"Functionalizing" WCK

[Ultimatewingchun]

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


***I don't measure the effectiveness of a system in those terms. I just look at the system itself - and work from there. For example, take capoeria. I've seen some highly skilled people demo it and came away thinking that this particular person could possibly make this work in a number of circumstances. (Because they were highly skilled and experienced in it and because of their own personal athletic ability).

But it doesn't change my overall view of capoeria as a fighting system. I still believe that it's basically too impractical and too limited in it's scope.

Whether or not there are just a few or perhaps many people who can actually perform the system well doesn't make any difference as far as I see it.

[YungChun]

Thank you, simple eh?




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

Sure if you're saying that those arts that produce more functional artists are more functional then by definition I agree.

[sanjuro_ronin]

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


***I don't measure the effectiveness of a system in those terms. I just look at the system itself - and work from there. For example, take capoeria. I've seen some highly skilled people demo it and came away thinking that this particular person could possibly make this work in a number of circumstances. (Because they were highly skilled and experienced in it and because of their own personal athletic ability).

But it doesn't change my overall view of capoeria as a fighting system. I still believe that it's basically too impractical and too limited in it's scope.

Whether or not there are just a few or perhaps many people who can actually perform the system well doesn't make any difference as far as I see it.

You just answered my question, thanks.

[t_niehoff]

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.

Body structure, elbows down, various arm actions, etc. is something all stand-up grapplers develop without linked sets. And actions like pak, gaun, bong, fook, tan are all grappling-related movements used in attached (clinch) fighting along with striking.

[t_niehoff]

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..

I'm not here to be educational or to teach, just to provide an alternative POV. It's up to you to do the work; I'm not going to do it for you. If you want to see what I do, pay me a visit.

If you understood the significance of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence, you'd already know that you can't be developing fighitng skills via forms and unrealistic drills. Unrealistic drills only teach you how to use the movement against unrealistic movements -- where your partner isn't moving, acting, doing what he would do in fighting but something else.

[KPM]

If you understood the significance of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence, you'd already know that you can't be developing fighitng skills via forms and unrealistic drills. Unrealistic drills only teach you how to use the movement against unrealistic movements -- where your partner isn't moving, acting, doing what he would do in fighting but something else.

---I think that's a given....by calling them "unrealistic" drills by definition they aren't going to develop "realistic" skills. So we need to work at making our drills as realistic as possible in the context of modern fighting methods. 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.

---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.

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.

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.

--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.

---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. We should be training to be able to fight anyone....not just a fellow WCK practitioner. Granted...Chi Sau develops contact reflexes, timing, etc. But there is a hefty investment in training time to get good at Chi Sau that could be spent on other things. And the return on that investment is not all that great when it comes down to fighting someone that doesn't do WCK. So I think a "functionalized" WCK would not have the emphasis on Chi Sau that many "traditional" approaches have. "Functionalized" WCK should replace the traditional emphasis on Chi Sau with an emphasis on sparring. That's not to say that Chi Sau would be done away with. Just that its role would be deemphasized.

---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.

---I would not do as Dale has suggested on other threads and get rid of the wooden dummy. I think the dummy serves the same purpose as a heavy bag, but on a more sophisticated level. The "functionalized" san siks should be practiced on the dummy to help develop angling, structure, and power. But the linked set on the dummy is in the same category as the empty-hand sets. In fact, I find that the dummy form in many cases is a better source for "functionalized" san siks than the empty-hand forms.

---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, but while keeping in mind the kind of fighters one would face in modern times....Muay Thai, boxers, grapplers, etc. This would not necessarily involve adding new techniques to WCK (though it could), but would primarily emphasize reformatting the traditional tools for use in more modern application. It would also involved the heavy use of realistic sparring, something that the people in Leung Jan's day couldn't do on a regular basis because they lacked the safety equipment that we have today.

[t_niehoff]

---I think that's a given....by calling them "unrealistic" drills by definition they aren't going to develop "realistic" skills. So we need to work at making our drills as realistic as possible in the context of modern fighting methods.

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.

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.

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).

---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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--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.

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.

---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.

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.

---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.

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.

---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,

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.

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.

[Wayfaring]

BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground. 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. So how do you think we develop WCK as a dirty clinch boxing method? By doing it, by controlling while hitting in the clinch. FWIW, I'm not talking about greco-type clinches, but dirty-boxing-type clinches.

What do you mean by dirty clinch boxing? I don't know if I have the right picture of this. Are you just talking about range here? Or putting ether on your handwraps?

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do you mean by dirty clinch boxing? I don't know if I have the right picture of this. Are you just talking about range here? Or putting ether on your handwraps?

do a search on youtube, Rodney king has a few videos about it.

[k gledhill]

lmfao chi-sao isnt to develop dirty boxing clinching ...no wonder your at a loss for understnading VT...you really havent got a clue . Its to develop how to strike if contact is made based on previous guidelines YOU arent aware of.....so its only normal you would reach such an uniformed conclusion....there is no answer in the chi-sao to unlock its functionality without FIRST knowing what your doing it for....developing a simple idea.

Terence youve wasted 25 years and every time you post you prove it further....your so far from the reality and function its embarrasing your even trying to act like you know.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ya think?

[KPM]

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.

---I meant only that we should be taking into consideration what modern fighters do....boxing, muay thai, grappling, etc....not the context of older fighting methods such as Hung Ga, Choy Li Fut, karate, etc.

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).

---This is where you and I have a disconnect. Your analogy of catching a ball is off. A better analogy is throwing the ball. A pitcher may very well go through the motions of a pitch without actually throwing the ball....in learning the proper biomechanics (form), as a warm up, to check his placement on the mound, etc. Then he practices throwing the ball to the catcher with no batter present (two man drill). Then he throws the ball during an actual game to try and strike out the batter (sparring).

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).

---I agree. But I would argue that if people are doing realistic sparring and their WCK tools are not showing up, then they have not trained them well enough in a "functionalized" format....short sequences practiced over and over to develop "muscle memory".....realistic two man drilling to ingrain application...then working it in sparring. Then go back and adjust or change those short sequences as needed to match how it actually works for you in sparring, and drill those motions over and over.

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.

---But how do you do that? Are you going to just grab motions out of thin air? Are you expecting the WCK gods to bestow working technique upon you? You have to have a foundation to do what you are describing. You have still never answer the question that I have asked several times. How do you propose developing that foundation....the WCK tools...without actually drilling them in some kind of structured format? And don't tell me that other functional martial arts don't do this....because they do! They teach technique in a structured format prior to throwing their proponents into the mix and expecting them to be successful.

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.

---So then I guess we should all just be doing MMA. Why bother with WCK? Why go to the trouble of trying to "functionalize" our WCK when we can just do what the successful fighters are doing? Terence I appreciate the discussion, but you haven't said anything yet in support of developing WCK itself.

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.

---Did you read what I posted? I explicitely included the idea of a "feedback loop" in development. If it doesn't work in realistic sparring, then adapt it or change it to what does work. But you have to start somewhere! You can't be a "blank slate" going into a sparring situation and expect good WCK to just make an appearance.


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.

---But these functional martial arts have a curriculum to develop the basics. You seem to advocate just throwing someone into a sparring situation and see what happens. How do you get WCK out of that?

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!

---You don't know that either! It may very well have worked in that era against the type of fighters that Leung Jan regularly faced.

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.

---I agree. But I have been saying that you cannot learn how to use WCK tools without first developing and acquiring those tools! How we do that is part of "funtionalizing" WCK. You have yet to explain how you think that should be done other than just throwing someone into a sparring situation and seeing what happens.

The traditional WCK learning/training does teach you the tools of WCK,

---Ah! This is the first time you have admitted to that idea!

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.

---Agreed. But why are you saying the same thing over and over rather than discussing the "how" of this process?

[Edmund]

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.

How is this different from what WC people ordinarily do?
Every school has their little sequences which they practice in those ways.

I don't know many schools that just do forms and chi sao. If some do, I think it's pretty F'ing obvious that it's a stupid idea!

[k gledhill]

Many dont know it is the knives that teach the sparring methods not the chi-sao ...the forms serve to allow a timeout and train arm angles in the realtive peace of solo time...when you fight there is no time to think or correct your vu-sao ...is your vu-sao good..is it, is it safe,...is it ?

Vt sparring is simply pressure testing the integity of the whole under pressure ...
chi-sao for the abrupt contact and non thinking return to arms in freeflow maintaining a unstoppable blitz aka an attack

chisao teaches either side of the engaging side to function seamlessly ...not er ah excuse me do mind if I fight on the other side Im better on that side ?

once on that side you are presented with can you hurt the guy with a well timed punch, and stay with them like your 'sticking to them' not the arms ; )

[Phil Redmond]

I'm not here to be educational or to teach, just to provide an alternative POV.

Terence,first of all you DO come off as an authority here.

It's up to you to do the work; I'm not going to do it for you. If you want to see what I do, pay me a visit.

You've asked for video proof from people here various times yet you ask people to visit you to see what you do. I find that very disingenuous.

If you understood the significance of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence, you'd already know that you can't be developing fighitng skills via forms and unrealistic drills. Unrealistic drills only teach you how to use the movement against unrealistic movements -- where your partner isn't moving, acting, doing what he would do in fighting but something else.

Anyone who studies movement or kinesiology knows that specific physical movements are learned through repetition.
http://www.infinitywalk.org/HealthCa...lpriming-3.htm
There are exceptions where people seem to learn things innately for some reasons but generally people learn specicific movements by repeating (drilling).
You learn typing, playing a musical instrument, professional sports, etc., by doing drills until they become second nature. It seems (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you advocate just fighting without any proper training or drills and that "real" fighters don't do drills.
Boxers do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrnarXzqJcU

Muay Thai does drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5WNZdMLAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw2WAUXq6eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUO-Wn7GHIc


BJJ people do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LwzB5WuJ_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkhwsFG4LRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxL0E_sZqJk

MMA people do drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc6GFZMZ6SA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6xDx8pilTA
These people have no clue about fighting according to you?