"Functionalizing" WCK

[Ultimatewingchun]

I wouldn't make that judgment call - because if there are individuals within a system who can really make it work then why would I look downward at the system because very few people are good at it?

What should be judged to be poor, in that case, is the way the system has been taught and the politics/lineage/$/ego issues and problems that have resulted in inadequate training.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I wouldn't make that judgment call - because if there are individuals within a system who can really make it work then why would I look downward at the system because very few people are good at it?

What should be judged to be poor, in that case, is the way the system has been taught and the politics/lineage/$/ego issues and problems that has resulted in inadequate training.

So you are of the "if the top level can do it , it works" camp?

[YungChun]

So you are of the "if the top level can do it , it works" camp?

I don't think that's what Victor is saying.. It all depends on what IT is...

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't think that's what Victor is saying.. It all depends on what IT is...

It being a system.
Does one judge the functionality of a system base don what the top people cna do or the average person?

[YungChun]

It being a system.
Does one judge the functionality of a system base don what the top people cna do or the average person?

It's problematic.. Since there are no limitations, controls or quality assurance measures in place ANYONE can say they are a WCK teacher.. Since this is the case are all those folks who really don't understand the system or how to teach the system to also be considered part of IT--the system?

How about "Karate", a highly generic term. How does one make an intelligent assessment of if Karate is "good" and what that means?

Maybe this is going about labeling the wrong way.. Perhaps Karate and WCK are what the *person* makes of it--like--"he has good WCK"--Not "WCK is good"..

[t_niehoff]

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

No there isn't. Because the 1-to-1-to-1 begins with application, with fighting. If you were using the 1-to-1-to-1, your fightiing would "look" (you'll move in the same way, do the same things, etc.) just like your training, and just like what is being taught.

[t_niehoff]

It's problematic.. Since there are no limitations, controls or quality assurance measures in place ANYONE can say they are a WCK teacher.. Since this is the case are all those folks who really don't understand the system or how to teach the system to also be considered part of IT--the system?

How about "Karate", a highly generic term. How does one make an intelligent assessment of if Karate is "good" and what that means?

Maybe this is going about labeling the wrong way.. Perhaps Karate and WCK are what the *person* makes of it--like--"he has good WCK"--Not "WCK is good"..

In my view, what makes someone qualified to teach a martial art is that they can consistenly and regualrly do in fighting with competant people those things they train to do as they train to do them. And that those things are what they teach. In other words, you see it fought before you see it taught. Someone who can't do it, shouldn't be teaching others. That is the blind leading the blind.

[YungChun]

No there isn't. Because the 1-to-1-to-1 begins with application, with fighting. If you were using the 1-to-1-to-1, your fightiing would "look" (you'll move in the same way, do the same things, etc.) just like your training, and just like what is being taught.

Why don't you provide an example--let's say three WCK techniques that we all know..

Then go through and explain how:

The technique is done in "real fighting" ...

And then...

How the technique is done in traditional training incorrectly..

Then explain the differences involved between the two ways of expressing the move..

Go ahead an use video to help...

I am sure this will be educational..

[YungChun]

In my view, what makes someone qualified to teach a martial art is that they can consistenly and regualrly do in fighting with competant people those things they train to do as they train to do them. And that those things are what they teach. In other words, you see it fought before you see it taught. Someone who can't do it, shouldn't be teaching others. That is the blind leading the blind.

And has nothing to do with the question in play.

[KPM]

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.

---Good point. Other sports/athletic endeavors make use of the latest developments in sports science. Why should modern martial arts be any different?

Do they do that (san sik, two-man cooperative drills, etc.) in boxing or BJJ or MT?

---Well...yeah! In boxing....the coach holds the focus pads while the student works on various combinations...the coach throws out his own blows to make the student defend and then launch into a specific combination.....that's two-man cooperative drilling. In BJJ...one student moves from the mount to a cross-arm bar then the other defends the arm bar and moves into his partner's guard, then the partner sweeps him and gets the mount and the cycle repeats...that's two-man cooperative drilling. In boxing...the student bobs and weaves into a body hook and comes out with a cross/hook/cross combination...over and over several times to get it down...that's a san sik.

For me, that is just more of the same. You can teach/learn/trainWCK just as you do wrestling, as you do boxing.

---In wrestling....one partner shoots in for the double leg and lifts his partner in the air and carries him several feet before putting him down and then the roles reverse...that's two-man cooperative drilling. In wrestling...a student practices solo doing the shoot, arching back, and then reversing....that's a san sik.

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.

---That's a good formula. I guess what I'm getting at is how do you teach the tools/skills needed as a foundation.....I'm saying short san sik and two-man drills, but I'm still not clear on how you would recommend teaching them.

[KPM]

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...
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.

---I agree Victor. There is a body structure to WCK that must be taught. I just don't see how one would do that without using forms....at least in the format of short sequences of movements (san sik). But I do tend to agree with Terence that the longer linked sets are not absolutely necessary.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's problematic.. Since there are no limitations, controls or quality assurance measures in place ANYONE can say they are a WCK teacher.. Since this is the case are all those folks who really don't understand the system or how to teach the system to also be considered part of IT--the system?

How about "Karate", a highly generic term. How does one make an intelligent assessment of if Karate is "good" and what that means?

Maybe this is going about labeling the wrong way.. Perhaps Karate and WCK are what the *person* makes of it--like--"he has good WCK"--Not "WCK is good"..

I am not sure what you mean, certainly there is no quality control in the MA, in any MA really, other than the simple fact if a person can fight.
As for the same view applied to a MA system, its almost as simple:
Do you think a systems functionality is based on what its top people can do or its average practioner?

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?

[KPM]

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?

--I tend to think that any martial art should be judged on how easily it can be applied by the average student, not the elite gifted athlete. Some gifted individuals could make ANYTHING work reasonably well.

[YungChun]

I am not sure what you mean, certainly there is no quality control in the MA, in any MA really, other than the simple fact if a person can fight.
As for the same view applied to a MA system, its almost as simple:
Do you think a systems functionality is based on what its top people can do or its average practioner?

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?

I think it's like this..

There is no such thing as how good a style is..

There is such a thing as how good individuals are..

I wouldn't/can't judge the art by using numbers on performance by those who claim to do the style/system..

In order to judge something I would investigate it myself, or use my own experience to make an assessment..

What do we mean by good? Good for what? Good for whom?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Take boxing for example, to we judge its fuinctionality as a MA ( how will its used in a fight) based on how well the top boxers use it, or the average boxer?

--I tend to think that any martial art should be judged on how easily it can be applied by the average student, not the elite gifted athlete. Some gifted individuals could make ANYTHING work reasonably well.

Thank you, simple eh?

I think it's like this..

There is no such thing as how good a style is..

There is such a thing as how good individuals are..

I wouldn't/can't judge the art by using numbers on performance by those who claim to do the style/system..

In order to judge something I would investigate it myself, or use my own experience to make an assessment..

What do we mean by good? Good for what? Good for whom?

See above, no one said anything about "good", this is about function.
Good is subjective, function, not as much.