the fight, with what works,and we know it works from experience.

---I follow you. We need to "reverse engineer" our WCK, rather than trust the experience of the guys that developed WCK in this way several generations ago, since times have changed and people don't fight the same way.

---Good discussion so far. I'm still interested in hearing how you format your WCK curriculum without the use of forms. Thanks!

[t_niehoff]

But doing the movement in an unrealistic drill is counter-productive since you are learning/practicing to do the movement one way and then needed to perform the movement another way in fighting. You want that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

---Then it sounds like what we need to strive for is to make our drills as realistic as possible.

And minimize our reliance on the unrealistic stuff.

You're missing my point. Of course there will be a currcilumin any MA. But inTMAs that curriculum is separated from application, so you learn and practice moving one way and then when fighting will need to move another.

---Ok. I see what you're saying. Of all the TCMAs, WCK is the one with the least "flowery" movements and has always seemed to me to be the one with the most focus on application. But I do think times have changed and many have lost sight of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence that you are talking about.

I just think that we now know more about what is really going on with motor skill acquisition and development that we have in the past.

So yes, you need to learn the movements, however, you should learn it in the context of how you will really use it in fighting, then drill it just like you will use it in fighitng, then use it in fighting just as you've learned it and drilled it. Now you from day 1 developing a habit of use that will be constantly reinforced.

---I agree. But it sounds to me like you are saying that the curriculum...the forms and drills...just need to be as realistic as possible....not that they are unimportant or counter-productive.

A form or linked set will always be a poor way to learn an open skill (using a fixed model to teach a dynamic, adaptive action). So my view is to throw out forms/linked sets, just as all the functional arts have. And to revamp how we teach/train using more of a sparring platform. The tools areskills to do something, an action -- just teach it in that context.

I think teaching WCK should be structured just as learning BJJ, boxing, etc. You don't need forms to do that (and they are counter-productive), you don't need lots of unrealistic drill practiceto do that.

---I think perhaps we are not defining "forms" in the same way. I agree that what you are talking about does not require the long linked sets (SLT, CK, BG). But I do think that in the process of being "structured", formal technique has to be taught before it can be applied. This would consist of short series of movements...like a combo in boxing...and is what I was previously referring to as "san sik." But these are also a type of "form".... as seen and used Ku Lo WCK.
So while you did not like my idea of developing a more functional "san sik" based WCK, it is starting to sound like we are talking about the same thing. How are you going to structure your WCK that does not make use of the classic forms, unless you teach short sequences of techniques...the tools...and then work on application? Hence my previous suggestion.....short sequences of technique (san sik), application taught in a two-man cooperative format (drill), further developed in a two-man non-cooperative format (sparring). How do you suggest formating a curriculum for "functional" WCK?

Do they do that (san sik, two-man cooperative drills, etc.) in boxing or BJJ or MT? For me, that is just more of the same. You can teach/learn/trainWCK just as you do wrestling, as you do boxing.

So, I'm saying let's do what all functional arts do,have 1a=1b=1c. But-- and here is the critical BUT -- to do that, you need to begin with 1c. You need to start with the fight, with what works,and we know it works from experience.

---I follow you. We need to "reverse engineer" our WCK, rather than trust the experience of the guys that developed WCK in this way several generations ago, since times have changed and people don't fight the same way.

---Good discussion so far. I'm still interested in hearing how you format your WCK curriculum without the use of forms. Thanks!

My view is to use a sparring platform to teach and develop WCK. Start with the WCK strategy, teach the various tactics you can use to execute that strategy, and the tools/skills you need to implement the tactics, and do so with a 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence between how it is taught, trained, and used.

[k gledhill]

Terence there is a 1 to 1 in VT ....it just has to be explained a certain way.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The elbows down and in toward the center of one's body - along with the whole Centerline Principle - is not so easy to put into one's muscle memory. This is a very different method of attack and defense than most fighting systems...

and so one of the advantages of doing SLT, for example, is the very training of your muscle memory in this regard. And one of the reasons why the first section of the form should be done slowly.

Likewise, the hand/arm formations of actions like pak, garn, bong, fuk, tan, etc. are also unusual and need constant training/development within the muscle memory.

AS WELL AS DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE WITHOUT LEADING WITH A SHOULDER.

Again, a very unusual method of attack and defense - and the body needs to be programmed in this regard as well.

Just a few reasons and examples of why doing forms are important if the goal is to use WING CHUN and make it FUNCTIONAL.

And many other examples could be given for SLT, chum kil, bil jee, the wooden dummy, chi sao, etc.

THIS IS A VERY CLOSE QUARTER STRIKING SYSTEM THAT UTILIZES REAL BLOCKS, PARRIES, AND REDIRECTIONS....along with avoidance techniques.

Again, somewhat unusual. And therefore....

there's little chance of making the system truly functional without these training tools.

Unless of course one has never really had the training/instruction necessary to make the system functional. Then all bets are off - and one is doomed to believing that if "you" can't do it - then nobody can.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Unless of course one has never really had the training/instruction necessary to make the system functional. Then all bets are off - and one is doomed to believing that if "you" can't do it - then nobody can.

That brings up an interesting point, there is at least one person in any system ( more actually but that is not the point) can can make it work for him/her, should a system be "judged" based on what the average practioner can do ( expectations) or what its "elite" can do ( goals to strive for) ?